HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 1990-115 i
i
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 115
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA., CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
88020114) FOR THE GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE LAKE ESLINORE
GENT,RAL PLAN
A. WHEREAS, the city has initiated an application for the adoption of a
General Plan; and
B. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450,
et seq., Government Code Sections 65853, et seq., and applicable provisions of the City's
Zoning Ordinance public bearings were held before the Lake Elsinore City
Council on the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and
C. WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report (SCH 8802014) has been
prepared to address the environmental impacts, mitigation measures and project
alternatives associated with the proposed General Plan; and
D. WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR was prepared pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA
Guidelines ("Guidelines") and the City's policies for the implementation of CEQA; and
E. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental
documentation comprising the General Plan EIR and the EIR is sufficiently detailed so
that all the significant effects of the project on the environment and measures necessary
to mitigate such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the City's policies for
the implementation of CEQA; and
F. WHEREAS, the matter was fully discussed with testimony and
documentation presented by the public and any concerned governmental agencies.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds and
determines with respect to the proposed General Plan EIR as follows:
A The City Council hereby certifies that the information contained in the
Environmental Impact Report (Sch 88020114) has been reviewed and considered by the
members of the City Council with respect to the project
B. The City Council certifies that the information contained in the EIR has
been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA and State and local guidelines
and rules adopted pursuant thereto.
C. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the EIR and the adverse
environmental impact detailed in the EIR:
1. That the adverse environmental impacts with respect to the proposed
project, including those raised in comments on the draft EIR, have been considered and
recognized by the City Council;
2. That based on information set forth in the environmental impact
report, the significant environmental impact and mitigation measures are summarized in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the City
Council hinds and determines that measures have been incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid the adverse impacts identified in the environmental impact
report and in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference;
I That based on information set forth in the environmental impact
report and in Exhibit 'B" hereto, there are significant unavoidable environmental effect
which cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is implemented. Those
unavoidable significant environmental impacts of the project that have not been reduced
to a level of insignificance have been reduced to the extent feasible in the project, and
the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic,
2
i
I
social and other benefits of the project. Said unavoidable impact, findings of significant
environmental effects under Section 15091 of CEQA Implementing Guidelines and
overriding benefits of the project are set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached bereto
and incorporated herein by this reference;
4. That no additional foreseeable adverse impact will have a significant
effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
environment as a result of the proposed project;
5. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report has described all
t
reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives to
the project (including the "no project alternative"), even when these alternatives might
impede the attainment of the project objectives and might be more costly.
6. The specific alternative of "no project" has been evaluated in terms
of its potential for impact mitigation and should be rejected in favor of the benefits
which will be derived from the project.
7. All reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the
project, which could feasibly achieve the basic objective of the project, have been
and rejected in favor of the proposed project.
considered a J
8. Cumulative impact of the project in relationship to other projects in
the area have been considered and except with respect to those impacts identified in
Exhibit "B" hereto, mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to reduce such
impacts to acceptable levels.
D. The City Council further finds and determines that all significant
environmental effects identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report have
been reduced to an acceptable level in that:
1. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through findings set forth
3
I
. i
in this resolution and Exhibit "A" hereto and other documents in the record, speck
economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible other project alternatives
identified in said Environmental impact Report; and
2. Based upon the Environmental Impact Report, Exhibit "A" and other
documents in the record, all remaining foreseeable unavoidable significant effects of the
project are overridden by the benefits of the project as described in Exhibit "B" and the
City Council hereby adopts said Exhibit "B" as a statement of overriding considerations
for the proposed project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore certifies the Final EIR for the Lake Elsinore General Plan (SCH 88020000114),
makes its above-described findings of significant environmental effects and adopts the
described statement of overriding considerations, as set forth in Exhibit "B", based upon
the herein findings and conclusions, and based upon and subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, and as may have been revised by the City
Council, approves the Lake Elsinore General Plan upon adoption of the appropriate
ordinance therefor and reasons as set forth herein, based on the findings, authorizes
implementation of the mitigation measures and monitoring thereof, and directs the filing
of a Notice of Determination.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED -this 27th day November 1990.
MA •
ST: APPROVEDAS`TO FORM:
�
CITY CLERK C= ATTOR Y
4
RESOLUTION NO. 90-115
1 EXHIBIT A
2 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
3 FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN EIR (SCH *88020114)
4 November 27 , 1990
S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
6 PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND
7 STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. ALL WITH
g RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL
9 PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE-
10 BACK—GROUND
11 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA EIR
12 Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
13 "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental
14 impact report has been completed and which identified one or more significant
e or more writ
ten findings
15 effects of the project unless the public agency makes on g
16 for each of these significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
4
17 rationale for each findings." (Section 15091)
18 The City of Lake Elsinore approved the proposed General Plan at its hearing on
19 November 27 , 1990, which hearing was scheduled and noticed as required by law. The
20 City Council: 1) certified that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with the
21 California Environmental Quality Act and the City's environmental procedures; and 2)
22 acknowledged that the information in the Final EIR was presented to, reviewed and
23 considered by the City Council prior to approving the project. Because the proposed
24 actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Lake Elsinore
25 has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #88020114). The environmental
26 impact report (EIR) identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of
27 this project. Further, this City Council has determined that the EIR is complete and
28 adequate and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and the
29 City's environmental procedures. Therefore, the following findings are set forth herein
30 pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines,
31. the possible findings are:
32 (1} Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
33 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
34 environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
35 (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
36 jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
38 can and should be adopted by such other agency.
39 (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
40 mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
41 EIR.
42 LAND USE
0 A_ Si nificant Effe - Development of the General Plan may result in direct land use
44 conflicts between differing land uses prior to mitigation.
45 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
46 the project which avoid' or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
47 identified in the Final EIR.
48 Facts in Suppgrc f Fi in - All future development projects shall be subject to
49 site plan review and appropriate land uses, and requirements for buffering of differing
50 land use: will be established at that time. Project's will also be subject to design review
and adherence to landscaping guidelines.
2
52 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
y
53 b virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
54 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
j G�CLL
56 A- SigniFic n ff - Bui7dout of the General Plan will result in significant
57 alteration of general topography in some portions of the city through grading for roads,
58 development and drainage facilities. Development in some hillside areas may subject
59 structures and persons to landslide and slope stability hazards.
60 FINDING g
TDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
61 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
62 identified in the Final EIR.
63 Facts in Sup.Vort of Finder - Geotechnical reports shall be required for all
54 developments in areas with probable slope stability problems. Grading plans shall be
65 reviewed and grading operations inspected to detect potential problems. The city shall
66 also develop a hillside development ordinance. Soil reports and grading plans shall be
67 provided to assure slope stability. All street uses must comply with the Uniform
68 Building Code.
69 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened.
70 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
71 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
72 B. Significani E - Buildout of the General Plan may result in the loss of
73 valuable mineral resources, including those included in Mineral Resource Areas.
74 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
75 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
76 identified in the Final EIR.
3
77 F��r� in Suovort of Finslim- - Prior to approval of developments that may
78 eliminate the extraction of regionally significant mineral resources, the city shall evaluate
?y.. the value and quantity of the mineral resource. Proposed mining operations shall be
80 subject to the environmental review process and the city shall adopt mitigation measures
81 for adjacent developments to assure mining operations may continue.
82 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
83 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
84 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
85IYDROLOGX
86 A. Significant Eff� - Downstream areas may be exposed to increased flooding,
87 erosion and sedimentation due to future development. Increases in impervious surfaces
88 will reduce the land areas available for absorption and result in increased storm runoff.
89 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
90 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
91 identified in the Final EIR.
92 Facts in Support.Df Finding - All structures proposed within 100•year flood zones
93 will be elevated above flood levels. Project applicants will be required to conform with
94 standards of the Riverside County Flood Control District. Erosion control measures and
95 street sweeping will be required. The city shall also implement the Lake Management
96 Project.
97 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
)8 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
)9 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
4
coo
101 A. Si�su c zit�ffs�I - As a result of buildout of the General Plan, sensitive plant
102 species and wildlife habitat may be removed and wildlife displaced or terminated by
t03 development activities.
�Q4 - FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
,05 within the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
06 as identified in the Final EIR.
07 Facts in SLipp of Findings - All proposed development in riparian areas shall
08 be subject to U. S. Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game
09 regulations. Development in all areas of high and potentially high resource. sensitivity
10 shall be subject to additional site specific biological analysis and mitigation through the
11 environmental review process. Permanent open space areas shall be designated in
12 specific plan areas for the protection of significant biological resources.
13 FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
14 the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
15 ,Facts in Support of Fin in - While extensive feasible mitigation measures for
16 preservation of biological resources are recommended in the EIR, these mitigations will
17 result in only partially mitigating the impacts of urban development. Some natural
18 resources areas will be developed for other uses, and some species will be displaced by
19 future development. All project alternatives, other than the no project alternative, would
20 also result in some impacts on natural resources following mitigation.
21 The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
22 facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below,
Z3 giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
5
124
L25 A. ,Significant • Buildout of the General Plan will result in significant impacts
to mitigation. Development of proposed land uses
126 upon the circulation system prior
,27 within the city wM result in the need for improvement and expansion of the circulation
.28 network.
29 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
30 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
31 identified in the Final EIR.
32 Facts in Support of Findings - A comprehensive traffic analysis has resulted in
33 preparation of a Circulation Plan, which will accommodate the projected traffic demands
34 upon the circulation system. A new interchange at I-15 and Olive Street is proposed,
35 as well as freeway overcrossings, financing mechanisms, bike and pedestrian pathways,
36 and development of transportation demand management programs.
37 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
38 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
39 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
io AIR OUALIT�'
11 A Significan E f - Demolition, grading and construction for buildout of the
12 General Plan will result in short-term dust emissions for adjacent uses.
113 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
14 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
15 identified in the Final EIR.
16 Niitigadon measures are required which result in
17 reducing dust emissions. These measures include periodically sprinkling the site with
6
AS water, paving parking areas as soon as possible, and avoiding grading during Santa Ana
49 woad conditions.
50 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
S1 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
project or future project approvals as set forth above.
S3 B. 5igni5cant_ Effect - The total emissions generated by General Plan buildout are
54. considered significant for the subregional prior to mitigation and are only partially
55 mitigated. Daily standards for ozone and particulates are exceeded in the basin with or
56 without the project. These impacts are only partially mitigated by the recommended
57 mitigation measures.
S8 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
59 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
60 identified in the Final EIR.
1 Facts in _Support f Fin i - Project development shall comply with all
62 applicable rules and regulations adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management
53 District. The city shall also incorporate the goals and objectives of the 1989 Air Quality
9 Management Plan in its General Plan.
In addition, traffic improvements are required
55 for the project, which will improve traffic flow and reduce localized carbon monoxide
56 emission levels. Transportation Management programs are also required.
57 FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
68 jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
69 changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
r
70 other agency.
71 is in o f n
- The South Coast Air Quality Management District
72 and the California Air Resources Board has jurisdiction over air quality regulation within
13 the basin and over vehicular emissions, respectively. Both agencies are continuing to
74 implement the local air quality management plan and adopt regulations. The SCAQMD
7
75 and CARB should ensure that all applicable regulations pertaining to the project area
16 are enforced.
77 FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
1$ the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
79 Facts in Support Qf i - Regional ambient air quality conditions, combined
io with regional cumulative traffic contributes to the exceedance of daily state and federal
11 standards for several air pollutants. All feasible mitigation measures to reduce air
32 quality emissions for the project have been applied and state and federal standards will
13 be exceeded with or without the proposed project. All project alternatives, including the
3 "no project" alternative, would also result in some emission standards being exceeded
35 on a daily basis within the basin.
36 The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
37 facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
g$ A
39 A. Significant Mct - Project construction activity will result in short-term acoustical
9P impacts and vehicular traffic will result in long-term acoustical impacts on adjacent areas.
91 FINDING 1 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
92 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
93 identified in the Final EIR.
94 Factsin u - Construction activities must comply with specified
95 hours of operation to minimize noise impacts. Truck routes for hauling operations will
96 be reviewed to minimize noise impacts on residential areas. Additional acoustical
97 analysis shall be required when tentative maps are submitted and fixture construction
91 must meet all city and state noise standards.
8
199 All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
200 eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the
201 Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth
202 above.
3 50CIQECQN
'04 Increases in population, housing and employment will not result in direct adverse impacts
1-05 and growth, by itself should not be considered an adverse environmental impact. All
Z06 associated impacts related to population, housing and employment growth are addressed
107 in other sections of the EIR and these findings.
i
?08 AESTHETICS
?Og A_ ignificant Effect - Buildout of the General Plan and hillside development, in
10 particular, may alter the visual character of the area, diminish the existing open space
A character of the city, and may result in major intensification of land uses throughout the
'.12 Lake Elsinore area.
113 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
114 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
'15 identified in the Final EIR.
'16 Fgcts in rt - The city shall implement the goals and policies of
'17 the Community Design Element, the Open Space/Conservation Element and the Parks
''18 and Recreation Element of the General Plan; each of which assures the aesthetic
'.19 impacts of development are mitigated. The city will also adopt a hillside development
:20 ordinance and require a visual impact analysis for projects in sensitive locations. City
21 review of important vistas and viewpoints will also assure that natural aesthetics are
22 integrated into the design of future projects.
'23 FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
'.24 the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
9
225 facts in Support of Findings - While extensive project review and control of
27'c hillside development will minimize the aesthetic impacts of development, the impact on
227 the natural topography and viewshed of future development is only partially mitigated.
228 All project alternatives, other than the no project alternative would result in similar
229 impacts as the project on aesthetics. The city's objectives for economic growth, housing
230 and circulation must be balanced against the impacts of aesthetics.
31 The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
32 facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below,
33 giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
PUBLIC SERVICES
35 A. Significant Effect - The project will result in increased demand for all urban
36 services, including police, schools, parks, fire, water, wastewater, electrical, gas, solid
'37 waste and telephone. Prior to mitigation, the demands for sewer, water, solid waste,
38 schools, parks and police and fire services are regarded as significant.
'39 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
'40 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
.4 identified in the Final EIR.
'42 Facts in Slipport of Finding - The city shall require new developments adopt
43 water conservation measures, work with the water district to assure adequate supply and
44 delivery systems and use reclaimed water for irrigation for golf courses and parks, when
45 feasible. All sewer improvements shall be designed to city, county and district standards.
46 The city sbalI periodically evaluate the level of police services and work with the
47 Riverside County Sheriff Department on plans and funding for police services. Private
48 security shall be required for specified commercial/industrial developments. The city and
4_ the Riverside County Fire Department shall implement the Fire Protection Swddy Report
50 n Specific r he City Of Uke-E-Isinoreand update the plan as needed.
51 Provisions for adequate fire services shall be reviewed when tract maps are submitted.
10
'52
'53 Future projects shall comply with all city regulations regarding solid waste and the
'54 city shall comply with AB 939. Developments shall be subject to school impact fees and
•S3 the city shall consider requiring dedication of land and improvements for school facilities.
The city shall provide park acreage at the ratio of five acres per I,000 population.
i' Other mitigations for library, electrical and natural gas, and cable services are provided
-58 in the Final ETIL
'59 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
60 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
'61 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
'62 CULTURAL RES01TRCES
'63 A_ Significant Eff - Buildout of the General Plan will result in significant impacts
(A on archaeological and paleontological resources. In addition, if existing buildings are
5 declared of county historic significance, they may be impacted by future development.
'66 FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
'67 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
168 identified in the Final EIR.
'69 Facts in VTQrt of Finding - 'fie city shall require projects in areas of potential
170 arahcaeological and paleontological significance submit technical studies with their
'.71 applications) with mitigations defined in accordance with Appendix K of the CEQA
'72 Guidelines. The city shall also review the status of potential historic structures in the
�73 environmental review process.
34 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
'_75 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
!76 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
i
11
77 PRQiECT _ i TERNATIYFS
78 The "no project" alternative, a buildout under the 1982 General Plan alternative,
79 a buildout under a lower overall density, and a cluster/mixed use residential alternative
80 were evaluated in the EIR. These alternatives are considered a reasonable range of
81 alternatives, include alternatives which have Iower projected environmental impacts than
32 the project, and include alternatives which address some, but not all of the project
33 objectives.
34 Recent court cases regarding the discussion of alternate site locations indicate that
i' an environmental document may or may not include an alternate site as a project
i6 alternative. While other cities of similar size may be alternatives for growth within Lake
17 2Elsinore, regional growth is occurring throughout the region. Furthermore, if alternate
f8 locations were feasible, they may have similar or greater environmental impacts than
�9 additional development in the city of Lake Elsinore. Consideration of an alternate
)0 location is rejected primarily because it would concentrate growth impacts in one or
?1 more other communities and not provide for residents of the city. The alternatives
Q evaluated in the Final EIR were rejected for the following reasons.
)3 "No Project" Alternative
4 The "no project" alternative fails to meet the goals of the city to continue to
15 provide housing, economic opportunity and an orderly pattern of growth within their
)6 jurisdiction: Without additional development, the objectives of either the existing or
�7 proposed General Plan could be realized. Opportunities to balance housing and
�8 employment needs within the city would not occur with this alternative.
19 l3uildout Under the 1982Genura-LIMO
�( This alternative would not comply with provisions of state law which require cities
)l to regularly update their General Plan. Increased employment opportunities, within the
12 city, proposed by the project, would not occur in this alternative. Residents would
12
303 continue to seek employment outside the city, adding to total vehicle miles traveled, and
304 associated air quality impacts outside the city. Future projected growth within the city
305 would not be accommodated, the circulation system may be adequate for travel demands
506 and demands for public services may exceed service provisions. Although this alternative
"'7 reduces total trips compared to the project, it is a less economically feasible alternative
3 for the city. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the city.
,09 Ruildout at a Lower Overall Densitv
10 This alternative proposes approximately 42 percent fewer dwelling units than that
11 proposed by the project. A full range of housing types and densities would not occur
12 with this alternative. Therefore, objectives of the Housing Element may not be met and
13 housing may not be available in all price ranges. Since higher densities may afford more
14 opportunities to designate areas for open space, this alternative may result in less open
15 space than the project. Therefore, this alternative would not meet all of the objectives
16 of the city.
17 Cluster jMixed Use Residential
18 This alternative shifts land from commercial/industrial uses to residential uses,
19 resulting in an increase of approximately 14,950 dwelling units. Since higher residential
!0 densities are proposed, fewer detached single family units may occur. This alternative
'.I does not provide an acceptable balance between employment and housing, and does not
_2 provide sufficient number of units in the single family detached category. Since fewer
13 nonresidential uses are proposed, city objectives for employment within the city and fiscal
4 revenues may not be adequate.
13
I EXIUBTT B
2 ' STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
3 FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE' GENERAL, PLAN EIR (SCH #88020114)
4 October 1990
5 BACKGROUND
6 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA EIR
7 Guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto provider
"(a) . CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
9 project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
10 approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
11 unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may
12 be considered 'acceptable!
13 (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
14 effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency
15 must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR
I' and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the
17 agency also makes the finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
18 (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
19 should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
20 in the Notice of Determination. (Section 15093 of the Guidelines)."
21 After balancing the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
22 environmental risks, the City Council specifically finds and makes this statement of
23 overriding considerations that this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all
2, significant effects on the environment where feasible, and has determined that any
25 remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable
?h due to the overriding concerns described below:
1
i
27 Because the actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines. an
28 environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Lake Elsinore. The
29 EIR has identified certain significant effects that will result from this project that cannot
34 feasibly be completely avoided.
k
31 Therefore, the following overriding considerations are provided against which the
32 unavoidable adverse effects are balanced in reaching a decision on this project. The
53 remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are found acceptable given the mitigation,
34 conditions and overriding considerations contained in this Resolution.
35 1. Implementation of the General Plan will provide needs-1 commercial services
i
i
36 and employment opportunities for city residents in close proximity to their place of
37 residence. These opportunities will both 'lower the total vehicle miles traveled in the
38 region and lower vehicular emissions and air quality impacts.
2. Implementation of the General Plan will result in the loss of biological
resources. However, feasible mitigations have been included in the General Plan, and
41 preservation of biological resources must be balanced against other goals for housing,
12 employment and circulation.
13 3. Cumulative traffic impacts can be reduced by the recommended mitigation
k
14 measures for the project. The proposed Circulation Plan is designed to accommodate
15 buiildout of the General Plan. All feasible traffic mitigation measures have been recom
16 mended for the project.
17 4. Air quality emissions are reduced to the extent feasible by facilitating traffic
19 flow, by providing new jobs within the city and by designating commercial uses near
residential uses. Further reductions are dependent on the California Air Resources
50 Board (CA.RB) requiring vehicles with lower emissions. Although project-generated
31 emissions are partially mitigated, some state and federal daily air pollution standards (ie.,
32 ozone, particulates) are exceeded on a daily basis with or without the project.
2
i3 S. planning for some public services must proceed in shorter time increments than
14. buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, master plans for these services, and particularly
�S for fire services must be updated regularly to provide needed services.
16 b. Some areas within the city with natural landforms will be altered with
7 development_ The value of aesthetic and topographical resources must be balanced
8 against other city goals for housing, economic development and circulation.
9 7. Existing noise levels within the city will increase with buildout of the General
0 Plan. Some areas of existing development may be exposed to noise levels beyond city.
1 standards. Regional and area circulation needs must be balanced against the noise
policies and goals in the General Plan.
3 8. Buildout of the General Plan will expose additional persons in the city to
4 regional seismic events in Southern California. Potential safety impacts will be minimized
5 by proper construction and seismic "exposure" must be balanced against the need for
6 residential areas.
7 9. Temporary flooding may occur in some areas of the city prior to implementa-
8 tion of the Lake Management Plan. While feasible mitigation measures are proposed,
9 partial mitigation is acceptable when balanced against the needs for long range planning
0 and implementation.
3
Y.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE } SS:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE }
I, Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting of
said Council on the 27th day of November, 1990, and that it was so
adopted by the following vote:
AYES : COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, WINKLER,
WASHBURN
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
i
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS : STARKEY
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
VICKI LYNN KASA , CITY C ERK
CITY OF LA ELSINORE
(SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore,
€ DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. 90-115 of said Council, and that the
same has not been amended or repealed.
f
i
D QED: November 28, 1990
E
e
CKI LYNNE SAD, CITY CLERK
CITY OF LAKE LSINORE
(SEAL)