HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 4 - General Plan EIR Addendum (1)ADDENDUM
TO THE
FINAL RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
[State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019]
for the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2023-02 TO AM END THE EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW -MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LMR) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(MDR), AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2023-02 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) FOR AN APPROXIMATELY
33.23-ACRE SITE LOCATED IN THE LAKE ELSINORE HILLS DISTRICT
[collectively, the “Activity”]
Prepared by:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
150 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Contact: Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director
ORGANIZATION OF THE ADDENDUM
This Addendum is organized as follows:
Section 1.States the purpose of the Addendum, summarizes it, and provides the address where
documents referred to herein may be reviewed.
Section 2.Gives the Activity’s location within the Project Area.
Section 3.Describes the Activity.
Section 4.Summarizes prior CEQA review for the Project.
Section 5.Overviews the application of CEQA to the Activity.
Section 6.Briefly explains the City’s decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR for the Activity.
Section 7.Provides the Preliminary (checklist) Review of the Activity.
Attached to this Addendum are the following:
EXHIBIT A
Map showing the general location of the Activity Site
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-070
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE CERTIFYING RECIRCULATED PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, DOWNTOWN
MASTER PLAN AND ANNEXATION NO. 81
(SCH NO. 2005121019)
1. INTRODUCTION
A.Purpose
This Addendum to the certified FINAL RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(“PEIR”) [State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019] for the previously approved City of Lake Elsinore
General Plan Update (the “Project”) addresses the potential environmental impacts that may result
from approval of proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2023-02 to amend the existing General
Plan Land Use designation from Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR), and Zone Change No. 2023-02 to change the Zoning designation from Single-
family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-2) for an approximately 33.23-acre site
located in the Lake Elsinore Hills District (collectively, the “Activity”) by the City of Lake Elsinore
(“City”).
The Activity would amend the Project by making textual changes the City’s General Plan to correct
a mapping error that was made during the adoption of the General Plan Update in 2011, and in turn
amend the City’s zoning to make it consistent with the General Plan. The Activity would not change
either the Project’s boundaries or its previously approved build-out densities.
This Addendum will be used by the City in its evaluation and analysis of the Activity. The City is
designated the “lead agency” for California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
§ 21000 et seq.: “CEQA”) compliance. In accordance with Section 21067 of CEQA, the lead agency
is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project
which may have significant effects upon the environment.
B.Executive Summary
The previously approved Project was an update to the City’s General Plan that:
•Replaced the existing 1990 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan;
•Incorporated revisions to the City’s Land Use Element and Land Use Map.
The Plan will included 16 District Plans that covered specific, defined
geographic areas within the City, to provide a more precise focus and to
recognize the unique and treasured assets of the individual communities that
make up the City; and
•Revised the format of the City’s General Plan by dividing the Plan into an
introduction and three topical chapters.
The Activity has two parts. The first part is a proposed technical amendment to the Project to correct
a mapping error that was made during its adoption in 2011. This correction would revert the General
Plan Land Use Designation from Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR) for both the Lake Elsinore City Center Townhomes Phase II Project site and the
Lakeview Villas Project site. The correction of this mapping error will not cause any physical
change in the environment.
Page 1
The second part is a proposed zone change to change the zoning designation from Single-Family
Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-2) which makes the zoning designation for the
Site (as defined below in Section 2) consistent with the technical General Plan amendment. As
authorized by Section 17.415.040.B of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, a zoning amendment
may be initiated to clarify text, address changes mandated by State law, maintain General Plan
consistency, address boundary adjustments affecting land use designation(s), or for any reason
beneficial to the City. This action, taken to maintain General Plan consistency after correcting the
2011 mapping error, will likewise not cause any physical change in the environment.
In connection with the City’s approval of the Project and in compliance with CEQA, the PEIR was
prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts that might result as a consequence
of implementing the Project. The City certified the PEIR and concurrently adopted the mitigation
monitoring program set forth in the PEIR. In order to ascertain whether the PEIR adequately
identified and addressed any potentially significant environmental effects which may result from the
Activity, City staff undertook additional analysis prior to the City taking any discretionary action in
connection with the Activity.
Based upon that analysis, City staff conclude that (i) approving the Activity would not have a
significant effect on the environment; (ii) the PEIR adequately disclosed the environmental issues
associated with implementing the Activity; and (iii) while changes and/or additions to the PEIR are
necessary, none of the conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation
of CEQA (Title 14, California Code of Regulations § 15000 et seq.: “CEQA Guidelines”), have
occurred. Consequently, City staff’s analysis has resulted in the preparation of this “addendum” to
the PEIR in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines.
C.Location of Documents
Copies of the Project, its PEIR, the proposed Activity, and all documents referenced herein, are
available for public review during normal working hours at City Hall, located at 150 South Main
Street, Lake Elsinore, California 92530.
2.ACTIVITY LOCATION
The site of the Activity encompasses approximately 33.23 acres and is located northerly of Malaga
Road and easterly of Interstate 15 (I-15), adjacent to and east of Grape Street within the Lake
Elsinore Hills District and encompasses Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 363-240-029, -031, -033
and -039, and 363-241-025, -050, -057 and -064 (collectively, the approximately 5.33 acre “Lake
Elsinore City Center Townhomes Phase II Project Site”), and APN 363-240-006, -010, -012, -014,
-015, -022, -024 and -025, and 363-250-001 through -012 (collectively, the approximately 27.9 acre
“Lakeview Villas Project Site”). The “Lake Elsinore City Center Townhomes Phase II Project Site”
and the “Lakeview Villas Project” site are collectively referred to herein as the “Site” and a map
showing the general location of the Site is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Page 2
3.ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
The Activity proposes the following two actions:
General Plan Amendment No. 2023-02 proposes to amend the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation for the Site from Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR) (1-6 dwelling units per acre)
to Medium Density Residential (MDR) (7-18 dwelling units per acre). This amendment makes
textual changes the City’s General Plan to correct a mapping error that was made during the adoption
of the General Plan update in 2011.
Zone Change No. 2023-02 proposes to change the zoning designation for the Site from Single-
Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-2). This zone change amends the City’s
zoning to make it consistent with the corrected General Plan.
The amendment and the zone change are textual in nature and neither would result in any physical
change in the environment, and any future development proposed under them would undertake its
own CEQA review process.
4.PRIOR CEQA REVIEW FOR THE PROJECT
On March 9, 2004, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2003-03, Zone Change
No. 2003-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 31532, Residential Design Review No. 2003-15, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2004-01, for the construction of 60 attached condominium units
on the Lake Elsinore City Center Townhomes Phase II Project Site.
•General Plan Amendment No. 2003-03 changed the site’s Land Use
Designation from Very Low Density Residential (0.5 dwelling units per acre)
to Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units per acre).
•Zone Change No. 2003-02 changed the site’s Zoning Designation from
Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-2).
•Tentative Tract Map No. 31532 (for condominium purposes) was finalized
and recorded on December 8, 2005, and construction of the condominium
units was completed in 2006.
On March 8, 2005, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004-06, Zone Change
No. 2004-07, Tentative Tract Map No. 32127, Residential Design Review No. 2004-05, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2004-10 for the construction of 155 condominium units on the
Lakeview Villas Project Site.
•General Plan Amendment No. 2004-06 changed the site’s Land Use
Designation from Very Low Density Residential (0.5 dwelling units per acre)
to Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units per acre).
Page 3
•Zone Change No. 2004-07 changed the site’s Zoning Designation from
Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-2).
•Between 2008 and 2020, Tentative Tract Map No. 32127 received automatic
legislative extension totaling 8.5 years and City discretionary approvals
totaling six (6) years. Tentative Tract Map No. 32127 expired on September
8, 2022.
On December 13, 2011, the City Council of the City adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s
General Plan. As the California Supreme Court has noted, a city’s general plan is its “constitution
for all future development” within its jurisdiction and the single most important planning document
governing its land use. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531,
540.) Prior to adopting the General Plan, on December 13, 2011, the City certified a final EIR for
it (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019). As part of this update, however, the General Plan Land
Use Designation for the Site was inadvertently changed on the Land Use Map from Medium Density
Residential (MDR) to Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR).
With the mapping error still undiscovered, on August 25, 2015, the City Council approved
Consistency Zoning Phase VI, which included the Lake Elsinore Hills District and, as part of this
phase, the zoning designation for the Lakeview Villas Project Site changed from Medium Density
Residential (R-2) to Single-Family Residential (R-1).
5.APPLICATION OF CEQA TO THE ACTIVITY
According to the California Supreme Court, “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the
Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible
protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’” (Laurel
Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.) CEQA
achieves this goal by disclosing the potentially significant environmental effects of “projects.”
Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a “project” under CEQA to mean:
the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical
change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment ... The term “project” refers to the activity which is being approved
and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental
agencies. The term “project” does not mean each separate governmental approval.
Sections 15150 and 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of incorporation by reference
and “tiering” to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the analysis on the
actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. “‘Tiering’ refers to using the
analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or
policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by
reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative
declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.” (CEQA § 15152(a).) Lead agencies
are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses they prepare.
Page 4
CEQA Guidelines Section 15153 authorizes a lead agency to employ a single EIR to describe more
than one project, if the projects are essentially the same in terms of environmental impact. Further,
a lead agency may use an earlier EIR prepared in connection with an earlier project to apply to a
later project, if the circumstances of the projects are essentially the same.
However, on September 19, 2016, the California Supreme Court provided much needed clarification
to the operation of CEQA’s “subsequent review” rules in Friends of the College of San Mateo
Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, resolving a
disagreement among appellate courts:
When an agency proposes changes to a previously approved project, CEQA does not
authorize courts to invalidate the agency’s action based solely on their own abstract
evaluation of whether the agency’s proposal is a new project, rather than a modified
version of an old one. Under the statutory scheme, the agency’s environmental
review obligations depend on the effect of the proposed changes on the decision-
making process, rather than on any abstract characterization of the project as “new”
or “old.” An agency that proposes project changes thus must determine whether the
previous environmental document retains any relevance in light of the proposed
changes and, if so, whether major revisions to the previous environmental document
are nevertheless required due to the involvement of new, previously unstudied
significant environmental impacts. These are determinations for the agency to make
in the first instance, subject to judicial review for substantial evidence.
* * *
… [W]hether an initial environmental document remains relevant despite changed
plans or circumstances – like the question whether an initial environmental document
requires major revisions due to changed plans or circumstances – is a predominantly
factual question. It is thus a question for the agency to answer in the first instance,
drawing on its particular expertise.
To assist in answering this question, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provides the following test
for determining if a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR is required:
(a)When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for
a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one
or more of the following:
(1)Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will
require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2)Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances
under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
Page 5
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
(3)New information of substantial importance, which was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at
the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was
adopted, shows any of the following:
(A)The project will have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B)Significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C)Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found
not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D)Mitigation measures or alternatives which are
considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
In turn, CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 sets out procedures for conducting CEQA review on a
subsequent activity involving a site specific operation undertaken pursuant to a previously approved
project.1 According to the procedures set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 15168:
Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program
EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
(1)If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the
program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR
or a Negative Declaration.
1 In its discussion of Section 15168, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research notes that:
“Use of the program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall program as the
project being approved at that time. Following this approach when individual activities within the
program are proposed, the agency would be required to examine the individual activities to determine
whether their effects were fully analyzed in the program EIR. If the activities would have no effects
beyond those analyzed in the program EIR, the agency could assert that the activities are merely part
of the program which had been approved earlier, and no further CEQA compliance would be required.
This approach offers many possibilities for agencies to reduce their costs of CEQA compliance and
still achieve high levels of environmental protection.”
Page 6
(2)If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects
could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can
approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program
EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.”
(3)An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and
alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
(4)Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the
agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation
of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the
operation were covered in the program EIR.
(5)A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent
activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and
comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program,
many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project
described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be
required.
Following the directive of Section 15168(c)(4), City staff utilized a written checklist to document
its evaluation of the Site and the Activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the
Activity were covered in the PEIR; specifically, to determine whether any of the conditions or factors
identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163 required the preparation of either a
subsequent EIR or supplement to the PEIR. (The City’s checklist is set forth below in Section 7.)
6.EXPLANATION OF DECISION NOT TO PREPARE SUBSEQUENT EIR
In evaluating the proposed Activity, the City’s focus was two-fold. First, the City compared the
proposed Activity with the list of issue areas set forth in the PEIR. Second, following the Supreme
Court’s guidance in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community
College District, City staff reviewed the PEIR to determine what items discussed therein could be
further clarified or elaborated since the PEIR’s certification. As a result of this investigation, City
staff determined that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines
would occur as a result of the Activity to cause the City to prepare either a subsequent EIR or a
supplemental EIR for the Activity.
Based upon a Site-specific review of the proposed Activity’s potential environmental effects, City
staff concluded that the PEIR adequately analyzed, pursuant to applicable legal standards, any
potentially significant environmental effects which might result from the proposed Activity, and that
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the PEIR’s analyses.
However, City staff also concluded from this investigation that it would be helpful to provide the
public with information updating and amplifying some of the points raised in the PEIR as they
pertain to the Activity. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides a way for the City to update,
Page 7
amplify and make changes or additions to a previously certified EIR in situations such as this where
neither a subsequent EIR nor supplement to an EIR is required. According to Section 15164, the
City must prepare an “addendum” to the PEIR “if some changes or additions are necessary but none
of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have
occurred.” Consequently, preparation of this Addendum was selected as the most appropriate CEQA
compliance document for the Activity utilizing the criteria set forth in Sections 15168 and 15164 of
the CEQA Guidelines. This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines and also complies with the appropriate rules, regulations, and procedures for the City.
7.PRELIMINARY “CHECKLIST” REVIEW [Public Resources Code § 15168(c)(4)]
(see following pages)
Page 8
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the Activity:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect o n a scenic vista?X
b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c)(For projects in non-urban areas): Substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
(For projects in urban areas): Conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
X
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
X
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. Would the Activity:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
X
Page 9
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?X
c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
X
d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?X
e)Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
X
III. AIR QUALITY. Would the Activity:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?X
b)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
X
Page 10
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
c)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?X
d)Result in other emissions (such as those adding to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Activity:
a)Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b)Have a substantial adverse effect o n any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c)Have a substantial adverse effect o n federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
Page 11
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Page 12
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Activity:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
X
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
X
c)Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?X
VI. ENERGY. Would the Activity:
a)Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during Activity
construction or operation?
X
b)Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?X
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the Activity:
a)Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
Page 13
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?X
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?X
iv)Landslides?X
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?X
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
Activity, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X
d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
Page 14
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
X
f)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological
feature?
X
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the Activity:
a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Activity:
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonable foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
X
Page 15
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
X
e)For an Activity located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Activity result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Activity area?
X
f)For an Activity within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Activity result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Activity area?
X
g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
Page 16
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
X
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Activity:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
such that the Activity may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or though the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:?
X
i)result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or 0ff-
site;X
Page 17
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
ii)substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
X
iii)create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv)impede or redirect flood flows?X
d)In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to Activity innundation?X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Activity:
a)Physically divide an established community? X
b)Cause a significant environmental impact to a
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Page 18
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Activity:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
XIII. NOISE. Would the Activity result in:
a)Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b)Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?X
c)For an Activity located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Page 19
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Activity:
a)Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the Activity result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a)Fire protection?X
b)Police protection?X
c)Schools?X
d)Parks?X
e)Other public facilities?X
Page 20
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION.
a)Would the Activity increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b)Does the Activity include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the Activity:
a)Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b)Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064.3, subdivision (b)?X
c)Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d)Result in inadequate emergency access?X
Page 21
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Activity cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a)Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
b)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Activity:
a)Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
Page 22
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
b)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future develop-
ment during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c)Result in a determination by the waste water
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
d)Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e)Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the
Activity:
a)Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?X
Page 23
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
b)Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c)Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d)Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Page 24
CHECKLIST COMPARING THE ACTIVITY TO THE RECIRCULATED FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2011 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
New Information
Showing
Significant
Effects not
Discussed in, or
Substantially
More Severe than
Shown in,
Previous EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce but
not Eliminate
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact / No
Substantial
Changes or New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of a
Subsequent EIR
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the Activity 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?
X
b)Does the Activity have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c)Does the Activity have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Page 25
DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST ANSWERS
I.AESTHETICS
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant aesthetics impacts and that no mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and
implementation programs identified in the Project and mitigation measure identified in the PEIR were
required. Relative to conditions identified in the PEIR for the Project, no adverse physical change or
impact will occur from the Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated in the PEIR.
II.AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The PEIR noted that, due to the minimal amount of farmland within the City still used for agricultural
production, and because none of it is considered “important farmland” by the State, the Project’s
impact on agriculture would be less than significant. The Site does not contain either a forest or any
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance
III.AIR QUALITY
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in
significant air quality impacts and adopted policies and mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s
future operational emissions impacts; however, the Project’s air quality impacts could not be mitigated
to a less than significant level. Since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the
Activity over and above those already identified and partially mitigated in the PEIR, its approval will
not have an impact on air quality. Moreover, if and when future physical development consistent with
the Activity occurs, it will not increase air quality impacts over and above those already identified and
partially mitigated in the PEIR because, in the years since the PEIR was certified, the State has enacted
legislation designed to reduce air quality impacts; for examples: the required use of low emissions
construction vehicles, and the mandated transition from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric
vehicles.
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant biological impacts and that no mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and
implementation programs identified in the Project and the five mitigation measures identified in the
PEIR were required. Since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the Activity over
and above those already identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance in the PEIR, its approval
will not have an impact on biological resources over and above those already identified and mitigated
in the PEIR.
V.CULTURAL RESOURCES
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant impacts to cultural and paleontological resources and that no mitigation measures
beyond the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the Project and the ten
mitigation measures identified in the PEIR were required. Since no adverse physical change or impact
Page 26
will occur from the Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated to a level of
insignificance in the PEIR, its approval will not have an impact on cultural resources over and above
those already identified and mitigated in the PEIR.
VI.ENERGY
In addition to evaluating the Project, the PEIR provided a policy-level CEQA evaluation of the City’s
proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) which identified and established a number of strategies for
reducing energy consumption within the City. The PEIR noted that the energy-related reduction
measures set forth in the CAP would
•Increase energy efficiency of new construction
•Increase energy efficiency of existing buildings
•Increase energy efficiency of municipal buildings and facilities
•Reduce water consumption
•Increase the use of renewable energy
Since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the Activity over and above those already
identified and partially mitigated in the PEIR, its approval will not have an impact on energy.
Moreover, if and when future physical development consistent with the Activity occurs, it will be
subject to the CAP.
VII.GEOLOGY AND SOILS
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant impacts to geology and soils and that no mitigation measures beyond the goals,
policies and implementation programs identified in the Project and the three mitigation measures
identified in the PEIR were required. Since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the
Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance in the PEIR,
its approval will not have an impact on geology and soils resources over and above those already
identified and mitigated in the PEIR.
VIII.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Climate Action Plan (CAP) is the City of Lake Elsinore’s long-range plan to reduce local
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. The PEIR provided a policy-level CEQA
evaluation of the CAP. Implementation of the CAP will guide the City’s actions to reduce its
contribution to climate change and support the State’s emissions reduction targets. The CAP is also
intended to support tiering and streamlining of future projects within the City pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15183.5. Since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from
the Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance in the
PEIR, its approval will not have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions over and above those already
identified and mitigated in the PEIR and CAP.
IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts and that no mitigation measures beyond the
Page 27
goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the Project and the five mitigation measures
identified in the PEIR were required. Since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the
Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance in the PEIR,
its approval will not have hazards and hazardous materials impacts over and above those already
identified and mitigated in the PEIR.
X.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant hydrology and water quality impacts and that no mitigation measures beyond the
goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the Project and mitigation measure
identified in the PEIR were required. Relative to conditions identified in the PEIR for the Project, no
adverse physical change or impact will occur from the Activity creating hydrology and water quality
impacts over and above those already identified and mitigated in the PEIR.
XI.LAND USE AND PLANNING
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant land use and planning impacts and that no mitigation measures beyond the goals,
policies and implementation programs identified in the Project and the five mitigation measures
identified in the PEIR were required. Since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the
Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance in the PEIR,
its approval will not have land use and planning impacts over and above those already identified and
mitigated in the PEIR.
XII.MINERAL RESOURCES
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project’s policies related
to mineral resources ensure that future development in the City and its SOI would not have any
significant adverse impacts on mineral resources nor would future mineral resource extraction have
any significant adverse impacts on future development. No mineral resources exist on the Site.
XIII.NOISE
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that the goals, policies and implementation programs
identified in the Project and the ten mitigation measures identified in the PEIR would reduce all but
one of the Project’s potential noise impacts to a less than significant level; implementation of the
Project would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts arising from the Project’s increase
in the number of vehicles utilizing the local circulation system and place new receptors (including
residences, commercial developments, etc.) near roadways that experience varying levels of traffic
noise. Additional vehicles on roadways would result in additional noise generated along the affected
roadways, and more receptors adjacent to noisy roadways would mean that more people would
potentially be affected by traffic noise conditions.
Due to the programmatic nature of the Project’s noise analysis, such impacts and mitigation measures
could not be identified at the time the PEIR was prepared. However, since no adverse physical change
or impact will occur from the Activity over and above those already identified and partially mitigated
in the PEIR, its approval will not have an impact on noise. Moreover, if and when future physical
Page 28
development consistent with the Activity occurs, it will not increase noise impacts over and above
those already identified and partially mitigated in the PEIR because, in accordance with the Project,
such future development will be required to demonstrate compliance with the relevant noise standards,
and where projects do not comply, specific mitigation measures will be required.
XIV.POPULATION AND HOUSING
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant population and housing impacts and that no mitigation measures beyond the goals,
policies and implementation programs identified in the Project were required. Relative to conditions
identified in the PEIR for the Project, no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the
Activity over and above those already identified and addressed in the PEIR.
XV.PUBLIC SERVICES
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant impacts on public services and that no mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies
and implementation programs identified in the Project and mitigation measure identified in the PEIR
were required. However, since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the Activity over
and above those already identified and mitigated in the PEIR, its approval will not have an impact on
public services because if and when future physical development consistent with the Activity occurs,
it will not increase public service impacts because, in accordance with mitigation measure MM Public
Services 1, individual future projects implemented pursuant to the Activity will be required to
demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with public services.
XVI.RECREATION
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant impacts on parks and recreation and that no mitigation measures beyond the goals,
policies and implementation programs identified in the Project and mitigation measure identified in
the PEIR were required. However, since no adverse physical change or impact will occur from the
Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated in the PEIR, its approval will not have
an impact on parks and recreation because if and when future physical development consistent with
the Activity occurs, it will not increase public service impacts because, in accordance with mitigation
measure MM Parks and Recreation 1, individual future projects implemented pursuant to the
Activity will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with
community services related to parks and recreation by implementing specific policies.
XVII.TRANSPORTATION
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that the goals, policies and implementation programs
identified in the Project and the five mitigation measures identified in the PEIR would reduce all but
one of the Project’s potential transportation and circulation impacts to a less than significant level;
implementation of the Project would result in significant and unavoidable traffic volume impacts and
nearly all of the PEIR’s intersection analysis locations would require improvements. However, Senate
Bill 743 (2019) changed the metrics for transportation impact analysis under CEQA. Effective July
1, 2020, CEQA no longer permits traffic impacts to be analyzed using LOS and instead requires traffic
impacts to be analyzed using the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) standard. (CEQA § 21099(b).)
Page 29
“(b) Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of
significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half
mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality
transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation
impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to
existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation
impact.”
(Guidelines § 15064.3.) The Site is within one-half mile of an existing major transit stop and/or a stop
along an existing high quality transit corridor, i.e., Interstate 15. Therefore, the CEQA Guidelines
advise that the Activity, which will not result in any adverse physical change or impact to the
environment, should be presumed to cause less than significant traffic impacts.
XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Section 3.2 of the PEIR addressed cultural resources, and in response to tribal requests, revised the
Project policies and goals to strengthen the Project’s protection for tribal cultural resources. Since no
adverse physical change or impact will occur from the Activity, its approval will not have an impact
on tribal cultural resources because if and when future physical development of the Site consistent
with the Activity occurs, it will be subject to the Project’s policies and goals for protecting tribal
cultural resources as well as two PEIR mitigation measures adopted to protect those resources.
XIX.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
In certifying the PEIR, the City Council found that implementation of the Project would result in less
than significant impacts to utilities and service systems and that no mitigation measures beyond the
goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the Project were required. Relative to
conditions identified in the PEIR for the Project, no adverse physical change or impact will occur from
the Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated in the PEIR.
XX.WILDFIRES
The PEIR analyzed Project’s potential impact on wildfires under it section on Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, finding that, with implementation of mitigation measure MM Hazards 5, such impacts
would be reduced to a less than significant level. Since no adverse physical change or impact will
occur from the Activity over and above those already identified and mitigated in the PEIR, and the Site
is not located in a Very High, High, or Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone, its approval will not have
an impact on wildfires.
XXI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)Does the Activity 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?
Page 30
Based upon the PEIR, the foregoing analysis, and in comparison to the approved Project: No Impact.
b)Does the Activity have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
Based upon the PEIR, the foregoing analysis, and in comparison to the approved Project: No Impact.
c)Does the Activity have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Based upon the PEIR, the foregoing analysis, and in comparison to the approved Project: No Impact.
Page 31
EXHIBIT A
Map showing the general location of the Activity Site
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-070
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE CERTIFYING RECIRCULATED PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, DOWNTOWN
MASTER PLAN AND ANNEXATION NO. 81
(SCH NO. 2005121019)
... ·-·-·· ~---
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 ~070
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE CERTIFYING RECIRCULATED PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, DOWNTOWN
MASTER PLAN AND ANNEXATION NO. 81 (SCH NO.
2005121019)
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore initiated a comprehensive update of
its General Plan, a Housing Element update, a Downtown Master Plan
(consisting of the Downtown Master Plan, Downtown Code and Key to
Downtown Implementation Plan), a Climate Action Plan and Annexation No. 81
(also referred to as the 3rd Street Annexation) (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore (the "City") has prepared a Program
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019: the "PEIR")
to be prepared on the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.: "CEQA"), the
State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.: the "State CEQA
Guidelines"), and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA
Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public
and private projects; and
WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Preparation of the
Draft PEIR on November 15, 2005 in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines,
forwarded the Draft PEIR to the State Clearinghouse again on December 5, 2005
for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to
the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the
comments of such persons and agencies; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082(c)(1), on
November 30, 2005, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting in order to
expedite consultation regarding the scope and content of the environmental
information in the Draft PEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the
Draft PEIR and thereafter, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, forwarded
the Draft PEIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies
which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested
persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies;
and
WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting
co.mnients on the Draft PEIR was published in accordance with the provisions of
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-070
PAGE 2 OF 5
WHEREAS, the State Clearinghouse posted the Draft PEIR for a 45-day
public comment period which ran from December 5, 2007 to January 18, 2008;
and
WHEREAS, in 2008, the City began work on a substantive revision of the
Project, which included revisions to the Land Use Element and Land Use Map,
an updated Housing Element, a Downtown Lake Elsinore Master Plan, and a
Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the combined changes to the General Plan Update made
between 2008 and 2011 triggered the need to update, revise, and where
necessary expand upon the analysis of General Plan Update impacts presented
in the PEIR; and
WHEREAS, due to the combined changes made to the proposed project,
the City determined that it was appropriate to reissue the Notice of Preparation of
a Draft Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, on or about May 26, 2011, the Notice of Preparation of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Reissued) and a revised description of
potential adverse impacts were distributed to the State Clearinghouse,
responsible agencies, and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the City transmitted for filing a Notice of Availability/Notice of
Completion of a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
("RDP-EIR") and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the
RDP-EIR to the State Clearinghouse, for distribution to those agencies which
have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, and to other interested
persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies;
and
WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting
comments on the RDP-EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and posted at the Office of the County
Clerk of Riverside County on September 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, all actions required to be taken by applicable law related to
the preparation, circulation, and review of the Draft PEIR and the RDP-EIR have
beentaken;and
WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR prepared for the Project was sent to the
Planning Commission and the Planning Commission held public hearings to
receive public input on the adequacy of the Draft PEIR on April 15, 2008, April
29, 2008, May 6. 2008, May 20, 2008, and September 16, 2008; and
· · WHEREAS, the RDP-EIR and the Final Recirculated Program EIR
("Recirculated Program EIR") were sent to the Planning Commission and the
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-070
PAGEJ OF 5
Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public input on the
adequacy of the Recirculated Program EIR on November 15, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the
responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for certifying
Environmental Impact Reports, and on November 15, 2001 the Planning
Commission recommended certification of the Recirculated Program EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public input
on the adequacy of the Recirculated Program EIR on December 13, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered and evaluated all written
and oral staff reports and comments received from persons who have reviewed
the Recirculated Program EIR, public testimony and such other matters as are
reflected in the record of the public hearing on the Project and the Recirculated
Program EIR.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the Recirculated Program EIR for
the Project is adequate and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the
State CEQA Guidelines, and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant
thereto. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Recirculated Program EIR and finds that the Recirculated
Program EIR represents the independent judgment of the City.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates
herein as its "findings of fact" regarding the potential environmental impacts of
the Project, the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Recirculated Program
EIR (including, without limitation, the mitigation measures therein set forth); the
following summarizes those conclusions:
a. The Recirculated Program EIR determined that the Project will
have no potentially significant impacts upon Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Mineral
Resources, Population and Housing and Utilities and Service Systems and as a
result, no mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed General Plan Update are required for these
issue areas.
b. The Recirculated Program EIR also determined that the Project will
have potentially significant environmental impacts upon Aesthetics, Biological
Resources, CultJJral and Paleontological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use & Planning
(including Agricultural Resources), Parks and Recreation and Public Services;
but that these impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-070
PAGE 50F 5
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December 2011.
ATTEST:
v~~ Virginiaiom
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
s&*6fiu!J
City Attorney
City of Lake Elsinore
..
srianTisale,Mayor
City of Lake Elsinore
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. 2011-070 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December 2011, and
that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
..
Council Member Melendez, Council Member Hickman, Council
Member Weber, Mayor Pro Tern Magee and Mayor Tisdale
None
None
None
; ,,
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CITYOF~
LAKE 6Lsi_N_O_Rl_E FINDINGS OF FACT
V, DREAM E,XTREME
entire planning area and address the broad range of issues associated with its development.
Pursuant to this requirement, the City of Lake Elsinore has prepared an update to its General
Plan. The proposed General Plan Update would:
• Replace the existing 1990 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan;
• Incorporate revisions to the City's Land Use Element and Land Use Map. The Plan will
also include 16 District Plans that cover specific, defined geographic areas within the
City, to provide a more precise focus and to recognize the unique and treasured assets of
the individual conununities that make up the City;
• Revise the format of the City's General Plan by dividing the Plan into an introduction
and three topical chapters.
The General Plan Update' s planning horizon is 2030. While the General Plan Update does not
present a specific plan for individual development, it establishes a framework for future
projects and actions that may be taken in furtherance of the general plan's goals and policies.
ANNEXATION No. 81
Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as the "3rd Street Annexation") coi:isists of the proposed
annexation of approximately 320 acres from the County to the City. The 3rd Street Annexation
entails pre-zoning the parcels for consistency with City zones. This action will require revision
of the City's Zoning Ordinance to properly implement the pre-zoning conditions. The 3rd
Street Annexation territory is currently within the City's Sphere of Influence.
DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN
The Downtown Master Plan will provide a vision and strategic framework to guide the future
development of the City's downtown area. The purpose of the Downtown Master Plan is to
identify the goals, objectives and desjres of the community and offer approaches to implement
them.
HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. Through its
policies, procedures, and incentives, the updated Housing Element will provide an action-plan
for maintaining and expanding the housing supply for all income levels in the City of Lake
Elsinore. Lake Elsinqre' s Housing Element for the planning period of July 1, 2008 to June 30,
2014
P,:\GE 2
(;ENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM EI.R.
DECEMBER 201 l
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A
LAKE 6 LSi_N_O_RI_E
~ DREAM E;(TREME
Impact Study to reflect those changes, revisions to the GPU in order to incorporate an
updated Housing Element that was not a part of the original General Plan scope, the
provisions of a Downtown Lake Elsinore Master Plan, and a Climate Action Plan,
triggered the need to update, revise, and where necessary expand upon the analysis of
General Plan Update impacts presented in the first draft PEIR
• Due to the combined changes made to the proposed project, the City of Lake Elsinore
determined that it was appropriate to reissue the Notice of Preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (NOP). The reissued NOP for an EIR and a revised
description of potential adverse impacts were distributed to the State Clearinghouse,
responsible agencies, and other interested parties on or about May 26, 2011. Comments
received from the public and agencies during the public review period for the reissued
NOP were considered in the preparation of the RP-EIR prepared for the proposed
project.
• In 2011, a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("RDP-EIR") was
prepared for the proposed project was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA,
the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA
Guidelines. The RDP-EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period on or about
September 6, 2011. Notification was provided to the State Clearinghouse (SCH),
responsible and trustee agencies, and all interested parties and jurisdictions pursuant to
the requirements of Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Twenty comment
letters were received by the City during this 45-day review period. These comments
were evaluated and responded to in accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
1.3 FINALEIRCERTIFICATION AND PROJECT
APPROVAL PROCESS
1.3.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
The City Council (the decision-making body) of the City of Lake Elsinore (the CEQA Lead
Agency) certifies the Final RP-EIR. The Final RP-EIR, as required by State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15089 and 15132, consists of the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact
Report ("RDP-EIR") (SCH No. 200512019) or a revision of the RDP-EIR, comments and
recommendations received on the RDP-EIR, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies
commenting on the RDP-EIR, the responses of the City of Lake Elsinore as "Lead Agency" to
significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process and any other
information added by the City. Since the RDP-EIR identified potentially significant
environmental impacts, the City Council must also prepare "findings" as part of its action to
PAGE 4
GE:'.ERAL PLAN lJPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 20 I .I
CITY OF A
FINDINGS OF fACT LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RI_E
~ DREAM E;(TREME
effects and outlines the City's findings with respect to the environmental effects of the proposed
project.
1.3.3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to monitor and
report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. The
MMRP will be adopted by the City Council concurrently with these findings, and will be
implemented by the City during the proposed project's planning horizon; and through the
project review, construction and post-construction periods of individual development projects.
To the extent that these findings conclude that all mitigation measures outlined in the RDP-EIR
are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself
to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but
rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council
formally approves the proposed project.
1.3.4 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS
The City Council will review and consider the information contained in the Final RP-EIR, as
well as submissions from public officials, public agencies and the general public. Prior to project
approval, the City Council shall certify that the Final RP-EIR reflects the City's independent
judgment and analysis. Having considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all
other information in the record, the City Council shall make findings pursuant to CEQA Section
21081. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City
Council shall adopt the Findings as part of its certification of the Final RP~EIR for the proposed
project.
..
PACE 6
(·;ENERAL PLAN l.JJ>J),.\TE
FINAi., PROGRAM EIR
0Ecl;:MBER 2011
FINDINGS OF F .. \CT
ClTYOFA
LAKE 6Lsi_N_O_RI_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
• Revise the format of the City's General Plan by dividing the Plan into an introduction
and three topical chapters.
The City's General Plan Update is a large-scale planning update that covers all land within the
City's corporate boundaries and its sphere of influence. The General Plan Update' s planning
horizon is 2030. While the General Plan Update does not present a specific plan for individual
development, it establishes a framework for future projects and actions that may be taken in
furtherance of the general plan's goals and policies.
The format of the City's General Plan Update consists of an introduction and three topical
chapters. The topical chapters include:
Community Form, which includes a Strategic Framework for 2030, intended to guide the overall
development of the City of Lake Elsinore by providing a set of Goals and Policies in a City-wide
context. The Chapter deals with Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Housing, and
Parks and Recreation.
Public Safety and Welfare, which addresses Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Community Facilities and Services, and Noise.
Resource Protection and Preservation, which addresses. Biological Resources, Open Space,
Water Resources, Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources, Historic Preservation,
Aesthetics, and Sustainable Environment (Greenhouse Gases/Climate Action Plan).
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
The proposed Land Use Plan shows the proposed land use plan that is part of the General Plan
Update. The proposed Land Use Plan shows the anticipated development in the horizon year.
of 2030. It functions as a guide to planners, the general public, and decision makers as to the
ultimate pattern of development of the City at buildout.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The GPU includes 19 residential, commercial, mixed-use, industrial, and other land use
designations to depict the types of land uses that will be allowed in the GPU area. Each land
use designation is defined in terms of the allowable uses and density and intensity standards.
DISTRICT PLANS
The City is divided kto 16 District Plans, eleven of which are for property within the existing
City limits and five are for districts located within the City's Sphere of Influence but outside of
PAGE 8
C;ENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FI NA L PRO G RAM E I R
I) F. C .E M B E R 2 0 I I
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF~
LAK_E 6Lsi-N.O_RJ;_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
Main Street (Gateway District, Garden District, Cultural District, Historic District and
Waterfront District) in order to accomplish the following guiding principles:
• Celebrate the lake
• Create a vibrant and sustainable downtown
• Create a civic identity
• Improve walkability and connectivity
• Develop an urban design framework and guidelines
2.2.4 HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. Through its
policies, procedures, and incentives, the updated Housing Element will provide an action-plan
for maintaining and expanding the housing supply for all income levels in the City of Lake ·
Elsinore. Lake Elsinore's Housing Element for the planning period of July 1, 2008 to June 30,
2014 will describe policies and programs including:
• Identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, resources and
constraints;
• A statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for
preservation, improvement and development of housing;
• Identification of adequate sites for housing; and
• Adequate provision for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the
community, including both lower and higher incomes.
2.2.5 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The Climate Action Plan (CAP) is the City of Lake Elsinore's long-range plan to reduce local
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. The CAP will identify the activities
in Lake Elsinore that generate greenhouse gas emissions, will quantify these emissions, and
project their future trends .. It will also describe local greenhouse gas emissions targets for the
years 2020 and 2030, consistent with the State of California's emissions reduction targets, as well
as strategies and m~asures to meet these targets. Implementation of the CAP will guide Lake
Elsinpr~'s actions to reduce its contribution to climate change and will support the State of
G.ENERAL PLAN lJPDATI-:
F.INAL PROGH.AM EIR.
DECEMllER 201 .1
PAGE lO
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A ·----
LAKE 6LS1N0Rl:
~ OREAM E)(TREME
• Create a General Plan that recognizes the rich history of the City and seeks to preserve
its historical resources.
• Create a user-friendly plan for City officials, staff, residents, and stakeholders of the City
of Lake Elsinore .
..
PA<:_;1,'. 12
G E N ER A L P LA N lJ P f) ,\ T E
Fr_NAL PROGRAM E.I R
DECEMBER 2011
CITY OF A ·----
FINDINGS OF FACT LAK_E 6LSINORJ:
b.
¥ DREAM EXTREME
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that impacts upon scenic resources will be less than significant
because the following policies of the GPU Resource Protection and Preservation
Chapter, Aesthetics Section, protect views of the City's natural open space areas:
• Policies 11.2, 11.3, and 12.3 which encourage the dedication of open space in
hillside development to preserve view opportunities from transportation
corridors and surrounding development as well as improve the quality of
existing landscaping in parkways, parks, civic facilities, rights-of-ways, and other
public open areas.
• There are goals and policies that specifically address open space within the City
and also preserve the visual character of these areas.
• The Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter, Open Space Sectiort, Policies
3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 maximizes the City's MSHCP conservation areas, ensures that
passive and active open space uses are incorporated into development areas and
preserves the City's visual character in the surrounding hillsides.
These policies ensure that the City will implement the MSCHP and preserve valuable
open space, which thereby preserves the visual character of open space in the City.
References: RP-EIR pages 3.3-27 through 3.3-40; General Plan Chapter 4.0 (Resource
Protection and Preservation) Goal 3, Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4, Goal 11, Policies 11.2 and
11.3 and Goal 12, Policy 12.3 and related Implementation Programs.
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project, including the Lartd Use Plan, the
District Plans and within the 3rd Street Annexation area will result in less than
signilicant impacts to the existing visual character of the City and its SOI.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Fads in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that impacts upon the visual character of the City and its SOI
because goals and policies have been incorporated into each district plan to minimize
impacts on the visual character of the City and its SOI. With the implementation of the
goals, policies and implementing programs of the proposed project, including the goals
and policies of the individual district plans, impacts visual character will be reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
PAGI.; .14
C;ENERAL PI .. AN UPDAT'E
FINAL PROGH.AM E.JR
DECEMBER 20'1 l
. . ..... ··-·-··-···-··-···-... ~-... -' ........ ~"'
FINIHNGS OF FAC'f
CITY OF A ·----
LAK_E 6LSIN.ORJ:
~ DREAM E_;(TREME
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.3-45 through 3.3-49; General Plan Chapter 4.0 (Resource
Protection and Preservation) Goal 12, Policy 12.2 and related Implementation Program;
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Section 17.112.040 and Section 17.148.110.
3.1.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
a. Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts
related to airport traffic patterns.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that the proposed project will have less-than-significant impacts
related to airport traffic patterns because no features of the GPU or the Land Use Plan
would conflict with requirements of the FAA regarding proximity of development to
airports. Additionally, all future development proposed within proximity to the airport
would be required to comply with FAA regulations to ensure that future residents or
employees are not subject to significant hazards.
Reference: RP-EIR, pages 3.4-109, 3-10-10, 3-10-11, and 3--10-15.
b. Impact: The proposed project will not increase hazards due to design features or
incompatible uses, result in inadequate emergency access, or result in inadequate
parking capacity.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required. ·
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
.EIR · and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that the proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency
access and would not substantially increase hazards from a design feature or
incompatible uses and impacts are less than significant; because the improvements
included in the Traffic Study (Appendix D of the RP-EIR} ensure sufficient capacity of
roadways and intersections for efficient utilization by both normal vehicle traffic and
emergency vehicle traffic.
Reference: RP-EIR, pages 3.4-109 and 3.4-110.
PAGE 16
(iENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PINAL PROGRAM E.IR
DECEMB'ER 20'11
" ... -.... ' .... .J
CITYOFA .
LAK._E 6 LSi_N_O_R!_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E)(TREME
c. Impact: Implementation of the proposed project will not result in inadequate
emergency access.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Rei:ord of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that the proposed project will not result inadequate emergency
access because the proposed project would be required to meet all applicable local and·
State regulatory standards for adequate emergency access.
Reference: RP-EIR, page 3.4-110
3.1.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Impact: The proposed Climate Action Plan is consistent with and built upon the goals,
policies and implementation programs contained in the proposed GPU. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent and not conflict with an applicable GHG
reduction plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases. ·
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond implementation of the strategies and
measures set forth in the proposed Climate Action Plan and compliance with the goals,
policies and implementation programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that potential impacts due to conflicts with an applicable GHG
reduction plan will be less than significant because as part -of the proposed project, the
City of Lake Elsinore has prepared a Climate Action Plan. The City of. Lake Elsinore
Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a long-range plan to reduce community-wide greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from activities within the City limits. Specifically, the CAP is
designed to:
• Benchmark Lake Elsinore's existing (2008) GHG emissions and projected
emissions relative to statewide emissions targets.
• Establish GHG emissions reduction strategies and measures to reduce the City's
propottionate share of emissions to meet the statewide targets identified in
Assembly Bill (AB} 32 and Executive Order S-3-05.
GJ,:NERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM ElR ..
D E CE M B E R. 2 0 1 1
PAGE 17
·~
CITY OFA
FINDINGS OF f"ACT LAKJ 6 LSi_N_O_Rl_E
b.
~ DREAM E.XTREME
• Set forth procedures to monitor and verify the effectiveness of the CAP and
require amendment if the CAP is not achieving targeted levels of emissions.
• Mitigate Lake Elsinore's GHG emissions impacts (by reducing GHG emissions
consistent with the State of California via the California Environmental Quality
Act [CEQA] Guidelines, AB 32, and Executive Order S-3-05). The CEQA
Guidelines encourage the adoption of plans or mitigation programs as a means
of comprehensively addressing the cumulative impacts of projects (see CEQA
Guidelines, Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(c)).
The proposed Climate Action Plan {Appendix G of the RP-EIR) is consistent with and
built upon the goals, policies and implementation programs contained in the proposed
GPU. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent and not conflict with an
applicable GHG reduction plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.7-32 through 3.7-34 and Table 3.14-6 (Climate Action Plan
Strategies and Measures), pages 4.0-11 through 4.0-12; General Plan Chapter 4.0
(Resource Protection and Preservation) Goal 14, Policies 14.1 through 14.4 and related
Implementation Program.
Impact: Inasmuch as the City will be able to achieve established AB 32 and Executive
Order S-3-05 target GHG emission reduction levels, the proposed project will result in
less-than-significant cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond implementation of the strategies and
measures set forth in the proposed Climate Action Plan and compliance with the goals,
policies and implementation programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions contribute,
on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate
change. No single land use prnject could gen~rate enough GHG emissions to noticeably
change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past,
present, and future projects contribute substantially to the phenomenon of global
climate change and its associated environmental impacts and as such is addressed only
as a cumulative impact. Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and
considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council
hereby finds that the proposed project will result in less-than-significant cumulative
impacts associated with Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the following reason:
RP-EIR Table 3.7-8 (Summary of Greenhquse Gas Reduction Measure Potential)
.provides a summary of the GHG reductions that would result from the state-level and
PAGE 18
GENER,\ L J> LAN UP DA T·E
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 201 "J
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OFA
LAK_E 6LS1_N_O_Rl;_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that the proposed project does not conflict with an adopted habitat
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan because the City of Lake Elsinore is signatory
to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
and is, therefore, required to review development projects having impacts on identified
sensitive biological resources in conformance with all the applicable regulations and
mitigation requirements of the MSHCP. The GPU establishes City policies that
encourage development while remaining sensitive to biological resources concerns.
Adherence to the MSHCP and coordination with the resource agencies is required by the
policies of the GPU.
Additionally, Chapter 19.04 (Habitat Conservation) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
addresses the City's implementation of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan in western Riverside County. No development permit for real
property located within the boundaries of the plan area shall be issued or approved
without the payment of the impact and mitigation fee and the submission of the
biological survey as required by Chapter 19.04. Chapter 4 (Resource Protection and
Preservation) of the GPU, Biological Resources Section, Goal 1 and Goal 2 and associated
policies state the City's intention to identify and conserve important biological habitats
where feasible.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.8-26 through 3.8-34, 3.8-53 through 3.8-55; General Plan
Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation), Goal l, Policies 1.1-1.8 and related
Implementation Program.
3.1.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Impact: Implementation of the proposed Land Use Plan will result in the increase in the
number of persons residing and the amount of construction within the high inundation
zone of the Railroad Canyon Dam. Although failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam is an
extremely unlikely event, portions of the City would be subject to flooding possibly
~
necessitating evacuation of the area. ·
PAGE 20
GENERAL PLAN l.JPJ)ATE
FINAL PflOGR.AM ElR.
DECEMBER 201.1
CITY OF A
FINDINGS OF f"ACI' LAKE 6Lsi_N_O_R!_E
b.
~ DREAM E)(TREME
Welfare) of the proposed GPU states that through project review and the CEQA process
the City shall assess new development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and
shall require compliance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and
collaboration with its Department of Environmental Health. Through compliance with
the goals, policies and implementation programs of the proposed GPU, this impact will
be less than significant.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.10-23 and 3.10-24; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety
and Welfare), Goal 3 and related Implementation Program.
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project will not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required ..
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that the proposed project will not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan because the proposed project does not propose any changes to the City's
Emergency Preparedness Plan or the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-
Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. All applicable local and State regulatory
standards for adequate emergency access will be met. Additionally, pursuant to Policies
8.1 and 8.2 of the Community Facilities and Protection Services section of Chapter 3.0
(Public Safety and Welfare), as described in Section 3.14 (Public Services) of the RP-EIR,
the City will continue to work with the Riverside County Fire Department to follow the
most current guidelines to achieve standard response times and staffing levels and with
the County of Riverside to provide adequate police service and staffing levels. New
developments associated with the buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would
be required to comply with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and
access to the site.
References: RP-EIR, page 3.10-25 and 3.10-26, General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety
and Welfare), Goal 3, Goal 8, Policies 8.1 and 8.2, and related Implementation Programs.
3.1.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Impact: Clea"ting and grading for construction associated with furore development in
the City and its SOI could result in short-term soil erosion by wind and water, and loss
PAGE 22
(;1,:NERAL PLAN UPDATE:
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 201 .1
-···-··--. -·-.· .•• .J
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A ·----
LAK._E 6LSINORJ:
¥ DREAM E,XTREME
resulting from the installation of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
because prior to the installation of such systems, project applicants would be required to
comply with applicable City requirements. Future development allowed under the
proposed project will be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 16.24,
Chapter 16.34 and Chapter 16.56 of the City's Municipal Code.
References: RP-EIR, page 3.11-23 and 3.11-34.
3.1.9 MINERAL RESOURCES ·
a. Impact: Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to nrineral
resources ensure that future development in the City and its SOI would not have any
significant adverse impacts on nrineral resources nor would future mineral resource
extraction have any significant adverse impacts on future development.
, Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to mineral resources
ensure that fufure development in the City and its SOI would not have any significant
adverse impacts on mineral resources nor would future mineral resource extraction have
any significant adverse impacts on future development. This cumulative impact would
be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that the proposed project will have less than significant impacts on
mineral resources because· mineral extraction within some areas of the City and its SOI.
is planned be phased out over time and the areas converted to other land uses, such as
residential and commercial. This land use designation change has already been
approved,. and therefore, development under the GPl) would not significantly affect the
availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state. The proposed GPU includes an E~tractive Overlay q.esignation
located in the Alberhill District, the Business District, and the North Central Sphere
District which provides for continued operations of extractive uses, such as aggregates,
coal, day mining, and certain ancillary uses. Reclamation Plans are required in
conjunction with mining permits as particular projects come forward.
Additionally, the policies within the proposed General Plan pertaining to mineral
resources see\. to conserve areas identified as containing significant mineral deposits for
potential use. The policies will maintain the availability of mineral resources while
PAGE 24
GENl':RAL PLAN l.Jl'J>,'t.TE
FINAL PROGRAM E..IR.
DECEMBER 2011
CJTYOFA
LAI(f · 6 LSi_N_O_Rl_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM EXTREME
continuing to encourage proper reclamation and enhancement of areas impacted by
extractive/mining activities for the public's health, safety and welfare.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.12-1 through 3.12-12, 4.0-16 and 4.16-17; General Plan
Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 1, Policy 1.4, Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and
Preservation), Goal 5, Policies 5.1 through 5.3 and related Implementation Program.
3.1.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Impact: The projected population is based on the land use categories and density
assumptions included in the Land Use Plan. Though the projected population with
buildout of both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the GPU is 318,856,
projected buildout for the incorporated area only is 209,756. This is in direct comparison
with the adopted SCAG population forecast for 2030 of 85,376 in the incorporated area.
The GPU population projections are considered consistent with the projections being
considered by SCAG for several key reasons. First, the SCAG population forecast is not
based upon buildout pursuant to the City's General Plan, but rather on projected annual
growth rates; second, the greater range set forth in the GPU allows for greater flexibility
in providing affordable housing, a state mandated program; and, third, the GPU will
require a jobs-housing balance that meets or exceeds the regional goals.
The proposed project establishes goals, policies and implementation programs that will
reduce potential growth-related impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will direct
growth and development so that it occurs in a manner that is manageable for the City
and avoids significant physical impacts that result from population growth.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that the proposed project establishes goals, policies and
implementation programs that will reduce potential growth-related impacts.
Compliance with these goals, policies and implementation programs and with federal,
State and local regulatory requirements will assure that necessary services and
infrastructure sufficient to serve the planned growth will be development over the
projected buildout period of 20 years. Therefore, the proposed project will direct growth
and development so that it occurs in a manner that is manageable for the City and
avoids signiffr;ant physical impacts that result from population growth.
C;ENERAI, PLAN UPDATE
l•'JNAL PROGHAM EIR
DECEMBER 201 I
Pi\Gl,: 25
CITY OF~
FINDINGS Of" FACT LAKE QLsi_N_O_RI_E
c.
-. DREAM E)(TREME
References: RP-EIR, 3.13-20 through 3.13-22; General Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community
Form), Goal 1, Policies 1.2 through 1.6, 1.8 and 1.9, Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related
Implementation Program, Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation, Goal 14,
Policy 14.1 through 14.4 and related Implementation Program; Housing Elemertt Goal #1
through Goal #7 and related Policies.
b. Impact: Approval of the proposed project would not result in the direct
displacement of existing housing or people, since the proposed project will only result in
the adoption of land use designations and associated goals, policies and implementation
programs; rather than individual development projects. Development of vacant land
would not displace residential units or persons; therefore, no impact would occur.
However, redevelopment of existing developments has the potential to result in some
displacement of housing or people. Without the exact location of new development, it is
not possible to determine whether it will displace residential units or persons and any
such analysis would be speculative.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that potential impacts associated with the displacement of existing
housing or people will be less than significant because development of vacant land
would not displace residential units or persons; therefore, no impact would occur.
However, redevelopment of existing developments has the potential to result in some
displacement of housing or people. Individual development projects that implement the
propose~ Land Use Plan will be reviewed pursuant to CEQA and the GPU's goals,
policies and implementation programs. In the event that there is a potential for the
displacement of housing and people, as required by state and federal law, a relocation
analysis must be prepared ;;md adequate and appropriate compensation provided.
Adherence to applicable County, state and/ or federal regulations related to the
provision of replacement housing would reduce potential impacts associated with this
. issue to a less-than-significant level. ·
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.13-22 and 3.13-23.
Impact: Subsequent land use activities associated with the implementation of the
proposed project, in addition to existing, approved, proposed and reasonably
foreseeable development, could result in a cumulative increase in the population and
housing growth in western Riverside County.
PAGE 26
GENEltAI., PLAN {JpJ),.\TE
FIN.AL PROGRAM EIR
DEC.EMBER 20.11
···•···•· ---·-•.. J
FINDINGS OF FACT
ClTYOFA
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_Rl;_E
~ DREAM E;(TREME
improvements plan describing proposed improvements programs designed to address
future wastewater collection system demands. In developing its Wastewater Master
Plan, EVMWD used a 2030 service area population, household and employment
projections developed by the Riverside County Center for Demographics Research
(RCCDR). Future development would be reviewed by the City on a project-by-project
basis to ensure that adequate wastewater treabnent capacity is available to serve the
project at the time of its construction. EVMWD will determine whether sufficient sewer
capacity exists to serve a specific development. EVMWD' s utility rates and connection
fees are collected to pay off debt financing, to fund capital improvements, and to pay
operations and maintenance costs. Connection fees will also be collected by EVMWD on
new developments, for recovering the capital costs of public facilities needed to service
those developments. Title 16 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) requires the
construction of wastewater facilities as needed to serve future construction with such
facilities of such size and design to adequately satisfy the sanitary sewer requirements of
the development.
Through compliance with EVMWD's Wastewater Master Plan, payment of established
EVMWD utility rates and connection fees, and compliance with Chapter 16 of the
LEMC, wastewater-related impacts associated with the proposed project would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
References: RP-EIR, pages3.16-1, and 3.16-18 through 3.16-20.
b. Impact: Implementation of the proposed project result in population increases and
increases in commercial, industrial and other non-residential uses due to increased
development throughout the City and SOI in accordance with the proposed Land Use
Plan: This increased development would generate increased demand for water.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that impacts upon the availability of water to meet future demand
within the City and its SOI will be less than significant because the EVMWD Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP) indicates that there are sufficient water supplies and
water shortage contingency plans to protect existing and future water needs within its
service area. Through compliance with EVMWD's UWMP and Water Distribution
System Mastrr Plan, Chapter 16 of the LEMC and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
Requirements (LEMC Chapter 19.08), and payment of established EVMWD utility rates
PAGE 28
<:;.ENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PH.OGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 20 I l.
CITY OF,4.
L.AK..E 6Lsi_N_O_RI_E
c.
FINHINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E)CTREME
and connection fees, water supply and infrastructure associated with the proposed
project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.16-2 through 3.16-5, 3.16-9 through 3.16-10, 3.16-12 through
3.16-13, and 3.16-21 though 3.16-28, Appendix I (EVMWD UWMP).
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project result in population increases and
increases in commercial, industrial ·and other non-residential uses which would
potentially impact solid waste disposal services and the capacity of landfill facilities that
serve the City. However, through compliance with City and County waste reduction
programs and compliance with applicable State and local laws and regulations, potential
impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that impacts upon impacts upon solid waste disposal services and
the capacity of landfill facilities that serve the City will be less than significant because
recycling of construction and demolition waste generated during construction will
greatly reduce the amount of such waste that is directed into landfills and given the
limited contribution of construction-related solid waste anticipated to be generated by
the proposed project over its coristruction period, development of the project site will
not substantially contribute to the exceedance of the permitted capacity of the
designated landfills.
The goals, policies and implementing programs pertaining to solid waste disposal in the
GPU include measures to ensure quality services that meet the needs of the population
as it grows and establishment of a long-term solid waste management plan. These
policies from the Public Safety and Welfare chapter, Community Facilities and·
Protection Services section, require:
• requesting the City's franchise trash hauler(s) to establish long-term solid waste
management plans that includes goals for recycling and source reduction
programs (Policy 13.1), and
• requesting the City's franchise trash hauler(s) to provide a public education
program on recycling and source reduction techniques for homes and businesses
(Policy 13.2).
GENli:RAL Pl,AN UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM 1:0:JR
DECEMUE.R 2011
PAGE· 2 9
FINDINGS OF FACl'
CITY OF A
LAKE 5Lsi_N_O-.R!-E
'¥ DREAM E)(TREME
• through the project review and CEQA processes, the City shall condition projects
to provide adequate disposal of solid waste generated by the project.
(Implementation Program)
• through the franchise renewal process, the City shall request cooperation in
meeting recycling and source reduction goals. (Implementation Program)
Therefore, through compliance with City and County waste reduction programs and
compliance with applicable State and local laws and regulations, potential impacts will
be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
References: RP-BIR, pages 3.16-5 through 3.16-6, 3.16-29 through 3.16-32; General Plan
Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) Goal 13, Policies 13.1 through 13.3 and related
Implementation Programs.
d. Impact: The increase in development allowed under the proposed Land Use Plan would
require increases in the availability and adequacy of electrical and natural gas service,
and teleconununications services.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required;
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-
EIR and considering the information contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City
Council hereby finds that impacts upon potential impacts on electrical and natural gas
service, and telecommunications services will be less than significant because both SCE
and The Gas Company (Southern California Gas Company) anticipate the ability to
accommodate future growth within the City of Lake Elsinore. Development proposals
would be required to formally request "will serve" letters on an individual basis for
electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications service. The proposed project's goals,
policies and implementation programs will reduce potential impacts on electrical and
natural gas service, and telecommunications services as development continues by
ensuring that these services will be provided. Therefore, impacts would be considered
less than significant at a progranunatic level.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.16-33 through 3.16-34; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public
Safety and Welfare) Goal 12, Policies 12.1 through 12.3 and related Implementation
Program.
e. Impact: Witl\, implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs of the
proposed project and compliance with existing regulatory requirements and service
PAGE 30
G1,:NEHAL PLAN lJPDATE
F.INAL PROGRAM li:lR
DECEMUER 2011.
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF.
LAI(_E 6Lsi_N_O_Rl_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
3.2 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH
CAN BE MITIGATED TO LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Environmental impacts identified in the Final RP-EIR as potentially significant but which the
City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the imposition of feasible
mitigation measures identified in the Final RP-EIR and set forth herein, are described in this
section.
3.2.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Impact: The community character of the area could significantly change with the
implementation of individual projects in accordance with the proposed Land Use Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and implementation
programs identified in the proposed GPU are required
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the City of
Lake Elsinore has several key aspects of community character that add economic or
aesthetic value for the benefit of the City's residents and visitors. The Historic District is
an important resource to the City. The proposed project includes a Downtown Master
Plan and a Historic District Plan within the GPU that preserve historic resources and
enhance and improve the characteristic aspects of the area.
The City has existing commercial and industrial areas adjacent to I-15 that included in
the GPU to continue supporting the strong central commercial and industrial area that
provides jobs within the City. The overall character of this area will not be substantially
changed with the implementation of the GPU. The GPU ensures that the Lake Elsinore
is preserved as a water resource and recreational center that attracts visitors and adds
economic value to the City. The GPU adds value to the lake rather than changing the
current character in a negative way by adding recreational opportunities and
encouraging the enhancement of the aesthetic value of the lake. Development carried
out pursuant to the specific plans will change the character of these areas which are
currently predornmantly vacant. Residential development within these Specific Plan
Areas is relatively consistent to other residential developments that have been recently
PAGE 32
(";ENERAL PLAN lJPJ)ATE
F I N A L P R O G H .. A M E I. R
D£C:£MBER 2011
CITY OFA .
FINDINGS OF .FACT LAK_E 6LSI_N_O_RI_E
c.
~ DREAM E;(TREME
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.1-15 thorough 3.1-19; General Plan Chapter 2.0
(Community Form), Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) and Chapter 4.0 (Resource
Protection and Preservation) goals, policies and implementation programs.
Impact: The projected population with buildout of the Land Use Plan is 318,856. The
buildout for the proposed GPU within currently incorporated land only is projected to
be 209,756. SCAG has projected the population to be 85,376 based on the 2008 Regional
Transportation Plan within incorporated areas of the city only. The variance between
the Land Use Plan and the SCAG forecast is considered to be in substantial conformance
with the SCAG population forecasts with the understanding that the greater population
figure correlates to additional housing opportunities to provide affordable housing, and
the GPU contains policies that require a job-housing balance.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Land Use 1: 17-ze Growth Management Program developed tnJ the Cihj provides a strategy
for developing a pattern and rate of growth to ensure that adequate public facilities and
infrastrncture can be provided to meet tl-ze rate of new constmction and population growth. The
goals and policies under the Growth Management section of the CommunihJ Form chapter
pro1.1ide principles for a growth management section. Implementation of the development pattern
provided in the Growth Management Program and implementation of policies from the Growth
Management Section of the CommunihJ Form chapter, in association witlz future development,
would reduce impacts related to tire population and housing forecasts.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. .
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that Table 3.1-5
(Consistency with SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies) in the RP-
EIR describes the consistency of the GPU Land Use Plan and associated goals and
policies with SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies and shows that
the GPU goals and policies are consistent with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
in all areas with the exception of the provision of productive agricultural land.
Therefore, the variance between the Land Use Plan and the SCAG forecast is considered
· to be in substantial conformance with the SCAG population forecasts with the
PAGE 34
GENERAL PLAN lJPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 201 ·.J
CITY OF~.•
LAKE 6LS1_N_O_RJ;_E FJNDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E;(TREME
understanding that the greater population figure correlates to additional housing
opportunities to provide affordable housing, and the GPU contains policies that require
a job-housing balance.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.1-19 thorough 3.1-30 and 4.0-15 through 4.0-16; General
Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form), Goal 1, Policies 1.1 through 1.9 and related
Implementation Program and Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related Implementation Program.
d. Impact: Implementation of individual projects in accordance with the Land Use Plan
could result in significant inconsistencies with the MSHCP.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Land Use 2: Implementation of the GPU, the Land Use Plan, and District Plans could
result in significant impacts related to disturbance of areas described for consenmtion in the
MSHCP. Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan and District Plans in
accordance with the Resource Protection and Presetvation Chapter, Biological Resources Section,
Goal 1, Policies 1.1-1.11 will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts
associated with areas described for consenJation in the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Future
projects may be allowed to alter the Conservation Area boundaries through criteria refinement,
minor amendments, or other means, but would be required to do so in conformance with all
regulations and mitigation requirements of the MSHCP.
Finding/Facts· in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. ·
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council· hereby finds that with
implementation of the goals and policies in Section 4.2 (Biological Resources) of Chapter
4.0 (Resources Protection and Preservation) of the GPU (for the protection of biological
habitats and long-term survival of plant and animal wildlife species) future
development proposed in accordance with the Land Use Plan would not result in any
significant inconsistencies with the MSHCP. The policies ensure that the City is
consistent with the programs and policies set forth in the MSHCP, including those set
forth in the Section 10(a) incidental take permit conditions issued for western Riverside
. ~aunty. In addition, the City must deny grading plans that modify slope extending into
c;ENEH.AL PLAN lJPJ)A·ri::
FINAL PRO(;;RAM EIR
DECEMBER 2011
Pi\GE 35
CITY OF A
FINDINGS OF FACT LA~ QLsi_N_O_R!_E
e. -
-v. DREAM EXTREME
MSCHP areas; enforce usage restrictions for MSCHP areas; ensure that development
occurs in a manner that is compatible with MSHCP habitat conservation goals; protect
existing and planned riparian habitat communities; restrict development in areas as
consistent with the MSHCP, including those with relatively low levels of biological
function and values that are planned for restoration in the long-term planning goals of
the MSHCP; provide buffering in MSHCP adjacent areas; encourage revegetation with
native plants to create areas compatible with natural surrounding habitat; coordinate
with appropriate county, state, and federal agencies regarding planning decisions
affecting MSHCP areas; and require development proposals to consider a project's direct·
and indirect potential impacts on a biological habitat area. With implementation of the
policies set forth in the GPU, the document would be consistent with the biological
resources preservation goals of the MSHCP.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.1-31 and 3.8-53 through 3.8-55; General Plan Chapter 4.0
(Resources Protection and Preservation, Goal 1, Policies 1.1 though 1.8 and related
Implementation Program, Goal 2, Policies 2.1 and 2.2 and related Implementation
Program.
Impact: Development consistent with the proposed GPU and the District Plans could
result in the potential for incompatibility of proposed land uses with current land uses
throughout the City and SOI.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
-mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies arid implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, tire following mitigation measures are required:
MM Land Use 3: Each project within tire Skylark Airport Influence Area, as shown on Figure
2.7 of the General Plan, will be reviewed for its consistenctJ with the Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook Recommendations wf,en individual projects are proposed. This review will include
analysis and subsequent review under CEQA. 11re JeasibilihJ of"tlre proposed mitigation
measures must be detennined on a project-specific leoel.
MM Land Use 4: If the motocross track is relocated, future development within tire East Lake
District Plan shall be required to comply with mitigation measures identified in the East Lake
Specific Plan EIR. However, a4ditional project-specific CEQA environmental analysis and
review will be required when a detailed project is proposed at the new motocross site. This
project-level review will include an analysis of potential land use compatibilihJ issues .
..
PAGE 36
GENERAL PLAN UPl>ATF~
FINAL PnoGn.AM EIR
DE<:::.EMBER 20"1]
• _..... • • • • • .~ ~ .. ~-····· •••••••• ,,_ ... h ....... -~
CITYOFA
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RJ;_E
f.
FJNDJNGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E;(TREME
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that Development
consistent with the proposed GPU and the District Plans could result in the potential for
incompatibility of proposed land uses with current land uses throughout the City and
SOI. Land use changes in these District Plans could .result in impacts on traffic, air
quality, noise, community services, and natural resources. Potential traffic, air quality,
and noise impacts caused by changes in land use designations would be attributed to an
increase in residential development in place of vacant land. Increased residential land
would increase the number of residents, thereby increasing vehicle travel trips and
travel time, which will increase emissions and noise. Potential community servic;es
impacts would also be related to a conversion of vacant land to residential land, as an
increase in residents would necessitate an increase in the provision of public services
and facilities. Potential impacts on natural resources would result from the conversion
of open space and vacant land to developed uses, mainly residential uses. As described
in Table 3.1-6 (District Plan Land Use Impacts) of the RP-EIR, goals and policies are set
forth in the GPU that would decrease the effects of land use changes and potential
incompatibility between proposed uses. With implementation of the District Plan land
use designations, significant adverse land use incompatibility impacts would not result.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.1-31 through 3.1-41 Final RP-EIR, pages 2.0-108 through
2.0-110 and 3.0-2; General Plan's District Plan Goals and Policies.
Impact: The GPU includes goals and policies that, in combination with a growth
management strategic plan, will reduce increased development and density impacts.
Implementation of the growth management plan would reduce impacts related to the
inconsistency of the GPU with the population and housing forecasts of SCAG to below a
level of significance. Potential cumulative impacts related to the loss of agricultural
lands are less than significant.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measures MM Land Use 1 through MM Land
Use 4-is requi,;,ed.
GENERAL PLAN l.iPl>ATE
FINAL PROGRAM E.IR
I) E C E M 13 E R 2 0 I 'I
PAGE. 37
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RI_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which rrutigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the land use
designations set forth in the Proposed Land Use Plan allow for a substantial increase in
population from existing conditions and from that anticipated for the area by SCAG.
The Growth Management Program developed by the City provides a strategy for
developing a pattern and rate of growth to ensure that adequate public facilities and
infrastructure can be provided to meet the rate of new construction and population
growth. The goals and policies under the Growth Management section of the
Community Form chapter provide principles for a growth management section.
Implementation of the development pattern provided in the Growth Management
Program and implementation of policies from the Growth Management Section of the
Community Form chapter, in association with future development, would reduce
impacts related to the population and housing forecasts to less-than-significant levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.1-19 thorough 3.1-30 and 4.0-15 through 4.0-16; General
Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form), Goal 1, Policies 1.1 through 1.9 and related
Implementation Program and Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related Implementation Program,
and General Plan's District Plan Goals and Policies.
3.2.2 CULTURAL AND P ALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Impact: Implementation of the proposed project, including the General Plan Update's
Land Use Plan and District Plans and the Downtown Master Plan, and within the 3rd
Street Annexation area could result in · impacts on significant historic resources as
defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM CulturavPaleontological Resources 1: Individual projects implemented in accordance
with the Land Use Plan shall also demonstrate compliance with Land Use Policies 4.1-4.4,
Cultural and Paleontological Resources PolietJ 6.1, and Historic Preseroation Policies 9.1-9.4,
and 10.1-10,4~ As well as compliance with applicable District Plan Policies related to cultural
and paleontologi.cal resources.
PAGE 38
GENERAL PLAN lJPD/1.Tt,;
FINAL PROGRAM E.IR
DECEMBER 2011
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A
LAKE 6Lsi_N._O_Rf_E
~ DREAM E_)(TREME
b. Impact: Implementation of the proposed project, including the General Plan Update's
Land Use Plan and District Plans and the Downtown Master Plan, and within the 3rd
Street Annexation area could result in impacts on significant archeological resources as
defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measures are required:
MM CulturavPaleontological Resources 2: Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) for the
project, the project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-
disturbing activities in an effort to identifiJ any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly
discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
MM Culh1ravPaleontological Resources 3: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading
pemzit, the project applicant shall contact the appropriate tribe to notifiJ that Tribe of grading,
exca1mtion and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the CihJ of Lake Elsinore and the
Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement
shall address the treatnzent of known ciiltural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and
participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excarmtion and ground
disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and
treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains
discovered on the site.
MM CulturavPaleontological Resources 4: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the
project archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report mi.th the CittJ and County (if required) to
document the proposed methodologtj for grading activity obsen,ation. Said methodologtj shall
include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the
authorihJ to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in
MM· Cultural/Paleontological Resources 2,. the archaeological monitor's autlwrihJ to stop and
redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate tribe in order to evaluate
the significance of any archaeological. resources discot,ered on the properhJ. Tribal monitors shall
be allowed to monitor all .grading, excavation and ground breaking activities, and shall also have
the autlwrittJ to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archeologi.st.
MM CulturavPaleontological Resources 5: I1ze landowner shall relinquish ownership of all
cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are
found on the project area to the appropriate tribe for proper treatment and disposition . ..
PAGE 40
GENER,\L PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 2011
~ . .• ..
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITYOFA .
LAK_E 6LS1_N_O_RI_E
~ DREAM E)(TREME
Although it is the intent of the proposed project to minimize archaeological resources
impacts, projects implemented pursuant to the proposed project may result in
significant impacts with respect to such resources that cannot be identified or quantified
here. Applicants of implementing development project will be required to provide
mitigation for these potential impacts, as dictated by State and City guidelines and in
consultation with local tribes. Impacts and mitigation would be quantified by project-
specific cultural resources review.
Additionally, compliance with federal, State and local regulations addressing
archaeological resources and compliance with Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Policies 7.1-7.5, at a programmatic level, will prevent the proposed project, including the
GPU, the District Plans and the 3rd Street Annexation from resulting in significant
impacts to archaeological resources. Specific projects that implement the proposed
project must demonstrate that the specific project will not result in significant impacts to
historical resources through implementation of mitigation measures identified in this
PEIR.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.2-24 through 3.2-31 and 3.2-41 through 3.2-48; Final RP-EIR,
pages 2.0-88 and 3.0-5; General Plan Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation),
Goal 6, Policies 6.1 through 6.4, Goal 7, Policies 7.1 through 7.5 and related
Implementation Program, and General Plan's District Plan Goals and Policies.
c. Impact: Implementation of the proposed project, including the General Plan Update's
Land Use Plan and District Plans and the Downtown Master Plan~ and within the 3rd
Street Annexation area could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of tire goal.s, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required: ·
MM Cultural/Paleontological Resources 9: Individual projects implemented in accordance
with the Land Use Plan shall also demonstrate compliance with Cultural and Paleontological
Resources PoliaJ 8.1. As well as compliance with applicable District Plan Policies related to
cultural andpaleontological resources.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed proj_ect which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
PAGE 42
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PH.OGRAM EIR
I) E C .E M B E R 2 0 l I
CITY OF~
FlNDINCS OF FACT L.AK._E 61si_N_O_RJ;_E
e.
~ DRE.AM EXTREME
contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Subsequently, the Native
American Heritage Commission shall identifiJ the person or persons it believes to be the "most
likely descendant." Tlte most likely descendant may then make recommendations, and engage in
consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code
5097.98. .
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. ·
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that several
Indian tribes identified the City and its SOI as being within either their traditional use
area or one in which they have cultural ties. Inasmuch as archaeological resources, as
described above, have been documented within the project area, there is the potential
that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, are located
within the project area. Therefore, ground-disturbing activities associated with
development that occurs during implementation of the proposed project, including the
General Plan Update {Land Use Plan and District Plans), the Downtown Master Plan
and the 3rd Street Annexation, have th.e potential to disturb as yet undiscovered human
remains.
However, compliance with federal, State and local regulations pertaining to Native
American resources and human remains and compliance with Cultural and
Paleontological Resources Policies 6.2, 6.3, and 7.1 at a programmatic level, will prevent
the proposed project, including the GPU, the District Plans and the 3rd Street
Annexation from resulting in significant impacts to regarding the accidental discovery
of human remains. Specific projects that implement the proposed project must
demonstrate that the specific project will not result in significant impacts related to the
accidental discovery of human remains through implementation of mitigation measures
identified in this PEIR.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.2-24 through 3.2-31 and 3.2-49 through 3.2-50; Final RP-EIR,
pages 2.0-88, 2.0-97, 2.0-98, 3.0-4 and 3.0-5; General Plan Chapter 4.0 (Resource
Protection and Preservation), Goal 6 Policies 6.1 through 6.4 and related Implementation
Program and Goal 7, Policy 7.1. .
Impact: With implementation of the proposed . project's goals, policies and
implementation programs and compliance with regulatory requirements, any potential
cumulative impacts related to historical, cultural and paleontological resources will be
~tigated to a less-than-significant level.
PAGE 44
GEN1°:RAL PLAN lJPJ)AT.I':
FINAL PROGR.AM ElR
DEC:t.::MUER 2011
CITY OF A
LAI(J 6Lsi_N_O_R.I_E FINDINGS OF FACT
V DREAM EXTREME
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In nddition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measures MM Cultural/Paleontological 1
through MM Cultural/Paleontological 10 is required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the enviromnent.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that federal
regulations such as the National Historic Preservation Act and State regulations such as
CEQA and Senate Bill 18 provide substantial guidance for identifying significant
cultural and historical resources. These existing state and federal regulations in place
that require identification of significant resources and mitigation for impacts on those
resources that must be complied with for all future development projects. Compliance
of future development projects with these regulations would minimize cumulative
impacts on those resources. The GPU includes policies under Cultural Resources Goal 5
affirming the City's intent to prevent the loss of cultural resources. The policy ensures
. the proper identification and treatment of cultural resources, thereby avoiding
contribution to any cumulative impact on archaeological resources.
The City's GPU policies under Cultural Resources Policy 6.1 and Goal 7 highlight the
importance to the City of historical resources and ensure the proper identification,
treatment, and preservation of such resources-both known and unknown -thereby
avoiding contribution to any cumulative regional impact on historical resources that
could occur.
Areas of paleontological sensitivity throughout the County have been delineated by the
Riverside County General Plan. Areas identified as "high" or "undetermined" may
contain important paleontological resources; therefore, technical analysis by a qualified
paleontologist is required in these areas, ensuring the proper identification and
treatment of resources. The City's GPU policies under Cultural Resources Goal 7 reflect
the City's participation in this program, which will ensure any contribution to the
cumulative loss of paleontological resources is less than significant.
Since all loc~ jurisdictions, including the City of Lake Elsinore, are subject to the
regulatory requirements described in Section 3.2 (Cultural and Paleontological
· Resources) of this RP-EIR including CEQA, the National Historic Preservation Act
GENERAL PLAN lJPOATE
FINAL PH.OGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 201 I
PAGE. -!5
FINDINGS OF FA.CT
CITY OF~ •
LA~ 6LSI_N_O_Rl:_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
(NHPA) of 1966 and Senate Bill 18, potential cumulative impacts to cultural and
paleontological resources should not occur.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.2-24 through 3.2-31 and 4.0-8 and 4.0-9; Final RP-EIR, pages
2.0-88 and 3.0-5; General Plan Chapter 2.0 {Community Form), Goal 4, Policies 4.1
through 4.4 and related Implementation Program, Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and
Preservation), Goal 6, Policy 6.1, Goal 7, Policies 7.1 through 7.5, Goal 8, Policy 8.1, Goal
9, Policies 9.1 through 9.4, Goal 10, Policies 10.1 through 10.4, and related
Implementation Programs and General Plan's District Plan Goals and Policies.
3.2.3 AESTHETICS
a. Impact: Buildout of the proposed project would have potentially significant adverse
impacts on views of hillsides and mountains. The impacts on views from I-15 looking
toward the lake and hillsides are potentially significant.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Aesthetics 1: Future development projects will be required to prepare 'Visual simulations
demonstrating compliance with the applicable GPU goals and policies. Preparation of visual
simulations demonstrating compliance with the GPU goals and policies would be required for
future dezielopment projects located in scenic viewslteds along the 1-15 corridor and other areas at
the discretion of the Director of CommunihJ Development,
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that views of the
larger Santa Ana Mountains in the distance would not be affected by the proposed
project. However the hillsides to the south and west are planned for hillside residential
uses and this development would result in a significant impact on views of hillsides.
The character of the 1-15 corridor as it is developed with commercial and industrial uses
would be protected through the designation of similar uses as an extension of the
existing uses-. Views from I-15 would also be potentially affected by hillside residential
_development.
PAGE-46
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROC;RAfVI EIR.
DECEMBER 2011
ClTYOFA
LAKE 6Lsi_N_O_R1;_E
b.
FJNDINGS OF FACT
V DREAM E;(TREME
Policies are included in Chapter 4.0 of the proposed GPU to protect and mitigate these
impacts potential impacts. Policies 3.3 and 3.4 reguire contour grading on steep slopes
and set forth the policy to preserve the City's visual character in the surrounding
hillsides. Policies 10.1-10.6, 11.1-11.3, and 12.1-12.3 protect views and specify design
requirements for new development to minimize visual impacts. Specifically, the policies
require the creation of a program to identify specific visual resources and valued views
within the City, discourage development that blocks or substantially alters public views
of Lake Elsinore and local ridgelines, encourage the dedication of open space in hillside
development, encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate views of
Lake Elsinore, and encourage application to Caltrans for official designation of I-15 and
SR-74 as state scenic highways. · With implementation of the goals, policies and
implementation programs of the GPU, potentially significant impacts on the visual
character of mountains and hillsides and upon the visual quality of views from I-15 will
be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.3-27 through 3.3-40; General Plan Chapter 4.0 (Resource
Protection and Preservation), Goal 3, Policies 3.1 through 3.4, Goal 10, Policies 10.1
through 10.7, Goal 11, Policies 11.1s through 11.5, Goal 12, Policies 12.1 through 12.3,
and related Implementation Programs, and General Plan's District Plan Goals and
Policies.
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulatively
considerable aesthetic impacts.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measure MM Aesthetics 1 is required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that future
developments within the City and the SOI will be required to comply with GPU goals,
policies and implementation programs to ensure that impacts on visual quality from
public viewsh~ds and vantage points are minimized. These policies ensure that the City
will implement the MSCHP and preserve valuable open space, which thereby preserves
· the visual character of open space in the City. Development within the City and SOI in
(·;ENEHAL P'LAN l.fPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM E:IR
DECE!VIBER 2011
PAG.F. -17
FINDINGS OF F.-'\CT
CITY OF A
LAK_E 5 LSi_N_O_Rl_E
~ DREAM E;,(TREME
combination with other development in the County would contribute to changes in
views to motorists on 1-15. With development in the region it is inevitable that views
from I-15 will be modified from existing conditions. However, measures by the
proposed GPU that must be incorporated into future development within the City and
SOI would minimize impacts on views from I-15. With adherence to GPU goals and
policies, the contribution of development within the City to County-wide cumulative
effects to views from 1-15 would be less than significant.
Although sources of light and glare will increase within the project area, the Chapter 4.0
(Resource Protection and Preservation) Policy 12.2 states that the City shall discourage
uses or development that entails excessive light and glare visible from private and
public viewpoints. Additionally, compliance with Section 17.112.040 and Section
17.148.110 of the City's Zoning Code require that lighting shall be designed to preclude
light shining into the sky above a horizontal plane passing through the luminaire and
encourage the use of low pressure sodium lighting in non-residential development.
Thus compliance with Policy 12.2 and the zoning code will reduce any potential impacts
from light and glare to a less-than-significant level. Light and glare within the area
surrounding the project area is controlled by regulatory requirements, including but not
limited to Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution) and City of
Murrieta Development Code Section 16.18.110 (Mount Palomar Lighting Standards),
which have the effect of reducing the impact of nighttime lighting in the cumulative area
to less-than-significant levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.3-27 through 3.3-40 and 4.0-3 through 4.0-4; General Plan
Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation), Goal 3, Policies 3.1 through 3.4,
Goal 10, Policies 10.1 through 10.7, Goal 11, Policies 11.ls through 11.5, Goal 12, Policies
12.1 through 12.3, and related Implementation Programs, and General Plan's District
Plan Goals and Policies.
3.2.4 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
a. Impact: Implementation of individual projects and associated population growth
anticipated in accordance with the Land Use Plan could result in significant impacts on
existing bikeways or create hazards by failing to support alternative modes of
transportation
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to .. implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
P/\GE 48
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FJNI\L PH.OGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 201 .I
CJTYOFA ..
LAI(_E 6Lsi_N_O_RJ;_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E}(rREMI:
--------------------------
MM Transportation 4: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plnn will be
required to demonstrate m1oidance of significant impacts tit.rough implementation of the ultimate
roadway and intersection classifications and improvements shown on the Land Use plan and the
Capital Impro11ement Program as well as the goals and policies set forth b-ij the Circulation
Section of fhe CommunihJ Form Chapter.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed
GPU Circulation Section of the Community Form Chapter proposes changes to the
existing bikeway plan that will provide for additional bikeways within the City.
Implementation of these modifications would not conflict with adopted policies and
programs supporting alternative transportation.
Additionally, implementation of individual projects and associated population growth
anticipated in accordance with the Land Use Plan could result in significant impacts on
existing bikeways or create hazards by failing to support alternative modes of
transportation. However,· with implementation of General Plan goals, policies and
implementation programs, individual projects implemented in accordance with the GPU
and associated population growth anticipated in accordance with the Land Use Plan
would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on bikeways and will
provide adequate opporhmities for alternative transportation by providing additional
bikeways within the City.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.4-111 · through 3.4-121; General Plan Chapter 2.0
(Community Form), Goal 6, Policy 6.4, Goal 9, Policy 9.1 and related Implementation
Programs, and General Plan's District Plan Goals and Policies.
b. Impact: Implementation of individual projects and associated population growth
anticipated in accordance with the Land Use Plan could result in significant impacts on
existing truck routes or create hazards by failing to provide adequate truck routes.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
in addition to implementation of the goals, polides and implementation programs identified in
the proposed Gl>U, the following mitigation measure is required: .
GENI::RAL PLAN lJl•DATE
Fi.NAL PROGRAM E,IR
DECEMBER 2011
PAGE 49
FINDINGS OF FACT
CJTYOFA
LA~ 6Lsi_N_O_R!_E
V-DREAM EXTREME
MM Transportation 5: lndhiidual projects implen1ented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be
required to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of the ultimate
roadway and intersection classifications and improvements slwwn on the 1.Jmd Use Plan a11d the
Capital Improvement Program as well as the goals and policies set forth bij tire Circulation
Section of tire Community Form Chapter.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that
implementation of individual projects and associated population growth anticipated in
accordance with the Land Use Plan could result in significant impacts on existing truck
routes or create hazards by failing to provide adequate truck routes. However, with
implementation of General Plan goals, policies and implementation programs,
individual projects implemented in accordance with the GPU and associated population
growth anticipated in accordance with the Land Use Plan would not result in significant
and unavoidable adverse impacts on bikeways and will provide adequate opportunities
for alternative transportation by providing additional bikeways within the City.
However, with implementation of General . Plan goals, policies and implementation
programs, individual projects implemented in accordance with the GPU and associated
population growth anticipated in accordance with the Land Use Plan would not result in
significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on existing and planned truck routes.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.4-111 through 3.4-121; General Plan Chapter 2.0
(Community Form), Goal 6, Policy 6.1 through 6.5 and related Implementation
Programs, and General Plan's District Plan Goals and Policies.
3.2.5 NOISE
a. Impact: The GPU proposes commercial development that would generate noise related
to such sources as delivery operations, parking lots, and human activity~
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of tlre goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
tlre proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required: ..
PAc;E 50
(;ENERAL PLAN lJPl)ATE.
FINAL PROGRAM ElR
DECEMUER 201 l
CITY OF A
LAK._E 6Lsi_N._O_RJ;_E
b.
FINDINGS OF FACT
V-DREAM E_;,(TREME
MM Noise 2: For projects proposing new commercial uses in the vicinihJ of sensiti'oe receptors,
the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance with City
noise standards. VVhere project-specific analysis determines that noise standards may be
exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received to
acceptable levels.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
ori the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed
project allows commercial uses that could generate noise received by residences and
other sensitive receptors in excess .af relevant standards set forth in the City's Zoning
Code and the General Plan's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interior and
Exterior Noise Standards. GPU policy sets forth the City's intent to enforce the Zoning
Code and other noise standards. Placement of new uses that exceed relevant noise
standards would be considered a significant impact.
However, the mitigation measure listed above would reduce the potential impacts of the
Proposed Land Use Plan and GPU related to noise levels from commercial operations to
less-than-significant levels; The mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with
future projects because the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the
new use' s compliance with City noise standards. The City noise standards contain
specific requirements for reducing noise levels associated with commercial projects.
Existing standards include restrictions on activities and limits on operational hours that
reduce noise levels as~ciated with commercial uses. Where project-specific analysis
determines that noise standards may be exceeded, then the City shall require binding
mitigation measures thatwill reduce the noise received to acceptable levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22, 3.5-40, 3.5-43 and 3.5-45; General Plan
Chapter 3.0 (Public Health and Wei.fare), Goal 7, Policy 7.1, Policy 7.2 and related
Implementation Program, Eastlake District Goal 1 and Policy EL 1.1.
Impact: The GPU would entail construction of new schools that have the potential to
receive noise exceeding state standards. Exceeding state standards for school noise
would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
GENERAL PLAN lJPDATF:
FJ·NAl. PROGRAM El:R
DECEMH'ER 20'1 I
PAGE 51
CITY OF~
LAK_E t}Lsi_N._O_Rl_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM EXTREME
proximity to existing and proposed recreational uses, which may in tum be affected by
recreational noise.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the prcrposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Noise 4: For projects proposing new recreational uses or increased intensity of recreational
activihJ in proximity to sensitive receptors, the CihJ shall require the project applicant to
demonstrate the residential use's compliance with City noise standards with respect to the
existing recreational areas. Where project-specific analysis determines that noise standards mmJ
be exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce tlze noise received
to acceptable levels.
For projects proposing new residential uses in proximihJ to recreational areas, the CihJ shall
require the project applicant to demonstrate the recreational use's compliance with City noise
standards. Wlzere project-specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, then
the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received to
acceptable levels.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significai:it effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the GPU
proposes new or enhanced recreational uses that may generate noise conditions received
off-site, as well as new residential and commercial development in proximity to existing
and proposed recreational uses, which may in tum be affected by recreational noise.
Such noise received from within recreational areas or generated by recreational areas
has the potential to exceed relevant standards set forth in the Zoning Code and the
General Plan's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and_ Interior and Exterior
Noise Standards. GPU policy sets forth the City's intent to enforce the Zoning Code and
other noise standards and to minimize recreational noise. Placement of new uses or
increased intensity of existing uses that exceeds relevant noise standards would be
considered a significant impact.
However, the"mitigation measure listed above would reduce the potential impacts of the
Proposed Land Use Pla:h and GPU related to noise levels from recreation use operations
GENERAL PL,\N lJPl)ATE
FINAL PROGRAM El"R
DECEMBER 2011
PAGE 53
CITY OF~ ·----
FINDINGS OF FACT LAI(_E 6LSIN.ORJ;
d.
~ DREAM EXTREME
to less-than-significant levels. The mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with
future projects because compliance with City standards would ensure that potential
impacts from recreation uses on sensitive land uses would be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level. Existing standards include restrictions on the types of land uses that
can be located in the vicinity of recreation uses and include measures that can be
incorporated into the design of a project that would reduce noise levels within the land
uses surrounding recreation facilities to acceptable levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22, 3.5-41, 3.5-43 and 3.5-45 through 3.5-46;
Final RP-EIR, pages 2.0-110, 2.0-111 and 3.0-5; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Health
and Welfare), Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related Implementation Program.
Impact: The GPU proposes industrial and mining uses in various places throughout the
City and SOI that may generate noise received off-site.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation rneasure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Noise 5: For projects proposing new industrial/mining operations in the vicinihJ of
sensitive receptors or projects that propose new sensitive uses in the vici11ihJ of industrial/mining
operations, the Cih; shnll require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance
with City noise standards. V\lhere project-specific analysis determines that noise standtirds may
be exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received
to acceptable le11els.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.'
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that GPU projects
have the potential to place new industrial and mining operations in proximity to
sensitive receptors, and vice versa, such that relevant noise standards set forth in the
Zoning Code and the General Plan's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and
Interior and ·Exterior Noise Standards would be exceeded. GPU policy sets forth the
City's intent to enforce the Zoning Code and other noise standards and to discourage the
juxtaposition,. of noisy industrial/mining uses with sensitive uses. Placement of new
uses that exceed relevant noise standards would be considered a significant impact:
PAGE 54
GENER AL PLAN {JP DATE
FINAL PROGRAM EIR.
DECEMBER 2011
FINDINGS OF f'A.CT
CITYOF~
LAKE 6Lsi_N_O_Rl;_E
~ DREAM E;(TREME
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the 3rd Street
Annexation project proposes new development that may receive traffic noise levels in
excess of relevant standards set forth in the Zoning Code and the General Plan's Noise
and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. Excess
of City noise standards would be considered a significant impact.
The 3rd Street Annexation project has the potential to place new commercial uses in
proximity to residential development, or vice versa, which may result in the reception of
commercial noise_ in these residential areas in excess of relevant standards set forth in
the Zoning Code and the General Plan's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and
Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. Generation of noise in excess of City noise
standards would be considered a significant impact.
However, the mitigation measure listed above would reduce the potential impacts of the
Proposed Land Use Plan and GPU related to noise levels within the 3rd Street
Annexation area to less-than-significant levels. The mitigation would reduce the
impacts associated with future projects because compliance with City standards would
ensure tha_t potential impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The
City shall require 3rd Street Annexation project applicants to demonstrate their
compliance with City standards regarding construction noise, noise sensitive land uses
in proximity to 1-15, and commercial operations. Where project-specific analysis
determines that noise standards may be exceeded, then the City shall require binding
mitigation measures that will reduce the construction noise to acceptable levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22, 3.5-42, 3-5-44 and 3.5-46; General Plan
Chapter 3.0 (Public Health and Welfare), Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related Implementation
Program.
f. Impact: GPU projects have the potential to generate vibration· during future
construction and grading activities.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition tc, implementation of tlie goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
_the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
PAG.E 5(-i
{;ENERAL PLAN lJPI)ATE
FINAL PROGRAM E"IR
DECEMBE.R 2011
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A
LAKE 61si_N_O_RJ;_E
~ DREAM E)(TREME
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Noise 8: For projects proposing new industrial/mining operations in the vicinity of
sensitive receptors or projects that propose new sensitfoe uses in the vicinity of industrial/mining
operations, the Citi; shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance
with Citi; noise standards. VVhere project-specific analysis determines there is a potential for
significant 'ln.bration-related impacts, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will
reduce the vibration received to acceptable le1,els.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed
project proposes industrial and mining uses in various places throughout the City and
SOI that may generate groundbome vibration and groundbome noise levels. However,
the mitigation measure listed above would reduce the potential impacts of the Proposed
Land Use Plan and GPU related to the vibration impacts of new industrial and mining
operations to less-than-significant levels. Pursuant to this mitigation measure, the City
shall require project applicants of new industrial/ mining operations in the vicinity of
sensitive receptors or projects to demonstrate the new use' s compliance with City noise
standards. Where project-specific analysis determines that there is a potential for
significant vibration-related impacts, the City shall require binding project-specific
mitigation measures in order to assure that vibration impacts are reduced to less-than-
significant levels.
Additionally, Goal 7 from Section 3.4 (Noise) of General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety
and Welfare) sets forth the City's overall goal of maintaining an environment free of
unhealthy, obtrusive, or otherwise excessive noise conditions. Industrial and mining
uses would be required to adhere to the City's Zoning Code, including with respect to
hours of operation and allowable noise levels. The GPU establishes an Implementation
Program in Section 3.4 (Noise) of General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare)
requiring new development proposals to analyze the off-site reception of noise from
their operations, and to incorporate noise-reducing mitigation measures, wherever
. necessary. htt accordance with GPU Policy 7.1 projects (including non-noise-generating
. projects placed adjacent to noise-generating uses) must demonstrate their compliance
PAGE 58
C-;ENI':H:AL PLAN l.JPDATI':
FINAL Pnoc;HA,M El R
DECEMUER 2011
..... .J
CITY OF A ·----
LAKE 6LS1NOR£ FJNDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM EXTREME
with the General Plan's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and the City's Interior
and Exterior Noise Standards. Adherence to the above mitigation measure, the City
Zoning Code, proper project-specific analysis of noise impacts, and incorporation of
project-specific mitigation measures determined as a part of that analysis will ensure
that future development of industrial and mining uses pursuant to the GPU would not
result in significant ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise impacts.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22, 3.5-46 through 3.5-49; General Plan
Chapter 3.0 (Public Health and Welfare), Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and Policy 7.2 and related
Implementation Program.
h. Impact: Implementation of the GPU has the potential to result in temporary
construction noise received by nearby residents, schools, commercial areas, and other
receptors that could exceed acceptable levels set forth in the Zoning Code. GPU policy
sets forth the City's intent to enforce the Zoning Code and other noise standards.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Noise 9: The Cihj shall require project applicants to demonstrate tlzeir compliance with
CihJ standards regarding constniction noise. Where project-specific analysis determines that
noise standards may be exceeded, the Cihj shall require binding rnitigation measures that will
reduce the construction noise to acceptable levels.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that it is inevitable
that noise from construction will be heard at various places throughout the City over the
course of the implementation of the proposed project. The City has established
regulations in Chapter 17.176 (Noise Control) of its Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code) that limit the allowable hours of operation and the duration of
noise-producing construction activities. The Zoning Code also maintains schedules of
allowable (where technically and economically feasible) construction noise levels
received by residential and commercial land uses. All construction pursuant to the
. proposed project would be required to demonstrate conformance to these schedules.
(;ENERAL PLAN UPDA"J'E
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 20 I I
PAGE 59
ClTYOFA
FINDINGS OF FACT LAI(_E 6LSI_N_O_Rl_E
i.
~ DREAM E;,(TREME
Additionally, the mitigation measure listed above would reduce potential impacts of the
Proposed Land Use Plan and GPU related to construction-related noise levels to less-
than-significant levels. The mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with future
projects because compliance with City standards would ensure that· potential impacts
construction-related noise impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring project
applicants to demonstrate their compliance with City noise standards during
construction. Where project-specific analysis determines that noise standards may be
exceeded, then the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the
noise received to acceptable levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22, 3.5-49 through 3.5-51; General Plan
Chapter 3.0 (Public Health and Welfare), Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and Policy 7.2 and related
Implementation Program.
Impact: The GPU proposes development adjacent to Skylark Airport that would
generate noise received off-site.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Noise 10: For projects proposing sensitive uses that may receive airport noise, the City shall
require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance with City noise standards.
VV.11ere project-specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, the City shall
require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received to acceptable levels.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed
project proposes development that could receive noise from adjacent airfields. However,
through implementation of mitigation measure MM Noise 10, the airport-related noise
will not be in excess of relevant standards set forth in the City's Zoning Code and the
General Plan's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interior and Exterior
Noise Standards. The mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with future
projects becquse compliance with City standards would ensure that potential impacts
from airport noise on sensitive uses would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
PAc·;E 60
(·;ENERAL PLAN lJPDATE
F I N A L P ROG R ,\ M It I R
DECEMBER 20.11
FINDINGS OF f.,\CT
CITY OF~
LAKE 6 LSi_N._O_R,I_E
V DREAM E)(TREME
development and increased growth that would be accommodated over the next 20 years
under the proposed project including the GPU would result in construction activity that
would cause an increase in temporary construction-related emissions (particulate
matter, CO, NOx, 502, and VOCs) by the operation of construction equipment. Fugitive
dust (PM10) would be emitted by activities that disturb the ground, such as grading and
excavation, road construction, and building construction. These emissions could result
in temporary or intermittent health and nuisance-type impacts in the immediate vicinity
of individual construction sites.
Construction projects associated with implementation of the proposed project would
also emit 03 and particulate matter, for which the SCAB is a nonattainment area.
Excessive emissions of these pollutants would be considered a significant impact.
Therefore, implementation of individual projects anticipated in accordance with the
proposed Land Use Plan could result "in potentially significant short-term impacts
associated with construction emissions and inconsistency with SCAQMD thresholds.
However, with implementation of GPU goals, policies and implementation measures,
potential short-term impacts on air quality associated with construction of projects
proposed in accordance with the GPU and Land Use Plan would be reduced to a less-
than-significant level. The mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with future
projects because individual projects implemented pursuant to the Proposed Land Use
Plan will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts on air quality
from construction activities through implementation of regulatory requirements and the
goals and policies set forth in the proposed GPU. Where project-specific analysis
determines that air quality standards may be exceeded, the City shall require mitigation
measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.6-14 through 3.6-20, and 3.6-24 through 3.6-25, General Plan
Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) Goal 1, Policy 1.1. ·
b. . Impact: The proposed GPU will allow the types and quantity of land us_es that have the
potential to create objectionable odors.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of -the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation oft/re goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, tire following mitigation measure is required:
MM Air Quality 6: Through tire City's project review process, individual projects implemented
pursuant to tire I.and Use Plan will be evaluated to determine their potential for creating
PAGE 62
GlsNF:RAI .• PLAN lJPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
D1::CEMJlER 20 I .1
...... ····· -.• -,>
CITY OF A
LAKJ: 6 LS i_N_O_RJ_E FJNDL'\GS OF FACf
~ DREAM E,x'TREME
---------------------------···----~--·-----·
objectionable odors that would potentially impact a substantial number of persons. v\!here
project-specific analysis determines that objectionable odors will occur, the City shall require
mitigation measures tluit will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent pmcticable.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed
GPU will allow the types and quantity of land uses that have the potential to create
objectionable odors. As development proposals occur, project-level analysis of odor
impacts will be addressed. Additionally, future industrial and commercial development
which implements the proposed Land Use Plan that could generate potentially
objectionable odors will be subject to SCAQMD Rule 402 governing odor emissions.
Any objectionable odor may be reported to the SCAQMD, which resolves complaints
through investigation. A Notice to Comply /Notice of Violation will be issued when
necessary.
However, through implementation of mitigation measure MM Air Quality 6, potential
impacts associated with objectionable odors will be reduced to less-than-significant
levels. The mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with future projects because
individual projects implemented pursuant to the Proposed Land Use Plan will be
evaluated to determine their potential for creating objectionable odors that would
potentially impact a substantial number of persons. Where project-specific analysis
determines that objectionable odors will occur, the City shall require mitigation
measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.6-14 through 3.6-20, and 3.6-35.
3.2.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Impact: Under forecasted business-as-usual conditions, and accounting for. the full
extent of the growth permitted under the General Plan, Lake Elsinore's CHG emissions
are projected to increase to 1,064,565 MT C02e in 2020, which is equivalent to 7.4 MT
C02e per resident or employee in the City's service population, and to 2,028,819 MT
C02e in 2030, which equates to 6.7 MT C02e per resident or employee in the City's
service population .
..
G EN E RA L P l. A N l.f P D A T E
FINAL PROGR.AM EIR
DECEMBER 2011
PAGE 63
~---LAK._E OLSIN,ORf; FINDINGS OF FACT
3.2.8
a.
~ DREAM E)(TREME
of comprehensively addressing the cumulative impacts of projects (see CEQA
Guidelines, Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(c)).
Table 3.7-8 in the RP-EIR provides a summary of the GHG reductions that would result
from the state-level and local measures listed above in Table 3.7-6 of the RP-EIR.
Together, the measures would reduce emissions by 399,244 MT COie by 2020 and
768,105 MT C02e by 2030. As a result, 2020 emissions would be 665,341 MT C02e or 4.6
MT COie/SP in 2020 and 1,263,966 MT COie or 4.2 MT C02e in 2030. Therefore,
implementation of the strategies and measures set forth in the proposed Climate Action
Plan and compliance with the proposed GPU goals, policies and implementation
measures will reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions to below target levels and will
not conflict with an applicable plan, policy. or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, inasmuch as the City will be
able to achieve established AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 target GHG emission
reduction levels, the proposed project will result in less-than-significant impacts
associated with CHG emissions.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.7-32 through 3.7-34 and Table 3.14-6 (Climate Action Plan
Strategies and Measures), pages 4.0-11 through 4.0-12; General Plan Chapter 4.0
(Resource Protection and Preservation) Goal 14, Policies 14.1 through 14.4 and related
Implementation Program.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts on
the various habitats present throughout the Gty and SOI that support candidate,
sensitive, or special status plant and animal species. Habitat impacts include direct
removal through clearing and development, as well as indirect encroachment by new
uses placed in or adjacent to natural areas, which in turn would affect plant and wildlife
species residing within the area, including special-status species.
Although it is the intent of the proposed project to minimize habitat impacts, future
projects permitted by the GPU. Land Use Plan may result in significant impacts and
could result in inconsistencies between City policy and land use decision-making and
the adopted policies and goals of the. MSHCP.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
..
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measures are required: ·
C;ENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FTNA.L PH.OGRAM E.lR
l>EC;EMBER 2011
PAGE 65
FINDINGS OF FAC"r
C!TYOF~
LAI(_~ 6Lsi-NO_Rl_E
.. DREAM E.XTREME
MM Biological Resources 1: Project-specific analysis of plant and wildlife impacts and habitat
impacts completed in accordance with the MSHCP will be required to determine the significance
of impacts and identiftJ mitigation measures to. reduce the impacts of future developments on
plant and wildlife species and vegetation communities to less-than-significant levels.
MM Biological Resources 2: Project-specific analysis of habitat impacts and. impacts on
special-status wildlife species completed in accordance with the MSHCP and the Resource
Protection and Presen,ation Chapter, Biological Resources Section, Goal 1, Policies 1.1-1.8 and
Policy 2.2 will be required to determine the significance of impacts and identifiJ mitigation
measures to minimize the impacts to less-than-significant 1.evels. ·
Finding/ Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that
implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts on the
various habitats present throughout the City and SOI that support candidate, sensitive,
or special status plant and animal species. Habitat impacts include direct removal
through clearing and development, as well as indirect encroachment by new uses placed
in or adjacent to natural areas, which in tum would affect plant and wildlife species
residing within the area, including special-status species. Although it is the intent of the
proposed project to minimize habitat impacts, future projects permitted by the GPU
Land Use Plan may result in significant impacts and could result in inconsistencies
between City policy and land use decision-making and the adopted policies and goals of
theMSHCP.
However, sufficient safeguards are in place in the form of federal, state, regional, and
.local laws, ordinances, plans, and policies to ensure the maximum feasible preservation
of, and minimum feasible adverse impacts upon, sensitive habitats and. candidate,
sensitive, and/ or endangered species within the GPU planning area and to ensure
project-level consistency with MSHCP as well as· the requirements of other resource
agencies charged with habitat and species protection. With implementation of the
mitigation measures listed above, project impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant
levels. The mitigation will reduce the impacts associated the proposed project because
individual projects implemented pursuant to the Proposed Land Use Plan will be
required identify project-specific impacts as required by LEMC Chapter 19.04 (Habitat
Conservation) and would be conditioned to provide mitigation for these potential
impacts. In •addition, future projects will be required to demonstrate a reduction in
!mpacts to habitat through implementation of the City's continued participation in the
PAGE 66
C;ENl';'.RAL PLAN lJt>DATR
FINAL PROGR.AM E.IR
DECEMUER 2011
______ j
CJTYOFA
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RJ;_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM EXTREME
MSHCP including the completion of a MSHCP consistency analysis pursuant to the
City's LEAP program, and the MSHCP. The consistency analysis requires site-specific
biological surveys and jurisdictional delineations pursuant to existing federal, state,
regional, and local regulations and ordinances.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.8-20 through 3.8-34 and 3.8-46 through 3.8-48; General Plan
Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation, Goal 1, Policies 1.1 through 1.8, Goal
2, Policies 2.1, through 2.3 and Policy 3.1, and related Implementation Programs, General
Plan District Plan Goals and Policies.
b. Impact: Future development proposed in accordance with the proposed project could
result in temporary and/ or permanent impacts on wetland habitat and wetland features
within the City and the SOI, including Lake Elsinore, the San Jacinto River, and the
Temescal Wash. Project development could disturb wetland habitat, result in
dredge/fill activities in creeks and rivers, or result in increased sedimentation to
wetland features that could adversely affect the feature's viability as a biological
resource as a result of site grading, and project drainage. In addition, adverse impacts
could occur as a result of activities such as watercourse modification, development-
required hardening of slopes adjacent to sensitive watercourses, construction of bridges
and crossings, and the introduction of non-native invasive species into wetland or
vernal pool habitats. Due to the programmatic level of environmental analysis
conducted for this RP-EIR and the lack of site-specific information available, such as
grading plans for potential future development projects, the full extent of potential
biological impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project is not
quantifiable at this time.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s}:
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Biological Resources 3: Individual environmental review conducted for future
development projects will be required to identifiJ any impacts on riparian areas and wetlands and,
in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies and applicable regional plans, must ensure
incorporation of adequate mitigation to presenJe the viabilihJ of these important biological
resources.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
. on the environment.
(:;ENERAL PLAN l.f POATE
F 1.N ·"-L PROGRAM EI R
DECEMBER 2011
PAGF. 67
CITY OF A
FINDINGS OF FACT LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RI_E
c.
-v. DREAM E;(TREME
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that development
proposed in accordance with the proposed project has the potential to result in
significant wetland impacts. Individual environmental review conducted for furore
development projects must identify any impacts on wetlands and, in consultation with
the appropriate resource agencies, must ensure incorporation of adequate mitigation to
preserve the viability of these important biological resources.
However, existing federal, State, regional and local regulatory environment as well as
the implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs of the MSHCP
and the City GPU provide sufficient protection to riparian areas and wetlands within the
proposed project planning area, including all District Plan areas and the 3rd Street
Annexation Area. Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation measure listed
above, the proposed project and furore development projects pursuant to proposed
project will have a less-than-significant impact on riparian areas and wetlands. The
mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with furore projects implemented
pursuant to the Proposed Land Use Plan because individual environmental review
conducted for future development projects will be required to identify any impacts on
wetlands and, in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies and applicable
regional plans, must ensure incorporation of adequate mitigation to preserve the
viability of these important biological resources. ·
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.8-20 through 3.8-34 and 3.8-48 through 3.8-50; General Plan
Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preservation; Goal l, Policies 1.1 through 1.8, Goal
2, Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and Policy 3.1, and related Implementation Programs, General
Plan District Plan Goals and Policies.
Impact: Implementation of the future projects permitted pursuant to the proposed
project could result in the loss of established wildlife movement corridors and the loss or
disturbance of nesting habitat for avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals; policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measures are required:
MM Biological Resources 4: Not more than thirty days prior to construction activities that
occur between"Februan; 1 and August 15 of any year, survetJS for nesting bird species shall be
r;_onducted btJ a qualified biologist selected btJ the developer and approved by the CihJ. If no active
PAGE 68
(; r,: N E It A L P LA N lJ P D A .T E
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
Dl:':CEMBE.R 201 '.I
. - • ··---. ·---·~-........................ j
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITYOFA
LAK._E 61si-NO_RI_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
derived from it, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative
biological resource impacts within either the Elsinore Area Plan jurisdiction area or the
area covered by the LESJW A.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of nlitigation measures MM Biological Resources 1
through MM Biological Resources 5 is required.
Findings/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented .in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed
project is consistent with implementation of MSHCP and with the Stephens' Kangaroo
Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) and therefore will have a less-than-significant
impact upon the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
While the proposed project would not result in any specific development project, the
proposed GPU Land Use Plan could facilitate future developments. Future
development activities could result in potential conflicts with plans and policies that are
designed to mitigate avoid potential environmental affects. However, implementation
of existing State, federal, regicinal, and local regulatory requirements, including GPU
goals, policies and implementation programs, together with implementation .of the
above-listed mitigation measu:res, would ensure that implementation of the proposed
project, and ~e future development projects derived from it, would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative biological resource impacts within
either the Elsinore-Area Plan jurisdiction area or the area covered by the LESJW A, and is
therefore impacts upon biological resources are not considered to be cumulatively
significant. ·
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.8-20 through 3.8-34 and 4.0-7 through 4.0-8; General Plan
Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and Preseivation, Goal 1, Policies 1.1 through 1.8, Goal
2, Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and Policy 3.1, and related Implementation Programs, General
Plan District1?1.an Goals and Policies.
PAGE 70
('.;ENERAL PLAN l)POATF.
FlNAL PROGRAM E.]R
DT::c::EMBE.R 201 ·1
CITY OF A
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RJ_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM EXTREME
3.2.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Impact: Development consistent with the GPU could result in increased non-point
source and point source contamination from common urban sources, construction
activity, and vehicle use. This pollution could have a potentially significant impact on
surface and groundwater quality.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Hydrology 1: The following goals and policies of the GPU must be implemented as a part of
future development to mitigate potential impacts associated with 1) alteration of drainage
patterns and associated erosion; 2) de1.1elopment within the 100 year floodplain and 3) water
quality:
• Flooding and Floodplains Policies 5.1-5.2
• Water Resources Policies 4.1-4.4
• Biological Resources Policies 1.1-1.8 and 2.1-2.2
Findings/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that development
consistent with the GPU could result in increased non-point source and point source
contamination from common urban sources, construction activity, and vehicle use. The
increased pollutants carried in runoff into the sqeams, rivers, and lake in and around
the City is a potentially significant impact of the implementation of the GPU. Impacts on
surface water quality also affect groundwater quality because groundwater is recharged
through percolation in the watercourses and in exposed soils.
GPU Biological Resources Policies 1.1-1.4 require the City to adhere to MSHCP policies
and encourage barriers between development and MSHCP Conservation Areas. These
policies protect the water and hydrology of the San Jacinto River, which is proposed to
have a buff~r of open space and floodway designation. · In addition, Policy 2.2
discourages development in riparian areas, ""'.hich will help protect the natural
· drainages from alteration. Water Resources Policies 4.1, and 4.2 require development
G: E N E R A L P L A N l.l P D AT E
I•' IN AL PROGRAM E] R
DECEMBER 20 I .I
PAGE 71
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITYOFA.
LAK_E 6Lsi-NO_RI_E
~ DREAM E)(TREME
projects to obtain an NPDES permit and implementing BMPs is an effective way to
reduce the amount of pollutants being discharged into the drainage system. Biological
Resources Policies 1.1 ~hrough 1.4 call for implementation of the MSHCP to preserve
wetlands and natural drainages which drain into Lake Elsinore, such as the waterways
of the San Jacinto River. In addition, project level assessment must be prepared for any
future development for hydrology or groundwater and surface water quality impacts.
Because the lake is polluted, Water Resources Goal 4 and its related policies, address
protecting and improving the water quality of the lake. Implementing Flooding and
Floodplains Policies 5.1-5.2 at the project level would ensure that projects avoid
exposing people or property to flooding. Compliance with the goals, policies and
implementation programs of the proposed project and implementation of mitigation
measure MM Hydrology·l will reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant-levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.9-18 through 3.9-33; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety
and Welfare) Goal 5, Policies 5.1 and 5.2 and related Implementation Program, Chapter
4.0 (Resources Protection and Preservation) Goal 1, Polices 1.1 through 1.4, Policy 2.2,
Goal 4, Policies 4.1 through 4.4 and related Implementation Program.
b. Impact: Development consistent with the GPU could result in altered drainage patterns,
significantly increasing the potential for erosion throughout the City, especially where
hillsides are developed with residential uses.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):·
Same as mitigation measure MM Hydrology 1, above.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. ,
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
. contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that development
consistent with the GPU could result in altered drainage patterns, significantly
increasing the potential for erosion throughout the City, especially where hillsides are
developed with residential uses. Alteration of drainage patterns would result in
substantial erosion within the City. Impacts on drainage patterns within the City and
SOI can be mitigated by goals and policies of the GPU. The following goals and policies
for biological resources, open space, and water quality address the hydrologic resources
issues. Biological Resources Policies 1.1-1.4 require the City to adhere to MSHCP
. policies and encourage barriers between development and areas described for
PAGE: .72
(:;ENERAL PLAN lJPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 201 'I
CITYOFA .
LAI(E 6LSI_N_O_Rl_E
c.
FfNDL\GS OF FACT
~ DREAM l:;,(TREME
·--'-------------·--··-·--
conservation as a part of the MSHCP. These policies protect the water and hydrology of
the San Jacinto River, which is proposed to have a buffer of open space and MSHCP
land. In addition, Policy 2.2 discourages development in riparian areas, which will help
protect the natural drainages from alteration. Therefore, compliance with the goals,
policies and implementation programs of the proposed project and implementation of
mitigation measure MM Hydrology 1 will reduce potential impacts to less-than-
significant-levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.9-33 through 3.9-34; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety
and Welfare) Goal 5, Policies 5.1 and 5.2 and related Implementation Program, Chapter
4.0 (Resources Protection and Preservation) Goal 1, Polices 1.1 through 1.4, Policy 2.2,
Goal 4, Policies 4.1 through 4.4 and related Implementation Program.
Impact: Increased development throughout the City and SOI would potentially result in
significant alteration of the drainage patterns by altering or extending grading within
any of these streams. Any development within the 100-year floodplain would be subject
to potentially significant flooding impacts.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
Same as mitigatfon measure MM Hydrology 1, above.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based · upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that portions of
future development consistent with the GPU would be subject to 100-year flooding
within the City and development within the 100-year floodplain would be a potentially
significant impact. However, the following GPU policies avoid exposing people or
property to flooding: Flooding and Floodplains Policies 5.1-5.2. These policies require
new development to be constructed above the 100-year base flood elevation, in
conformance with all applicable provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program
and that the City utilize the Capital Improvement Program for storm drainage projects
and maintenance and improvement of local storm drain systems including channels,
pipes, and inlets to ensure capacity for maximum runoff flows. Therefore, compliance
with existing,.regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measure MM
Hydrology 1 will reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.
(:;ENEHAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM E.IR
DECEMBER 2011
PAGE 73
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OFA
LAKE 6Lsi_N_O_RJ_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
References: RP-EIR, page 3.9-34; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare)
Goal 5, Policies 5.1 and 5.2 and related Implementation Program.
d. Impact: Increased development throughout the project area and throughout western
Riverside County could result in increased non-point source and point source
contamination from conunon urban sources, construction activity, and vehicle use.
Additionally, more people could be exposed to potential flooding and impacts from
debris flows. However, through compliance with existing regulatory requirements,
compliance with the goals, policies and implementation programs of the proposed GPU
and implementation of mitigation measure MM Hydrology 1 potential cumulative
impacts related to hydrology and water quality will be less than significant.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measure MM Hydrology 1 is required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the. RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that development
consistent with the GPU could result in increased non-point source and point source
contamination from common urban sources, construction activity, and vehicle use. The
increased pollutants carried in runoff into the streams, rivers, and lake in and around
the City is a potentially signilicant impact of the implementation of the GPU. Impacts on
surface water quality also affect groundwater quality because groundwater is recharged
through percolation in the watercourses and in exposed soils.
GPU Biological Resources Policies 1.1-1.4 require the City to adhere to MSHCP policies
and encourage barriers between development and MSHCP Conservation Areas. These
policies protect the water and hydrology of the San Jacinto River, which is proposed to
have a buffer of open space and floodway designation. In addition, Policy 2.2
discourages development in riparian areas, which· will help protect the natural
drainages from alteration. Water Resources Policies 4.1, and 4.2 require development
projects to obtain an NPDES permit and implementing BMPs is an effective way to
reduce the amount of pollutants being discharged into the drainage system. Biological
Resources P~licies 1.1 through 1.4 call for implementation of the MSHCP to preserve
.wetlands and natural drainages which drain into Lake Elsinore, such as the waterways
PAGE 74
()ENERAL PL,"-N (JPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM EIR.
DECEMBER 2011
CITY OF A
~ ·---LAK._E C)LSINOR,I
~ DREAM E;(TREME
FfND!NGS OF FACT
of the San Jacinto River. In addition, project level assessment must be prepared for any
future development for hydrology or groundwater and surface water quality impacts.
Because the lake is polluted, Water Resources Goal 4 and its related policies, address
protecting and improving the water quality of the lake. Implementing Flooding and
Floodplains Policies 5.1-5.2 at the project level would ensure that projects avoid
exposing people or property to flooding. Compliance with the goals, policies and
implementation programs .of the proposed project and implementation of mitigation
measure MM Hydrology 1 will reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant-levels.
References: RP-EIR, pages 4.0-14 through 4.0-15; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety
· and Welfare) Goal 5, Policies 5.1 and 5.2 and related Implementation Program, Chapter
4.0 (Resources Protection and Preservation) Goal 1, Polices 1.1 through 1.4, Policy 2.2,
Goal 4, Policies 4.1 through 4.4 and related Implementation Program.
3.2.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Impact: Increased development throughout the City and SOI in accordance with the
4nd Use Plan could expose people to potentially significant hazards from use of
hazardous materials and the disposal of hazardous waste.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implenientation of the goals, polides and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measures are required:
MM Hazards 1: Individual· projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be
required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with use and storage of
hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous waste through implementation of Policies 3.1
through 3.4 ·of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Public SafehJ and Welfare
chapter.
MM Hazards 2: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan within the
District Plans will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated
with exposure to hazardous materials through implementation of PolictJ 3.5 of the Hazards and
Hazardous Materials section of the Public SafehJ and Welfare chapter. Pro-posed develc,pment
projects on or adjacent to the SARI line in these districts would be required to analyze risks
specific to sensitive lqnd uses and the extent of the subsurface components invofoed with building
in these locations . ..
GF,NERAL PLAN l.JPl>ATf:
F.INAI .• PROGRAM .El:R.
DECEMBER 2011
PAG.E 75
·.,
.'.-;
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A ·----
LAKE .6LS1NORJ:
~ DREAM E;{TREME
MM Hazards 3: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan within the 3rd
Street Annexation will be reqidred to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts
associated with use and storage of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous waste through
implementation of Policies 3.1 through 3.4 of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the
Public SafehJ and Welfare chapter.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that an increase in
the generation, storage, and disposal of household hazardous wastes would be
associated with buildout of the GPU. In addition to increased household sources of
hazardous materials and waste~ new commercial and industrial land uses proposed
under the GPU could also indirectly increase hazardous materials use and waste
generation as more facilities are built. Commercial and industrial generators of
hazardous waste are strictly regulated by the Riverside County Fire Department and
applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All new development allowed under the
GPU would be subject to these regulations. In addition to regulations, the policies under
Goal 3 of the Hazardous Materials section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter
provide measures to ensure that waste reduction programs are implemented by waste
generators and that regulations are strictly adhered to and regular inspections are
performed to ensure that safe use and storage practices are in place for commercial and
industrial operations. Potential impacts from population increase under the GPU and
potential hazards from the use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials; exposure
of employees to hazardous working conditions; and the creation of a substantial risk to
public health or safety due to unusual risk of accident would be potentially significant.
Therefore, through compliance with the goals, policies and implementation programs of
the proposed GPU and implementatjon of the mitigation measures listed above would
reduce the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project,
including the Proposed Land Use Plan and GPU, to less-than-significant levels. The
mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with future projects because Goal 3 and
its associated policies under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Public
Safety and Welfare chapter of the GPU include measures to keep all hazardous materials
generators within the City and SOI in compliance with regulations and continue to
avoid any public health and safety impacts. Individual projects implemented pursuant
to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant ..
impacts associated with· use and storage of hazardous materials and disposal of
PAGF.76
GE:NE.RAL PLAN l.JPDATE
FINAL PROGR.AM EIR
DECEMBER 2011
I
.-. ,-.. -~J
CITYOF~
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RI_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E,J(TREME
hazardous waste through implementation of Policies 3.1 through 3.4 of the Hazards and
Hazardous Materials section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter. These policies
require continuation of household hazardous waste collection and education programs.
Hazardous waste generators must also be in compliance with the Riverside County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.10-12, 3.10-16, and 3.10-20 through 3.10-23; General Plan
Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), Goal 3, Policies 3.1 through 3.5 and related
Implementation Program.
b. Impact: The Land Use Plan would allow development of residential and commercial
uses in the vicinity of the airport. However, no features of the GPU or the Land Use
Plan would conflict with requirements of the FAA regarding proximity of development
to airports. All future development proposed within proximity to the airport would be
required to comply with FAA regulations to ensure that future residents or employees
are not subject to significant hazards.
The potential inconsistencies of future development with the densities allowed for in the
Land Use Planning Handbook are considered to be a potentially significant land use
compatibility impact at a progranunatic level.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to frnplementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Hazards 4: Proposed development projects within the Skylark Airport Influence Area, as
shown on Figure 2. 7 of the General Plan, will be evaluated for consistenciJ with continued
operations at the airport. The project applicant of each such development project slmll comply
with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding any
encroachment into the airport's navigable airspace in accordtmce with Federal A-oiation
Regulations (FAR) Part 77.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in The Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the Land Use
Plan would allow development of residential and commercial uses in the vicinity of the
(::; E N E RA L P L A N lJ P D A TE
F.lNAL PH.OGRAM F'.IR
DECEMBER 2011
PAGE 77
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITYOF~ •
LAKE 6LS1_N_0_Rl_E
~ DREAM E;(TREME
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measures MM Hazards 1 through MM
Hazards 5 is required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the increase
in local population and employment that will occur with implementation of the
proposed project in conjunction with development elsewhere in western Riverside
County; would result in the increased use of hazardous household, commercial and
industrial materials and increased exposure from use of hazardous materials and the
disposal of hazardous waste and to hazards related to wildland fires and airport
operations.
With implementation of the policies of the GPU, all project-related impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. State,
federal, regional and local regulations would apply to development within the project
area and throughout western Riverside County, thereby reducing the potential for
cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to a less-than-
significant level. The proposed project's incremental contribution to these impacts
would be less than cumulatively considerable.
References: RP-EIR, pages 4.0-13 through 4.0-14; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety
and Welfare), Goal 3, Policies 3.1 through 3;5, Goal 4, Policies 4.1 through 4.4, goal 5,
Policies 5.1 and 5.2 and the related Implementation Programs.
3.2.11 GEOLOGY/SOILS
a. Impact: Increased development throughout the City and SOI in accordance with
proposed project has the potential to cause impacts involving exposure of people or
property to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving ruphlre·of a known earthquake
fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s): ..
PAGE 80
(:;ENERAL PLAN lJPDATE
FfNAL PROGRA.M EI.R
DF.C£MB£R 2011
CITYOFA
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RI_E FINDJNGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E)(TREME ____ _;;_. __
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
tire proposed GPU, tire following mitigation measures are required:
MM Geology and Soils 1: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the proposed project
will be required to demonstrate their m,oidance of significant impacts associated with seismic
hazards including ground-shaking, liquefaction, landslides, subsidence and collapse through
implementation of all goals and policies under tire Land Use section of the Community Form
Chapter and the Seismic Activity section of tire Public Safeti; and Welfare chapter of tire GPU.
MM Geology and Soils 2: The CihJ shall continue to enforce tire seismic design provisions for
Seismic Zone 4 of the California Building Code, including near-source seismic conditions for all
new construction in the City.
Finding/Facts in Support of the· Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that increased
development throughout the City and SOI in accordance with proposed project has the
potential to cause impacts involving exposure of people or property to the risk· of loss,
injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground
shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, or collapse.
However, the City regulates development (and reduces potential seismic impacts) under
the requirements of the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) ·(adopted and modified by
the Elsin_ore Municipal Code Title 15) and project-specific mitigation measures. The
potential seismic hazards would be sufficiently mitigated for buildings designed and
constructed in conformance with· current CBC and industry-accepted engineering
standards. Moreover, the General Plan Update proposes, through _implementation of
Chapter 3, Policy 6.1, to take actions to encourage structural repairs to buildings and
structures to meet current Building Code standards related to seismic safety. This action
could reduce potential structural damage, particularly of existing, aging structures.
Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with the provisions of
Chapters 17.28 and 17.32 of the City's Zoning Code (Title 17 LEMC) that would reduce
seismic hazards to less-than-significant levels. Among other requirements, applicants of
future development within the City would be required to -prepare geological and
geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards, as part of
· the environmental impact and development review process. Regulatory requirements
Gli:NJ.:RAL PLAN lJPI>ATE
FINAL PROGH.AM E.IR
DECEMBER 201 I
PAGI;:'. 81
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF ,ti;..,
LAKE 6Lsi-NO_PJ_E
~ DREAM E;(TREME
and GPU goals, policies and implementation programs that would be implemented
during the project review process include:
• Continue to require Alquist-Priolo and other seismic analyses be conducted for
new development to identify the potential for ground shaking, liquefaction,
slope failure, seismically induced landslides, expansion and settlement of soils,
and other related geologic hazards for areas of new development in accordance
with the Fault Rupture Hazard Overlay District adopted by the City of Lake
Elsinore Zoning Code. The City may require site-specific remediation measures
during permit review that may be implemented to minimize impacts in these
areas. [GPU Public Safety and Welfare Policy 6.3, LEMC Chapter 17.32 and Title
15]
• Through project review and the CEQA processes the City shall assess new
development and reuse applications for potential hazards, and shall require
compliance with Alquist-Priolo and other guidelines where appropriate. The
City shall not approve proposals and projects for development or
redevelopment, which do not provide for mitigation of seismic or geologic
hazards to the satisfaction of the reviewing departments and agencies. [GPU ,
Public Safety and Welfare Implementation Program, LEMC Chapters 17.28 and
17.32]
• The City shall require preliminary geological investigations of tract sites by State-
registered geotechnical engineers and certified engineering geologists (in
accordance with the California Building Code). [LEMC Title 15]
Therefore, with project-level compliance with the goals, policies and implementation
programs of the proposed project, provisions of the City's Munidpal Code, and the 2010
CBC, and implementation of the above-listed mitigation measures, there would be less
than significant impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects involving seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground
shaking, ground lurching/ settlement, and liquefaction/lateral spreading.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.11-20 through 3.11-24 and 3.11-26 through 3.11-32; General
Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) Goal 6, Policies 6.1 and 6.2 and related
Implementation Program.
b. Impact: Increased development throughout the City and SOI in accordance with the
proposed project would increase the potential for significant exposure of people or
property to the risk of property loss, injury, or death resulting from expansive and
corrosive soils hazards. ·
PAG.E 82
(:iEN•:RAL PLAN lJPDAT'f.:
F.1NAL PROGRAM E.IR
DECEMBER 2011
J
CITY OF~ •----
LA}(J: 6LSINO~ FINDINGS OF FACT.
~ DREAM E;(TREME
---------------·
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies nnd implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Geology and Soils 3: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the proposed project
will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with expansil!e
or corrosive soils through implementation of the policies under the Seismic ActivitlJ section of the
Public Safety and Welfare chapter.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that expansive
and corrosive soils are widely distributed throughout Riverside County and likely exist
within the City and its SOI. Increased development throughout the City and SOI in
accordance with the proposed project would increase the potential for significant
exposure of people or property to the risk of property loss, injury, or death resulting
from expansive and corrosive soils hazards.
The potential impacts associated with expansive and corrosive soils would be
sufficiently mitigated for buildings designed and constructed in conformance with
current CBC and industry-accepted engineering standards. Additionally, in accordance
. with Policy 6.2 of the Seismic Activity section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter of
the GPU applicants for future development within the City and its SOI would be
required to prepare geological and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential
seismic or · geologic hazards; as part of the environmental impact and development
review process. With project-level compliance with the goals, policies and
implementation programs of the proposed project, the cited provisions of the Municipal
Code, and 2010 CBC requirements, and implementation of the mitigation measure listed
above, there would be less-than-significant ixnpacts involving risks af?Sociated with
expansive and corrosive soils. ·
References: RP-BIR, pages 3.11-20 through 3.11-24 and 3.11-33; General Plan Chapter
3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) Goal 6, Policies 6.1 and 6.2 and related Implementation
Program. ., ·
GENERAL PL .... N UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM E.IR
DECEMBER 20"1 .1
PAG 1,: 83
~ ..
--~-
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A ·-· ---
LAKE 6LS1N0Rf
~ DREAM E;(TREME
c. Impact: With implementation of the policies of the GPU as, previously cited, the
applicable provisions of the LEMC, and proposed mitigation measures, potential
cumulative impacts related to geotechnical hazards, expansive soils, corrosive soils,
landslides and subsidence within the City and SOI would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies ai1d implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measures MM Geology and Soils 1 through
MM Geology and Soils 3 is required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that future
development pursuant to the General Plan Update within the City and its SOI,
considered with other cumulative projects in the region, could incrementally increase in
the number of people and properties potentially exposed to impacts involving seismic or
geologic hazards. However, the City would regula.te future cumulative development
under the requirements of the Title 15, Title 17.28 and 17.32 of the LEMC, the goals,
policies and implementation programs of the GPU, and project-specific mitigation
measures. Impacts involving _ seismic and geologic hazards · would be sufficiently
addressed by designing and constructing buildings in conformance with current
California Building Cod (CBq and industry-accepted engineering standards.
Additionally, all future development in the GPU planning area would be subject to
compliance with GPU rublic Safety and Wellare and Land Use policies and properties
that are exposed to higher risk would be required to comply with the provisions of
LEMC Title 17.32 and 17.28 and thus would be required to prepare geological and
geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards, as part of
the environmental impact and development review process. With adherence to the cited
GPU policies, the mitigation measures listed above, the provisions of the cited sections
of the LEMC, and CBC requirements for allfuture development within the City and its
SOI, the General Plan Update's contribution to geologic cumulative effects is considered
less than cumulatively considerable and potential impacts will be less than significant . ..
PAGE 84
GENERAL PLAN lJPDAT1':
FINAL PRO<:~R, .. M E.IR
DECEMBER 201)
•y -·-·· ..... ---_j
FINDINGS OF E.\CT
CITY OF A . ·----
LAI(J: 6,LSINOR,J:
~ DREAM E;(TREME
in development allowed under the proposed Land Use Plan would require increases in
the availability and adequacy of public services including police and fire protection,
schools, libraries, and animal control services. Potential substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision and construction of new or physically altered
governmental facilities would result from implementation of the district plans in
accordance with the proposed Land Use Plan. These impacts would occur as a result of
maintaining acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
for these public services and facilities.
However, with implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs of
the GPU and the mitigation measure listed above, potential impacts on public facilities
and services within the City and SOI would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The mitigation would reduce the impacts associated with future projects because the
goals and policies of the GPU requfre coordination with the responsible agencies to
ensure that future projects would provide adequate facilities and would not adversely
affect the ability of the agency to meet existing or future demand.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.14-11, 3.14-12 and 3.14-15 through 3.14-22; General Plan
Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 1, Policy 1.6, Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and
Welfare), Goal 8, Policies 8.1 through 8.4, Goal 9, Policies 9.1 through 9a2, Goal 10, Goal
11, Policies 11.1 and 11.1, and related Implementation Programs, General Plan Country
Club Heights District Plan Goal 6a, Policy CCH 6.1 and related Implementation
Program, and Lake View District Plan Goal 1.
b. Impact: With the population growth allowed by the Proposed Land Use Plan,
cumulative impacts are inevitable. With the provisions made in the goals and policies in
planning efforts by County agencies and other service providers, implementation of
future development in accordance with the Proposed Land Use Plan would not have
significant cumulative impacts upon these services.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of tire goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measures MM Public Services 1 is required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. ..
PAGE 86
C;ENER,\L Pl.AN UPDATE.
FINAL PU.OGRAM E.IR
DJ::CEMBE:R 201'1
CITY Of A .
LAKJ 6LSI_N_O_RI_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E)(TREME
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Parks and Recreation 1: Indfriidual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan
will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with communihJ
sen>ices related to parks and recreation through in1plementation of the following:
• Policies under Goals 8 and 9 of the Parks and Recreation section of the CommunihJ Form
chapter.
• Policies 1.1 and 2.1 of the CommunihJ Form chapter, Land Use section.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the increase
in development allowed under the Land Use Plan would require increases in availability
and adequacy of parks and other recreational facilities would potentially result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the increased use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The goals and
policies pertaining to parks and recreation in the GPU include extensive measures to
provide adequate parkland, programs, and recreational facilities and opportunities and
establish funding mechanisms to ensure quality recreational services that meet the needs
of the population as it grows. These policies and implementation programs require that
the City:
• continue to utilize the City of Lake Elsinore Parks and Recreation Master Plan as
a guide for decision-making and implementation of the Parks and Recreation
Program,
• meet parkland acreage requirements,
• require accessibility for special needs individuals,
• develop a trails network for equestrians and hikers,
• utilize the development review process to examine existing and future needs for
park facilities and programs to ensure adequate quantity, quality, type and
distribution, ..
PAGE 88
(·;ENERAL PLAN l.JPDATE
FJNAL PROGRAM E.IR
DEC.EMBER 2011
CJTYOFA
LAKE 6Lsi_N._O_RJ;_E
b.
FINDJNGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E}(TREME
• require parkland in-lieu or exaction fees or parkland dedication for new
developments, and
• explore the use of public-private partnerships, corporate sponsorships, and
leasing agreements that provide for additional parks and recreational facilities.
• utilize the development review process to examine existing and future needs for
park facilities and programs to ensure adequate quantity, quality, type and
distribution.
• include Policies 1.1 and 2.1 of the Community Form chapter, Land Use section
because policies pertaining to land use include measures that require open space
dedication and encourage development .of recreational uses; Policy 2.1 also
encourages development of parks around the Lake.
The land use designations shown on the proposed Land Use Plan and the goals, policies
and implementation programs under the Parks and Recreation section and the Land Use
section of the Community Form chapter and the District Plans of the Gf-'U include
measures to reduce potential impacts on parks, recreation, and open space. Therefore,
with implementation of those goals, policies and implementation programs and the
mitigation measure listed above, potential impacts would be considered less than
signif~cant at a programmatic level. Individual projects implemented pursuant to the
Proposed Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant
impacts associated with community services related to parks and recreation through
implementation of these goals and policies.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.15-18 through 3.15-23; General Plan Chapter 2.0
(Community Form) Goal 1, Policy 1.1, Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.5, Goal 8, Policies
8.1 through 8.7, Goal 9, Policy 9.1 and related Implementation Programs, and General
Plan District Plan Goals and Policies.
Impact: The proposed project will provide sufficient acreage to meet the projected parks
needs of the residents of the City of Lake Elsinore. Inasmuch as the City will be able to
provide adequate park and recreation services to serve its future population, potential
impacts are not considered to be cumulatively significant.
Mitigation: The impact will be mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s}:
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the -proposed CSPU, implementation of mitigation measure MM Parks and Recreation 1 is
~equired.
C;f:NlsRAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM l~JR
DECEMBER 20"1 I
PAGE 89
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A
LAI(_E 6Lsi_N_O_RJ;_E
~ DREAM E)(TREME
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that the increase
in development allowed under the proposed Land Use Plan would require increases in
availability and adequacy of parks and other recreational facilities. The goals and
policies pertaining to parks and recreation in the GPU include extensive measures to
provide adequate parkland, programs, and recreational facilities and opportunities and
establish funding mechanisms to ensure quality recreational services that meet the needs
of the population as it grows.
There are 16 existing park facilities (approximately 125.1 acres) and four recreational
facilities totaling 21,000 square feet in the City of Lake Elsinore, with 12 additional parks
and three recreational facilities slated for future development. However, the dominant
parkland in the City is Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore is the largest natural freshwater lake
in southern California with 3,000 surface acres and over 14 miles of shoreline and
includes the 86-acre Lake Elsinore Recreational Area Campground. Although not
designated as recreational land by the proposed Land Use Plan, this property is and will
for perpetuity be used for public park and recreation purposes. Therefore, the proposed
project will provide sufficient acreage to meet the projected parks needs of the residents
of the City of Lake Elsinore. Inasmuch as the City will be able to provide adequate park
and recreation services to serve its future population, potential impacts are not
considered to be cumulatively significant. With implementation of the policies of the
GPU and the above-cited mitigation measure, potential cumulative impacts related to
parks and recreation within will be less than significant.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.15-2 through 3.15-9, pages 4.0-19 through 4.0-20; General
Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 1, Policy 1.1, Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.5,
Goal 8, Policies 8.1 through 8.7, Goal 9, Policy 9.1 and related Implementation Programs,
and General Plan District Plan Goals and Policies.
3.3 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACTS NOT
FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Environmental impacts identified in the Final RP-EIR as potentially significant but which the
City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of
all feasible mitigatiQ11 measures identified in the Final RP-EIR and set forth herein, are described
PAGE 90
c;i::NERAL PLAN Ut•DAT1''.:
F.JNAL PROGRAM EI.R
DECEMBER 201 I
_J
FINDINGS OF fACT
CITY OF~
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_R!_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the proposed project which will reduce potentially significant
effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available
that will lessen these significant impacts to a less-than-significant IeveL
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that with
implementation of the Land Use Plan all roadways within the study area would be
expected to have substantial traffic volumes and nearly all of the intersection analysis
locations would require improvements. Therefore, implementation of the GPU and
Land Use Plan could result in potentially significant impacts on traffic levels within the
City and SOI.
However, through implementation of the GPU goals, policies and implementation
programs and the above-listed mitigation measures, all study area intersections would
operate at acceptable LOS during peak hours after implementation of the proposed
improvements. In addition, some intersections currently warrant a traffic signal and
additional intersections would warrant a traffic signal with buildout of the GPU.
The actual construction of the required intersection and roadway improvements cannot
be determined with certainty. Thus, it is possible that the required improvements will
not be constructed in time to mitigate the proposed project's traffic and circulation
impacts to below the level of significance. Therefore, the proposed project will cause an
increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) and even
after mitigation, will remain significant.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.4-64 through 3.4-109 and Appendix C (3rd Street
Annexation Environmental Initial Study) and Appendix·. D (Traffic Studies); General
Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form), Goal 6, Policies 6.1 through 6.5 and related
Implementation Program, and General Plan District Plan's Goals and Policies.
b. Impact: With implementation of the Land Use Plan all roadways within the study area
would be expected to have substantial traffic volumes and nearly all of the intersection
analysis locations would require improvements. However, the actual construction of the
required intersection and roadway improvements cannot be determined with certainty.
Thus, it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to
mitigate the proposed project's traffic and circulation impacts to below the level of
significance. Therefore, cumulative impacts will remain significant and unavoidable.
PAGE 92
GENERAL PLAN lJPDATE
FINAL PROGR,\M EIR
DECEMJlf:R 2011
CJTYOFA
LAK._E 6Lsi_N_O_RJ_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E;<f REME
Mitigation: The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigati"on measures MM Transportation 1 through MM
Transportation 5 is required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the proposed project which will reduce potentially significant
effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available
that will lessen these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that with
implementation of the GPU, all roadways within the study area would be expected to
have substantial traffic volumes and nearly all of the intersection analysis locations
would require improvements assuming buildout of the City and growth in the region by
the 2030 horizon. With implementation of the Land Use Plan all roadways within the
study area would be expected to have substantial traffic volumes and nearly all of the
intersection analysis locations would require improvements. However, through
implementation of the GPU goals, policies and implementation programs and the above-
listed mitigation measures, all study -area intersections would operate at acceptable LOS
during peak hours after implementation of the proposed improvements.
However, the actual construction of the required intersection and roadway
improvements cannot be determined with certainty. Thus, it is possible that the required
improvements will not be constructed in time to mitigate the proposed project's traffic
and circulation . impacts to below the level of significance. Therefore, the proposed
project will cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the. number of vehicle trips, the volume to · capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections) and even after mitigation, cumulative impacts will remain significant and
unavoidable
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.4-64 through 3.4-109, pages 4.0-24 through 4.0-26 and
Appendix C (3rd Street Annexation Environmental Initial Study) and Appendix D
(Traffic Studies); General Plan Chapter 2.0 (Corrunurtity Form), Goal 6, Policies 6.1
through 6.5 and related Implementation Program, and General Plan District Plan's Goals
and Policies ...
GENERAL PLAN l.lJ>llATF:
FINAL PROGRAM 1:i:IR
DECEMBER 2011
PAG.E 93
CITY OF A
LAI(J: 6Lsi_N_O_RJ;_E FINDINGS OF F.-\CT
.. DREAM E)(TREME
3.3.2 NOISE
a. Impact: Implementation of the GPU would increase the number of vehicles utilizing the
local circulation system and place new receptors (including residences, conunercial
developments, etc.) near roadways that experience varying levels of traffic noise.
Additional vehicles on roadways would result in additional noise generated along the
affected roadways, and more receptors adjacent to noisy roadways would mean that
more people would potentially be affected by traffic noise conditions.
In accordance with the GPU, projects will be required to demonstrate their compliance
with the relevant noise standards, but where projects do not comply, specific mitigation
measures will be required. Due to the programmatic nature of noise analysis on this
project, such impacts and mitigation measures cannot be identified at this time.
Mitigation: The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation .of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following ·mitigation measure is required:
MM Noise 1: In accordance with the policies of the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update and the
City's Zoning Code, the CihJ shall_ reqi1ire the applicant for any future development to analyze
the impacts of increased traffic volume on noise conditions along affected roadwmJs. Vv'here
project-specific analysis concludes that noise standards may be exceeded, the CihJ shall require
binding mitigation measures that will reduce the traffic noise to acceptable le1,els.
For projects placing noise-sensitfoe land uses adjacent to or in the vicinihJ of a major roadway,
the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance with City
standards regarding traffic noise received on the site. Where project-specific analysis determines
that noise standards may be exceeded, then the CihJ shall require binding mitigation measures
that will reduce the noise received to acceptable le1.,els. However, in some cases where
realignments or upgrades of roadways are proposed or traffic levels will increase substantially like
that anticipated for 1-15, SR-74, Rillerside Drive, Grand Avenue, Lakeshore Drive, and Lake
Street there may be no mitigation that would adequately reduce future traffic noise as experienced
by existing land uses or future development projects, resulting in significant and unmitigated
impacts at tire project level.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the proposed project which will reduce potentially significant
effects on thit environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available
that will lessen these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
PAGE 94
(iENERAI~ PLAN UPl>ATle'.
F.lNAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMB.ER 20'1 l
:FINDINGS OF FACT
C!TYOFA
LAK]: 6Lsi_N_O_Rl;_E
~ DREAM E;(TREME
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22, 3.5-25 through 3.5-40, and 3.5-44
through 3.45; General Plan Chapter 3.0 (Public Health and Welfare}, Goal 7, Policies 7.1
through 7.5 and related Implementation Program.
b. Impact: Since the traffic associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the
increased traffic generated by cumulative growth would extend the 70 dBA, 65 dBA and
60dBA Ldn contours beyond existing conditions, cumulative long-term traffic-related
noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation: The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following
· mitigation measure(s):
ln addition to implenzentation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, implementation of mitigation measures MM Noise 1 through MM Noise 10
is required.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the proposed project which will reduce potentially significant
effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available
that will lessen these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that an increase in
traffic volume throughout the local and regional circulation system as a result of GPU
implementation has the potential to generate noise levels along roadway corridors that
would exceed standards set forth in the Zoning Code and the General Plan's Noise and
Land Use Compatibility Matrix · and Interior · and Exterior Noise Standards. The
corridors of I-15, SR-74, and Railroad Canyon Road are particularly sensitive to
additional traffic noise due to the substantial noise levels currently generated along
these routes. Traffic-related cumulative noise impacts were considered as part of the
noise analysis provided in Section 3.5 (Noise} of the RP-EIR, since the future traffic
projections used for the noise analysis were generated by·a traffic model that considered
growth under the proposed project in conjunction with projected area-wide traffic.
Considering that the 65 Ldn contour would extend beyond existing · conditions,
additional existing and planned residential areas in proximity to major public roadways
could be subject to exterior noise levels that exceed City standards. Since the· traffic
associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the increased traffic generated
by cumulative growth would extend the 70 dBA, 65 dBA and 60dBA Ldn contours
beyond existing conditions, cumulative long-term traffic-related noise impacts would be
significant and unavoidable. .
PAG.E 96
G1,:NERAL PLAN l.JPJ>A'rE
FI.NAL PROGRAM El R
DECEMBER 2011
CJTYOFA
LAK._E 6 LSi_N_O_RJ;_E FINDINGS OF FACI
V., DREAM E)(TREME
On a programmatic basis, all noise impacts would be less than significant if GPU
policies and the above-cited mitigation measures are implemented. It is the ultimate
intent of the GPU policies and the mitigation measures detailed above to reduce
significant noise impacts for GPU and 3rd Street Annexation projects to less-than-
significant levels. However, due to the programmatic level of noise analysis for this EIR
it is impossible to make a definitive statement that al1 noise-related impacts associated
with increased traffic noise on existing land uses and future development projects
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through policies proposed in the GPU.
This increased traffic noise would be contributing to significant and unavoidable
cumulative impacts.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22, 4.0-17 through 4.0-19; General Plan
Chapter 3.0 (Public Health and Welfare), Goal 7, Policies 7.1 through 7.5 and. related
Implementation Program.
3.3.3 AIR QUALITY
a. Impact: The development shown in the proposed Land Use Plan will generate
additional regional area-and mobile-source emissions over time from both stationary
sources and mobile sources.
GPU buildout would drastically exceed project-level emissions thresholds established
by the SCAQMD. The discrepancy between thresholds and estimated emissions are
somewhat misleading, however, as the thresholds are intended to identify individual
projects that emit excessive amounts of regulated pollutants, and the GPU is a much
larger endeavor than a stand-alone development project.
Buildout of the GPU would also result in emission of pollutants for which the SCAB is in
nonattainment of federal and/ or state standards. ·
The GPU would obstruct implementation of the AQMP by not contributing to its goals
of regional reductions of.air pollutant emissions in the region, and it would conflict with
the AQMP in its inconsistency with AQMP projections for pollutant emissions.
Mitigation: The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s):
In addition to implementation of tire goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, tire following mitigation measure is required:
GENERAL PLAN l.iPUATE
FrNAL PROGRAM EI.R
DECEMBER 2011
PAGE. 97
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A ·----
LAKJ: 6LSIN.ORJ:
V-DREAM E)(TREME
MM Air Quality 2: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be
required to demonstrate a reduction in impacts on air quality from operational emissions through
implementation of goals and policies listed within the General Plan. Where project-specific
analysis determines that air quality standards may be exceeded, the City shall require mitigation
measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable. All applicants for
future development shall comply with AQMP control measures so as to reduce this impact to the
greatest extent possible.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the proposed project which will reduce potentially significant
effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available
that will lessen these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that GPU
buildout would drastically exceed project-level emissions thresholds established by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The discrepancy between
thresholds and estimated emissions are somewhat misleading, however, as the
thresholds are 1.ntended to identify individual projects that emit excessive amounts of
regulated pollutants, and the GPU is a much larger endeavor than a stand-alone
development project. Buildout of the GPU would also result in emission of pollutants for
which the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in npnattainment of federal and/ or state
standards. The GPU would obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) by not contributing to its goals of regional reductions of air pollutant
emissions in the region, and it would conflict with the AQMP in its inconsistency with
AQMP projections for pollutant emissions
Implementation of the policies set forth in the GPU and the above-cited mitigation
measure would reduce operational emissions impacts associated with future
development in the City; however, considering that the region is in federal and state
nonattainment status for certain criteria pollutants, such policies do not ensure that
future development and associated emissions will not continue to contribute to regional
nonattainment status for these pollutants. As a result, no mitigation is available that
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.6-14 through 3.6-20 and 3.6-24 through 3.6-34; General Plan
Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 6, Policy 6.4, Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related
Implementation Program, Chapter 3.0· (Public Safety and Welfare), Goal 1, Policy 1.1,
Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and related Implementation Programs, Chapter 4.0 ..
(Resource Protection and Preservation) Policy 14.2.
PAGE 98
G 1,: N E R A L P L A. N lJ P I> A T 1-:
FINAL PROGR.ANI EIR
DECEMBER 2011
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF A
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RJ;_E
~ DREAM E/TREME
that cannot be mitigated through implementation of the air quality-related measures set
forth in the GPU.
Non-vehicular operational emissions resulting from activities associated with residential
and nonresidential development anticipated under the GPU would incrementally add to
total air emissions. Implementation of the policies set forth in the GPU would reduce
operational emissions impacts associated with future development in the City; however,
considering that the region is in federal and state nonattainment status for certain
criteria pollutants, such policies do not ensure that future development and associated
emissions will not continue to contribute to regional nonattainment status for these
pollutants. As a result, the contribution of development and associated operational
emissions anticipated with buildout of the GPU to violation of state and federal ambient
air quality standards would be a significant impact on air quality.
The above-cited mitigation measure and the proposed project's policies would reduce
the impact of implementation of the GPU in association with the future development
process. However, the regional and cumulative impacts on other criteria pollutants
concentrations related to conflicts or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan,
violation of air quality standards set forth by the SCAQMD AQMP and contributions to
a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a nonattainment region
would still be considered significant.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.6-14 through 3.6-20 and 3.6-24 through 3.6-34; General Plan
Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 6, Policy 6.4, Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related
Implementation Program, Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), Goal 1, Policy 1.1,
Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and related Implementation Programs, Chapter 4.0
(Resource Protection and Preservation) Policy 14.2.
c. Impact: The land use designation changes would result in more commercial areas,
which could increase traffic emissions. Development proposed in accordance with the
Land Use Plan within the 3rd Street Annexation could result in short-and long-term
impacts related to air quality that would be considered significant.
Mitigation: The impact will be partially mitigated with implementation of the following
mitigation measure(s}:
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Air Qut'Jlity 4: Individual projects implemented pursuant tot~ Land Use Plan within the
_3rd Street Annexation will be required to demonstrate a reduction in impacts on air qualittJ from
PAGE .lOO
G l~ N I!: It A L P L A N U P 1>-A T E
FrNAL PROGRAM E.I.R
DEC.EMBER 2011
.. -1
CITY Of A
FINDINGS OF FACT LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_R!_E
e.
~ DREAM E}(TREME
In addition to implementation of the goals, policies and implementation programs identified in
the proposed GPU, the following mitigation measure is required:
MM Air Quality 5: Indil1idual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be
required to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts on air quality emissions associated with
sensitive land uses. Where project-specific analysis determines that air qualihJ emissions will
adversely affect sensitive receptors, the Cihj sluill require mitigation measures that will reduce the
emissions to the greatest extent practicable.
Finding/Facts in Support of the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the proposed proj~ct which will reduce potentially significant
effects on the environment, however, there are no feasible mitigation measures available
that will lessen these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Based upon the analysis presented in the RP-EIR and considering_ the information
contained in the Record of Proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that new
development under the GPU could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to air
pollutants. Commercial land uses are planned in proximity to sensitive receptors such
as residential and recreational land uses. The SCAQMD and the CARB monitor most
stationary sources of air pollutants that would be associated with commercial and
industrial development through the issuance of emissions permits and monitoring of
operations. Goals and policies within the GPU would mitigate the potential effects of
exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants by providing buffers between emissions
sources and sensitive receptors and requiring that air quality mitigation measures are
incorporated into design features for sensitive receptors.
However, even with the assessment of implementing development projects for potential
air quality impacts upon sensitive receptors, implementation of mitigation measure MM
Air Quality 5 and compliance with the goals, policies and implementation programs of
the proposed GPU, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations may not be reduced to below the level of significance.
Therefore, this impact would be considered to be significant.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.6-14 through 3.6-20 and 3.6-34; General Plan Chapter 2.0
(Community Form) Goal 6, Policy 6.4, Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and related Implementation
Program, Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), Goal 1, Policy 1.1, Goal 2, Policies 2.1
through 2.3 and related Implementation Programs, Chapter 4.0 (Resource Protection and
Preservation) Policy 14.2.
Impact: Th~ policies would reduce the impact of implementation of the GPU in
~ssociation with the future development process. However, the regional and cumulative
P.o.G£ 102
(;ENERAL PLAN lJPOATl':
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 2011
FINDINGS OF FA.CT
CITY OF A
LAK._E 6Lsi_N_O_Rl_E -v. DREAM E_)(TREME
cooperating with regional and state governments to develop mitigation measures
region-wide, and reducing air quality emissions from future development.
However, implementation of the GPU policies related to air quality do not ensure that
increased traffic and operational emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan
would not contribute to future nonattainment of federal and state standards for criteria
pollutants. Therefore the impact of buildout of the GPU related to increased air quality
emissions is considered to be significant and not fully mitigated.
References: RP-EIR, pages 3.6-14 through 3.6-20 and 3.6-34, and 4.0-4 through 4.0-7;
General Plan Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) Goal 6, Policy 6.4, Goal 7, Policy 7.1 and
related Implementation Program, Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), Goal 1, Policy
1.1, Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and related Implementation Programs, Chapter 4.0
(Resource Protection and Preservation) Policy 14.2.
3.4 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
CEQA requires that the RP-EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the
project and to eval.uate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(b} of the
State CEQA Guidelines states that the " ... discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the
project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the
project, even if these alternatfoes would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or
would be more costly."
The proposed project has been compared to three alternative development scenarios, including
the No Project alternative as prescribed by CEQA. These alternatives include: 1} No Project
(Existing General · Plan) Alternative; 2) Alternative 1 -Low Density Alternative and 3)
Alternative 2 -High Density Alternative. A comparison of the alternatives is presented below .
..
PA(,;F. 104
(iENli:RAL PLAN lJPDATls
FJNAL. PROGH.AM EI.R
DECEMBER 2011
CITYOF~
LAK__E 5Lsi_N_O_Rl_E Fl:\D1NGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E;(TREME
Alternatives Comparison
QUANTITY DWELLING UNITS
NO PROJECT/
PROPOSED EXISTING GENERAL ALTERNATIVE 1-ALTERNATIVE 2 -
SOCIO-ECONOMIC LAND USE PLAN LOW DENSITY HIGH DENSITY
VARIABLE PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 AL TERNA TIVE2 AL TERNA TIVE 2
Total Dwelling Units 94,616 103,395 45,099 99,559
Projected Population 318,856 287,400 151,984 335,514
1 Source: City of Lake Elsinore 1990 General Plan, page Jll-15. Assumes 2.78 persons per dwelling unit.
2 Assumes 3.37 persons per dwelling unit.
3.4.1 No PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT (No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE)
CEQA requires that the EIR address a No Project Alternative. For purposes of this RP-EIR, the
No Project Alternative is defined as the existing conditions plus the projects that had received
planning approvals but were not completed prior to preparation of the Draft GPU. The No
Project Alternative also consists of implementing the existing General Plan, zoning and other
City regulations, and ordinances without a GPU. At buildout of the existing General Plan, there
would be approximately 103,395 dwelling units and a population of 287,400 people.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Under the No Project Alternative, the City would continue to function under the direction of the
existing adopted General Plan policies. As a result certain policies of the proposed project that
may result in a reduction of impacts from those associated with the existing general plan,
including those in the proposed GPU, Housing Element, Downtown Master Plan and Climate
Action Plan, would not be implemented. Considering that implementation of the No Project
Alternative would also allow for increased development within the City that would exceed that
proposed as a part of the Proposed Land Use Plan the No Project Alternative would not reduce
the severity of impacts from that identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan. Additional details
regarding potential impacts of the No Project alternative compared with that of the Proposed
Land Use Plan and the GPU are provided in Section 5.0 of the RP-EIR. The following is a
summary comparison of the No Project Alternative with the Proposed Land Use Plan as well as
the new goals and p~licies of the GPU.
• <;;reater aesthetic impacts. This alternative would not include General Plan policies that
would include improvements to the visual quality of the City or creation of well-defined
(; E N E R A L P I, A N l) P I) A T E
FINAL PROGH.AM EIH:.
DECEMBER 2011
P.'\GE 105
FJNDli\GS OF FACI'
CITY OF A
LAKE 5Lsi_N_O_R!_E
~ DREAM EXTREME
public space. Overall, impact would be greater than the proposed project due to having
fewer policies to protect scenic resources.
• Greater impacts to air quality. The No Project Alternative would permit as much or
more development than the Proposed Land Use Plan and would result in increased air
quality impacts;
• Greater greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The No Project Alternative would not
include a Climate Action Plan with strategies and measures that would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to below the overall service population target.
• Greater impacts to biological resources. The No Project Alternative would result in
greater biological impacts than the Proposed Land Use Plan. The GPU has specific
policies that implement the MSHCP which protect biological resources in the region that
are not contained in the No Project Alternative and includes open space within and
outside the MSHCP planning area which would not be included in the No Project
Alternative.
• Similar historic, cultural and paleontological resources impacts.
• Similar impacts to geology and soils and mineral resources.
• Similar impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
• Similar impacts to population and housing.
• Greater impacts to hydrology and water quality. The No Project Alternative would
increase off site runoff due to increased surface coverage by pavements and strucru.res,
and the increase could be greater due to unregulated growth in the City.
• Similar impacts to land use.
• Similar agriculru.re and farmland impacts.
• Similar noise impacts.
• Greater impacts to public services, parks and recreation, and 1J.tilities and service
systems. Under the No Project Alternative, existing General Plan policies would apply
and development would continue to increase, putting additional demand on· public
services. There may be a larger increase in demand than for the Proposed Land Use
Plan with this alternative, considering the projected housing level at buildout is higher.
• Greater impacts to transportation and circulation. Buildout of the City in accordance
with the existing General Plan would result in greater impacts on traffic compared with
the Proposed Land Use Plan. As shown in Table 5.0-4 of the RP-EIR, the existing
General Plan's total number of housing units is greater than the Proposed Land Use
PAGE 106
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM .EIR
D E C E M B E R 2 0 l 'I
FINDINGS OF FACT
~
LAKE 6Lsi-N.O_RI_E
~ DREAM E)(TREME
In addition, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not eliminate or substantially
reduce impacts of the Proposed Land Use Plan. Considering that implementation of the No
Project Alternative would' also allow for increased development within the City that would
exceed that proposed as a part of the Proposed Land Use Plan the No Project Alternative would
not reduce the severity of impacts from those identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan.
FEASIBILITY
This alternative is feasible.
COMPARATIVE MERITS
Implementation of the No Project Alternative which consists of implementation of the existing
General Plan has no comparative merits to implementing the Proposed Land Use Plan and the
goals and· policies of the proposed project. Certain policies of the proposed project that may
result in a reduction of impacts from that associated with the existing general plan would not be
implemented. Considering that implementation of the No Project Alternative would also allow
for increased development within the City that would exceed that proposed as a part of the
Proposed Land Use Plan, the No Project Alternative would not reduce the severity of impacts
from that identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan.
3.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1-LOW DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Low Density Alternative allows for up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The Low Density
Alternative includes the low end of the ranges of permitted density/ intensity of use per acre in
each land use designation. The Low Density Alternative differs from the Proposed Land Use
Plan because the densities are lower than the mid-range densities of the Proposed Land Use
Plan. This alternative would. allow for fewer dwelling units for those lands designated
residential, including hillside, low, low-medium, medium, high, residential mixed use, and
conunercial mixed use. The Low Density Alternative includes commercial, industrial, and other
non-residential. Under the Low Density Alternative, there would be approximately 45,099
dwelling units and a population of 135,159 people at buildout.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following is a summary comparison of Alternative 1 -Low Density Alternative with the
Proposed Land Use Plan as well as the rtew goals and pollcies of the GPU.
• Less aesthetic impacts . ..
PAGE 108
GENERAL PLAN Ut>I>ATE
FINAL PROGR.AM EIR
D EC E M B E R. 2 0 ·1 1
CITY OF A
LAKE 61si_N_O_RI_E FINDL\CS OF FACT
~ DREAM EXTREME
• Less impacts to air quality. Significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality would not
be avoided by implementation of this alternative.
• Less greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Since the Low Density Alternative will generate
a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions than that of the Proposed Land Use Plan,
implementation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) would enable the City to more easily
meet or exceed the overall service population target set forth in the CAP.
• Less impacts to biological resources. A uniform reduction in permitted density would
not in and of itself result in substantially different impacts compared to those
anticipated under buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan. If development on more
environmentally sensitive parcels was more highly restricted, this alternative could have
less impact than the proposed project on those parcels; however, these impacts would
still be potentially significant.
• Similar historic, cultural and paleontological resources impacts.
• Similar impacts to geology and soils and mineral resources.
• Less impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
• Less impacts to population and housing.
• Less impacts to hydrology and water quality.
• Less impacts to land use. At its maximum, the Low Density Alternative allows for up to
18 dwelling units per acre. This alternative includes the low end of the ranges of
dwelling units per acre in each land use designation. The Low Density Alternative
differs from the Proposed Land Use Plan because the residential land use densities are
lower than the mid-range densities than the Proposed Land Use Plan. As a result there
would be substantially less housing units than that proposed by the Proposed Land Use
Plan. Overall, the community character of the area would not significantly change with
the implementation of the Low Density Alternative Land Use Plan, but rather would be
enhanced, updated, and improved. Established communities will not be divided or
changed significantly in a negative way with the implementation of the Low Density
Alternative.
• Similar agriculture and farmland impacts.
• Less noise impacts.
• Less impacts to public services, parks and recreation, and utilities and service systems.
• Less impacts to transportation and circulation . ..
(.; E N E R A L P I., A N l} P l) !\ T E
FINAL PROGRAM EIR.
DECEMBER 2011
P.<\Gf: 109
FINIH:\GS OF FACT
CJTYOFA
L.AK_E 6Lsi_N_O_R!_E
~ DREAM E,J(TREME
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Implementation of Alternative 1 -Low Density Alternative would not meet the objective of the
General Plan Update to Create a General Plan consistent with state law that guides City
planning until 2030. The proposed project is intended to provide adequate housing and
commercial services for the anticipated growth within the City and surrounding Sphere of
Influence. Implementation of the Low Density Alternative and the associated reduction in the
number of housing units would not allow the City to achieve housing goals anticipated for the
City and Sphere of Influence as a part of the proposed Housing Element.
The goals and policies of the proposed project would not change with implementation of the
Low Density Alternative. As a result, it is anticipated that the following objectives of the
proposed project could be achieved with implementation of the Low Density Alternative:
• Update the City's environmental baseline (i.e., existing) conditions to the year 2005 (2007
for the Housing Element).
• Create a General Plan consistent with state law that guides City planning until 2030 and
update the General Plan development projections for the year 2030, including
projections for dwelling units, non-residential square footage, population and
employment.
• Update the Housing Element of the General Plan (separately bound).
• Establish District Plans as part of the Land Use Element to allow for more focused
planning of the City's many diverse neighborhoods.
• Incorporate a Downtown Master Plan into the Historic District Planto guide the future
development of the City's historic downtown core.
• Establish new land use designations including Gateway Commercial, Downtown
· Recreational, Cormnercial Mixed Use, Residential Mixed Use, and Lakeside Residential
• Create a Land Use Plan that encourages the creation of a vibrant and active downtown
and a lake destination.
• Create a plan to preserve the unique topography and visual character of the City
through the preservation of steep slopes, ecologically significant areas, and public open
space.
• Incorporate a program for sustainable development into the General Plan, drawn from
the City's Climate Action Plan (2011)
• Create a _General Plan that recognizes the rich history of the City and seeks to preserve
. its historical resources.
p·,,GE 110
(:;EN EH.AL PLAN UPDATE
F I N A L P ROG R A M E I R.
DECEMBER 2011
FINBINGS OF .FACr
CITY OF A ·----
LAKE 6LS1NORJ:
~ DREAM EJTREME
COMPARATIVE MERITS
Implementation of Alternative 1 -Low Density Alternative would reduce impacts of the
Proposed Land Use Plan related to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological
resources, hazards and hazardous materials, population and housing, hydrology and water
quality, land use, noise, transportation and circulation, public services, parks and recreation and
utilities and service systems due to the decrease in the amount of housing and · population
anticipated within the Oty and Sphere of Influence. Potential impacts related to historic,
cultural and paleontological resources, geology and soils and mineral resources, and agriculture
and farmland would be similar to those of the proposed project. However, implementation of
this alternative would not avoid significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Land Use
Plan related to air quality, noise and transportation and circulation.
3.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2-HIGH DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The High Density Alternative allows for a buildout that reflects the high end of the ranges of
permitted density /intensity of use per acre in each land use designation described in the
proposed GPU. This alternative is different from the Proposed Land Use Plan in that ~e
densities for land use designations are higher and would allow a larger number of dwelling
uni.ts for those areas designated residential, including hillside, low, low-medium, medium;
high, residential mixed use, and commercial mixed use. The High Density Alternative includes
commercial, industrial, and other non-residential uses. Under the High Density Alternative,
there would be approximately 99,559 dwelling units and a population of 296,703 people at
buildout.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following is a summary comparison of Alternative 1 -Low Density Alternative with the
Proposed Land Use Plan as well as the new goals and policies of the GPU.
• Greater aesthetic impacts.
• Greater impacts to air quality. However significant and unavoidable impacts of the High
Density Alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Land Use Plan.
• Greater greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Since this alternative will generate a higher
level of greenhouse gases than that of the proposed project, it would be more difficult
for the City to meet or exceed the overall service population target described in the
Oimate Action Plan.
• Greater imp~cts to biological resources.
• _Greater historic, cultural and paleontological resources impacts.
PA.GE :I J 2
GENERA,L PLAN UPDATE
F'INAL·PROGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 2011
i
............ _ .• i
CITY OF A .
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_Rl;_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E;(TREME
· • Similar impacts to geology and soils and mineral resources.
• Greater impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
• Greater impacts to population and housing.
• Greater impacts to hydrology and water quality.
• Greater impacts to land use.
• Similar agriculture and fannland impacts.
• Greater noise impacts.
• Greater impacts to public services, parks and recreation, and utilities and service
systems.
• Greater impacts to transportation and circulation.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The goals and policies of the GPU would not change with implementation of Alternative 2 -
High Density Alternative. As a result it is anticipated that the following objectives of the GPU
could be achieved with implementation of the High Density Alternative:
• Update the City's environmental baseline (i.e., existing) conditions to the year 2005 (2007
for the Housing Element).
• Create a General Plan consistent with state law that guides City planning until 2030 and
update the General Plan development projections for the year 2030, including
projections for dwelling units, non-residential square footage, population and
employment.
• Update the Housing Element of the General Plan (separately boundf
• Establish District Plans as part of the Land Use Element to allow for more focused
.Planning of.the City's many diverse neighborhoods.
• Incorporate a Downtown Master Plan into the Historic District Plan to guide the future
development of the City's historic downtown core.
• Establish new land use designations including Gateway Commercial, Downtown .
Recreational, Commercial Mixed Use, Residential Mixed Use, and Lakeside Residential
• Create a Land Use Plan that encourages the creation of a vibrant and active downtown
and a lake destination . ..
GENERAi .• PLAN l.lPl>ATE
FI.NAL PROGRAM EI.R
DECEMBER 2011
PAGE 113
..,
,,
FINDINGS OP f'A(T
CITY OF~ .
LAKE 6Lsi_N._O_RI_E
~ DREAM E)(TREME
• Incorporate a program for sustainable development into the General Plan, drawn from
the City's Climate Action Plan (2011)
• Create a General Plan that recognizes the rich history of the City and seeks to preserve
its historical resources.
• Create a user-friendly plan for City officials, staff, residents, and stakeholders of the City
of Lake Elsinore. ·
However, visual impacts on aesthetics would be greater under the High Density Alternative
than under the Proposed Land Use Plan. This alternative would allow for more development at
a higher density, which would likely block more views because of height or proximity to
adjacent development. Fewer view corridors would exist between buildings, which would
impact views. Development of vacant or underutilized land under this alternative could also
result in a significant change to the visual character of the City. Light and glare impacts
associated with development of vacant land would be more than the proposed project. As a
result, it is not anticipated that the following objective would be achieved with implementation
of Alternative 2 -High Density Alternative:
• Create a plan to preserve the unique topography and visual character of the City
through the preservation of steep slopes, ecologically significant areas, and public open
space.
FEASIBILITY
This alternative is feasible.
COMPARATIVE MERITS
Implementation of Alternative 2 -High Density Alternative would result in greater impacts
than the Proposed Land Use Plan related to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
biological resources, historic, cultural apd paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, population and housing, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, public
services, parks; and recreation, utilities, service syste:r:ns and transportation and circulation, due
to the increase in the amount of housing and population anticipated with the Gty and Sphere of
Influence. Potential impacts related to geology and soils and mineral resources, and agriculture
and farmland Would be similar· to those of the proposed project. Implementation of this
alternative would also result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Proposed
Land Use Plan related to air quality, noise and transportation and circulation .
..
P.<\.GE. 114
('.;ENERAL J"LAN UPDATE
FJ.NAL PROGRAM E.IR
DECEl\113ER 201.1
CITY OF~ ·----
LAK_E 6LS1NORE FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM EXTREME
• The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the proposed project.
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the City decision makers in connection with the
proposed project, and all documents cited or referred to therein.
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the proposed project.
• All documents and information submitted to the City by responsible, trustee, or other
public agencies, or by individuals or organizations, in connection with the proposed
project, the August 2011 Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
("RDP-EIR") or the December 2011 Final Recirculated Program Enviromnental Impact
Report ("RP-EIR") through the date the City Council approved the proposed project.
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state,
and local laws and regulations.
• Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above.
• Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the record of proceedings is the City of Lake Elsinore Community
Development Department, Planning Division, whose office is located at 130 South Main Street,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.
The City has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the proposed
project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council decision-makers
as part of the City's files generated in connection with the proposed project.
..
I, AG E I 1 (,
(·;r::NERA.L PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM EIR
0ECE!VIBER 2011
CITYOFA
LAKE 6Lsi_N_O_R!_E FINDINGS Of' FACT
~ DREAM E}(TREME
5.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 UNA VOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Update has identified and
discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the proposed project. With
implementation of the proposed project including its goals, policies and implementation
programs and project-specific mitigation measures identified for each environmental topic,
most of· the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a level considered less than
significant, except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed below and in Section 3.0 of
the Findings.
The City of Lake Elsinore has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or
substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. Impacts, in
these and all other cases, have been mitigated to the extent considered feasible. Environmental
impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be
fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in this section.
5.1.1 TRANSPORTATION ANO CIRCULATION
The City, County of Riverside, and Caltrans use different standards to define intersection
deficiency. The majority of the study intersections are located within the City (and are thus
subject to City criteria for intersection· deficiency); four intersections are in the County of
Riverside (subject to County criteria). Twelve intersections located on SR 74 have been
evaluated based on Cal trans' LOS criteria.
The City of Lake Elsinore, in general, requires that peak-hour intersections operate at LOS "D"
or better to be considered acceptable. Therefore, any City intersection operating at LOS "E" or
LOS "F" will be considered deficient. However, LOS "E" will he considered acceptable in both
the Main Street Overlay area and the Ballpark District Planning Districts in an effort to increase
activity and revitalize these areas. Any intersection operating at LOS "F" will be considered
deficient.
The Riverside County General Plan established, as a countywide target, a minimum LOS "C'
on all County-maintained roads and conventional state highways .. As an exception, LOS "D"
may be allowed in Community Development areas, at intersections with any combination of
Secondary Highwayij, Major Highways, Arterials, Urban Arterials, Expressways, conventional
state highways, or freeway ramp intersections. LOS "E" may be allowed in designated
GENERAL. PLAN UPl>ATE
l•'JNAL PROGRAM E,IR.
DECEMBER 2011
Pl\ GE ·1 I 7
FINDINGS O.F FACT
CITY OF A ·----
LAK_E 6LSINOR£
~ DREAM E;(TREME
community centers to the extent that it would support transit-oriented development and
walkable communities.
Caltrans defines LOS "D" with delay less than 45 seconds per vehicle (mid-point of LOS "D") at
signalized intersections to be acceptable; any delay longer than this is deficient.
At buildout of the proposed GPU in 2030, all study area intersections are projected to operate at
acceptable LOS during the peak hours with improvements that are consistent with the proposed
roadway system and the implementation of the GPU Circulation Element and Capital
Improvements Program. Therefore, with implementation of the improvements and goals and
policies set forth by the Circulation Section of the Community Form Chapter and
implementation of the City-wide Capital Improvements Program as a part of future
development, impacts of the project on traffic levels would be reduced to less than significant.
However, the actual construction of the required intersection and roadway improvements
cannot be determined with certainty. It is anticipated that as development that implements the
proposed Land Use Plan proceeds, each development will pay for and construct general plan
level road improvements on roads adjacent to the development sites. However, the timing of
road improvements needed to improve level of service on a regional basis will be determined
by the City of Lake Elsinore, other cities in western Riverside County, the County of Riverside
and the Riverside County Transportation Commission based upon need and the availability of
funding. Thus, it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to
mitigate the proposed project's traffic and circulation impacts to below the level of signilicance.
Therefore, the proposed project will cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections) and even after mitigation, project-related and cumulative impacts will rem~in
significant and unavoidable.
5.1.2 NOISE
An increase in traffic volume throughout the local and regional circulation system as a result of
GPU implementation has the potential to generate noise levels along roadway corridors that
would exceed standards set forth in the Zoning Code and the General Plan's Noise and Land
Use Compatibility Matrix and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. The corridors of 1-15, SR-
74, and Railroad Canyon Road are particularly sensitive to additional traffic noise due to the
substantial noise levels currently generated along these routes. At 2030 traffic levels associated
with buildout of the GPU, the ADT on the freeways and roadways would increase. As shown
by comparing Figures 3.5-2 and 3.5-4 in the RP-EIR, the increase in traffic at GPU buildout
would extend the 70 dBA, 65 dBA and 60dBA Ldn contours beyond existing conditions-. As
PAGE 118
(",;ENERAL PLAN UPDATE
F.INAL PRO<::;RAM EIR.
DECEMBER 201 J
,;
.•. ~ ....... l'
FINDINGS OF f"AC"f
CITY OF~ ·~~~~
LAK_E 6LS1NORJ;
~ DREAM E)(TREME
the proposed GPU, including those listed in Table 3.6-8 and Table 3.4-5 in the RP-EIR include
measures that will reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including the reduction of vehicle trips
through compatible land use planning, encouragement of alternative transportation methods,
and improvement of traffic infrastructure to increase efficiency through coordination with
regional and state governments. Future development projects in the City will be evaluated for
conformance with the GPU policies related to air quality These measures include cooperating
with regional and state governments to develop mitigation measures region-wide, and reducing
air quality emissions from future development. The regional and cumulative impacts on CO,
NOx, and 03 concentrations related to conflicts or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan,
violation of air quality standards set forth by the SCAQMD AQMP, and contributions to a
cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a nonattainment region would
be considered significant.
The 2007 AQMP established a program to reduce the SCAB's emissions based on 2004 SCAG
population projections. As discussed in Section 3.1 (Land Use and Planning) and Section 3.13
(Population and Housing) of this PEIR, the GPU would acconunodate a population increase
that surpasses current SCAG projections. The GPU would obstruct implementation of the
AQMP by not contributing to its goals of regional reductions of air pollutant emissions in the
region, and it would conflict with the AQMP in its inconsistency with AQMP projections for
pollutant emissions. Control measures in the AQMP include: promotion of lighter color roofing
and road materials; requiringdean fuels, supporting alternative fuels, and reducing petroleum
dependency; pursuit of long-term advanced technologies measures; process modifications and
improvements; best management practices; and market incentives. However, no mitigation is
available that would make the GPU consistent with the AQMP and reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. This obstruction and conflict are a significant air quality impact that
cannot be mitigated through implementation of the air quality-related measures set forth in the
GPU.
Non-vehicular operational emissions resulting from activities associated with residential and
nonresidential development anticipated under the GPU would incrementally add to total air
emissions. Implementation of the policies set forth in the GPU would reduce operational
emissions impacts associated with future development in the City; however, considering that
the region is in federal and state nonattainment status for certain criteria pollutants, such
policies do not ensure that future development and associated emissions will not continue to
contribute to regional nonattainment status for these pollutants. As a result, the contribution of
development and associated operational emissions anticipated with buildout of the GPU to
violation of state and federal ambient air quality standards would be a significant impact on air
quality.
..
P .... GE 120
(_;ENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PROGn . .AM EIR.
DECEMBER 201 J
CITYOF~
LAK_E 6Lsi_N_O_RI_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E;,(TREME
5.2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), the City Council must balance, as
applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits" of the proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks" in determining whether to approve the project. If
the specific benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, those environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
Having reduced the adverse signilicant environmental effects of the proposed project to the
extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire
administrative record on the project; the City Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed
project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regards to air quality, noise
and transportation and circulation. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts
regarding air quality, noise and transportation and circulation are significant under CEQA
thresholds, the City Council finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from
adoption and implementation of the proposed project are acceptable and outweighed by
specific social, economic and other benefits of the project. The City Council further finds that
except for the proposed project, all other alternatives set forth in the RP-EIR are infeasible
because they would prohibit the realization of project objectives and/ or of specific economic,
social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of
the alternatives.
In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered.
Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the proposed project. Thus, even if a
court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City
Council would be able to stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient.
The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding
findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in
the Records of Proceedings, as defined in Section 4.0.
The City Council finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding
under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental
benefits of the project, independent .of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant
unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts.
5.2.1 PROJECT BENEFITS
• The proposed project wiH create a General Plan that is consistent with State law and
· . ".'7hich will guide City planning until 2030.
GENERAL PLAN l.TPDA"l"E
FINAL PH.OGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 2011
P.">GE 12:1
FINDJNGS OF FACT
ClTYOFA
LAK_E 5Lsi_N_O_RJ;_E
~ DREAM E)(TREME
• The proposed project and Proposed Land Use Plan would create a user-friendly plan for
City officials, staff, and the community of Lake Elsinore.
• The Community Form chapter of the GPU would provide goals and policies as well as a
strategic framework to ensure that future development will be designed to encourage
land use compatibility, and implementation of an adequate transportation and
circulation systems as well as provision of parks and recreation, housing, growth
management strategies, and district plans.
• The Public Safety and Welfare chapter of the GPU includes goals and polices to ensure
that future development will address issues associated with the safety and welfare of the
City's general public. The sections include air quality, hazards and hazardous materials
(including natural disasters), community facilities and services and noise.
• The Resource Protection and Preservation chapter sets forth policies and programs to
ensure that future development will be designed to encourage preservation of biological
resources, open space, water resources, cultural, historical and paleontological
resources, aesthetics and a sustainable environment.
• The proposed project and Proposed Land Use Plan would create a General Plan that
recognizes the rich history of the City and preserves historical resources.
• The proposed project would create a Land Use Plan and policies that encourage the
creation of a vibrant and active downtown and a lake destination.
• The proposed project includes the adoption of a Downtown Master Plan which creates a
vision and strategy that benefits the City of Lake Elsinore by identifying the goals,
objectives and desires of the community and developing an urban design framework
and guidelines that implement them; thereby assuring that future development within
the plan area will celebrate the lake, create a vibrant and sustainable downtown, create a
civic identity, and improve walkability and connectivity.
• The proposed project and Proposed Land Use Plan will provide housing for the City of
Lake Elsinore and Inland Empire's growing population.
• The proposed project and Proposed Land Use Plan will provide for a variety of housing
opportunities, ranging in size and affordability to meet the housing needs of the region.
• The proposed project includes an updated Housing Element that is consistent with State
law and which will p~ovide an action-plan for maintaining and expanding the housing
.supply for all income levels in the City of Lake Elsinore for the planning period of July 1,
PAG£ 122
C;ENERAL PLAN lJPDATE
FINAL PROGR.AM E:IR
D E c· E M B E R 2 0 I 1
FINDINGS OF FACT
CITYOF~
LAK_E 6,Lsi_N_O_R!_E
~ DREAM E/TREME
• Implementation of the existing General Plan has no comparative merits to implementing
the Proposed Land Use Plan and the goals and policies of the proposed project. The
total number of housing units permitted with the existing general plan would be 103,395
compared with 94,616 for the Proposed Land Use Plan. The proposed buildout housing
level represents a reduction in total housing units from that anticipated by the existing
1990 General Plan. The population projected within the City under the existing General
Plan would be 287,400 compared with 318,856 for the Proposed Land Use Plan.
However, this is due to an increase in projected average household size from 2.78
persons per dwelling unit to 3.37 persons per dwelling unit. Otherwise due to the
overall reduction in the number of housing units, the projected buildout population
level would be anticipated to be less than that anticipated by the existing 1990 General
Plan. Considering that implementation of the Existing General Plan would allow for
increased development and population growth within the City that would exceed that
proposed as a part of the Proposed Land Use Plan, development in accordance with the
existing General Plan alternative would result in greater impacts to the environment
from that identified for the Proposed Land Use Plan.
• The proposed project will facilitate completion of Annexation No. 81 (also referred to as
the "3rd Street Annexation") consisting of the proposed annexation of approximately
320 acres from the County to the City. The proposed annexation would allow increased
efficiency in service provision to the area, which is almost completely surrounded by
incorporated land, and would represent a more orderly planning and development
pattern than would occur if the land remained in the County's jurisdiction,
..
P .... GE: 124
GEN£RAL PLAN lJPDA,TE
FINAi; PROGRAM ElR
DECEMBER 2011
CITYOFA
LAKE 6Lsi-NO_RJ;_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM f,XTREME
6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL RP-EIR
The City of Lake Elsinore has reviewed and considered the Final RP-EIR in evaluating the
proposed project. The City Council finds that the Final RP-EIR is an accurate and objective
statement that fully complies with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et
seqJ., the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA
Guidelines; and that the Final RP-EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Lake
Elsinore; and that no new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5 have been received by the City after circulation of the Recirculated Draft Program EIR
which would require recirculation.
The City Council certifies the Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report based on the
following findings and conclusions:
6.1 FINDINGS
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the RP-EIR and,
although subject to all goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the proposed
project and all applicable and feasible mitigation measures, the impacts cannot be mitigated to
less-than-significant levels:
6.1.1 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
a. Impact: With implementation of the Land Use Plan all roadways within the study area
would be expected to have substantial traffic volumes and nearly all of the intersection
analysis locations would require improvements. Therefore, implementation of the GPU
and Land Use Plan could result in potentially significantimpacts on traffic levels within
the City and SOI.
b. Impact: With implementation of the Land Use Plan all roadways within the study area
would be expected to have substantial traffic volumes and nearly all of the intersection
analysis locations would require improvements. However, the actual construction of the
required intersection and roadway improvements cannot be determined with certainty.
Thus, it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to
~tigate the proposed project's traffic and circulation impacts to below the level of
6.1.2 NOISE
a. Impact: Implementation of the GPU would increase the number of vehicles utilizing the
local circulation system and place new receptors (including residences, commercial
developments, etc.) near roadways that experience varying levels of traffic noise.
~dditional vehicles on roadways would result in additional noise generated along the
affected roadways, and more receptors adjacent to noisy roadways would mean that
· more people would potentially be affected by traffic noise conditions.
GENERAL PLAN UPOATf2
FINAL PROGRAM .El"R
DECEMBElt 20·1 J
PAGE 125
CITYOFA .
FINDINGS OF FACT LAKE 6 LSI_N_O_RJ_E
~ DREAM E)(TREME
In accordance with the GPU, projects will be required to demonstrate their compliance
with the relevant noise standards, but where projects do not comply, specific mitigation
measures will be required. Due to the progranunatic nature of noise analysis on this
project, such impacts and mitigation measures cannot be identified at this time.
b. Impact: Since the traffic associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the
increased traffic generated by cumulative growth would extend the 70 dBA, 65 dBA and
60dBA Ldn contours beyond existing conditions, cumulative long-term traffic-related
noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
6.1.3 AIR QUALITY
a. Impact: The development shown in the proposed Land Use Plan will generate
additional regional area-and mobile-source emissions over time from both stationary
sources and mobile sources.
b.
c.
d.
e.
GPU buildout would drastically exceed project-level emissions thresholds established
by the SCAQMD. The discrepancy between thresholds and estimated emissions are
somewhat misleading, however, as the thresholds are intended to identify individual
projects that emit excessive amounts of regulated pollutants, and the GPU is a much
larger endeavor than a stand-alone development project.
Buildout of the GPU would also result in emission of pollutants for which the SCAB is in
nonattainment of federal and/ or state standards.
The GPU would obstruct implementation of the AQMP by not contributing to its goals
of regional reductions of air pollutant emissions in the region, and it would conflict with
the AQMP in its inconsistency with AQMP projections for pollutant emissions.
Impact: The regional and cumulative impacts on CO, NOx, and o~ concentrations
related to conflicts or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan, violation of air
quality standards set forth by the SCAQMD AQMP,. and contributions to a cumulatively
considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a nonattairunent region would be
considered significant.
Impact: The land use designation changes would result in more commercial areas,
which could increase traffic emissions. Development proposed in accordance with the
Land Use Plan within the 3rd Street Annexation could result in short-and long-term
impacts related to air quality that would be considered significant.
Impact: New development under the GPU could result in the exposure of sensitive
receptors to ~ir pollutants.
Impact: The policies would reduce the impact of implementation of the GPU in
association with the future development process. However, the regional and cumulative
PAGE 126
(:;.EN EH,.,. L PLAN lJ P DATE
FINAL Pu.OGRAM EIR
DECEMBER 201 J
CITY OFA
LAK._E 6LSI_N_O_RI_E FINDINGS OF FACT
~ DREAM E"'TREME .~ I'
impacts on other criteria pollutants concentrations related to conflicts or obstruction of
the applicable air quality plan, violation of air quality standards set forth by the
SCAQMD AQMP and contributions to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a
criteria pollutant in a nonattainment region would be considered significant.
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed project
have been identified in the RP-EIR and will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels
with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, except for the impacts listed
above and described in theStatement of Overriding Considerations.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly achieve most of
the basic objectives of the project have been considered. Some of the alternatives were
feasible but did not meet the project objectives; others met the project objectives but
were determined not to be feasible. Since the alternatives considered either did not
serve to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts, or because the alternatives offer
no feasible means of avoiding the significant effects identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, the alternatives are rejected in favor of the proposed project.
Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the
development of the proposed project override and make infeasible any alternatives to
the project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the project.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL PHOGRA!Vl E.IR.
DECEMBER 2011
PAGE 127
..
·1
I