Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 1995-18RESOLUTION NO. 95-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE~ CALIFORNIA~ CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-1, AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, ADOPTING FACTS, FINDINGS, AND THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS , WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore has prepared a Supplement to the Lake Elsinore General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing GPA 94-1, amending the Circulation and Housing Elements, and the additional increment of General Plan buildout not previously considered in said Final EIR. WHEREAS, draft Environmental Ympact Report (State Clearing Aouse No. 94012019,) has been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures and project alternatives associated with the proposed Project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); WHEREAS, written and oral comments on the draft Supplement EIR were received from the public during and after the public review period; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, conducted a public hearing on February 15, 1995, to receive all public testimony with respect to the draft Supplement EIR; and WHEREAS, comments and testimony concerning the draft Supplement EIR have been =es~onded to through the responses to comments, documents and various staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and received by the City Council; and WHEREAS, tre Planning Commission reviewed the environmental documentation comprising the draft Supplement EIR and found that the document considers all environmental effects of the Project described therein and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously reviewed the Supplement EIR and has recommended that the City Council (1) certify that ~he Supplement EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and is complete and adequate; and (2) approve the Project; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following findings prior to the approval of a Project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the Project, along with statements of facts supporting each finding: FINDING 1. - Changes or alterations which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the Project; FINDING 2. - Such .changes or alterations are within the ,' responsibility and jurisdiction o~ another public agency and not the agency making the findiag. Such findings have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; FINDING 3. - Specific, economic, social or other considerations make infeasible all the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Project; and WHEREAS, CEQA requires that the City Council balance the benefit of a proposed Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts in determining whether to approve the Project; and Page 2 95-18 Resolution No. WHEREAS, CEQA requires that where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrences of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action, based on the EIR and other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the environmental effects of the Project set forth as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by this reference as required by CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093; and WFIEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Supplement EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA, and has considered the information contained therein and in the other documents referred to therein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that: 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth above are true and correct. 2. The City Council does hereby certify the Final Supplement EIR as complete and adequate in that it addresses all of the environmental effects of the proposed Project described herein and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA. The Final Supplement EIR is composed of the following elements: a) Draft Environmental Impact Report dated March 1994; b) Appendices to the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated March 1994; c) City Staff Reports dated February 15, 1995 and March 14, 1995; d) Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting o£ February 15, 1995; e) Comments received on the draft EIR and responses to those comments; and f) Mitigation Monitoring Program dated February 1995. 3. The City Council makes the findings in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth as Attachment "A" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Supplement EIR, together with the finding that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based on substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Supplement EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Attachment "A10. 5. The City Council finds that the Final Supplement EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final Supplement EIR. 6. The City Council finds that although the Final Supplement EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result from the Project, all significant effects that can be feasibly mitigated or avoided have Page 3 95-18 Resolution No. been reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of mitigation measures listed as in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 7. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the Project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social or other considerations as set forth in the Facts, Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations set forth on Attachment "A". 8. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the Project as identified in the Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which have not been reduced to a level of insignificance have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of mitigation measures. 9. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the Project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. The City Council finds that the Final Supplement EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain ~he basic objectives of the Project, even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and the ultimate decisions on the Project. 11. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has been prepared, submitted and reviewed in accordance with the requirement of CEQA, that the Council has considered the information contained in the Final EIR, that the Final EIR is complete and adequate and that it addresses all environmental effects of the Project and all discretionary approvals required therefor. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 1995, by the following vote; AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERSe ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALONGI, BENDER, BRINLEY, PAPE, WASHBURN NONE NONE NONE ~ Y '( A TEST'.~ ~~~~~ Vicki Ly ~e Kasad, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore (SEAL) . APP OVED A~ T(' FOR/M ND LEGALITY: ~~ f ~i John R. Harper, ~i A ~orney City of Lake E nore iZ . .. ..~ -..j.,.. ty of Lake Elsinore np~~a FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL (iENERAL PLAN EIR CITY OF LARB ELSINORE The City is proposing a General Plan Amendment (94-1) to revise the General Plan~s Circulation and Housing Elements. The Circulation Element is amended to be consistent with the recent update of the City's Traffic Model and upgrade of roadway classifications. The Housing Element is amended to respond to State Department of Housing and Community Development requirements. The other remaining General Plan elements are also revised as necessary to ensure internal consistency with the amended Circulation and Housing Elements. Also evaluated are environmental impacts resulting from an additional increment of development buildout that was not addressed in the Final General Plan EIR. This development increment includes approximately 9,550 dwelling units, 8.4 million square feet of commercial uses, 19.1 million square feet of industrial uses, and 4,075 acres of other public uses. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD In accordance with State Planning Law, CEQA requirements, and findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City Council and Planning Commission consists of the following: 1. The Draft and Final EIR and Technical Appendices for the 1990 General Plan Update. The Response to Comments document, Statement of Findings of Facts, and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the 1990 General Plan Update. The Draft Supplemental EIR and Technical Appendices for the General Plan Amendment. 4. The Response to Comments document, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan Amendmento 5. All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other documents prepared by environmental consultants and the City. 6. All documents submitted by the public and public agencies in connection with the 1990 General Plan Update and General Plan Amendment. 7. Minutes or verbatim transcripts of all public hearings held in the City. 8. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at public hearings. PURPOSE OF FINDINGS Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant effect identified in the Supplemental EIR, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. It should be noted that for purposes of these findings, the proposed General Plan Amendment is referred to as the "project". Any City department is considered the lead public agency. 1 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation or project alternative identified in the EIR. The term "avoid" refers to the ability of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to insianificant levels. The term "substantially lessen1° refers to the ability of such measure or measures to substantiallv reduce severitv of a Although CEQA Guidelines requires that approving agencies merely specify that a particular significant effect is avoided or substantially lessened, these findings, for purposes of clarity, shall specify whether the effect in question has been fully mitigated to insignificant levels or simply lessened substantially. PIIRPOSB OF FACTS Section 15091 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that all findings be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Typically, mitigation measures are considered sufficient to support Finding No. l, as identified above. Discussion of facts in support og Findings Nos. 2 and 3 must also be made, as necessary. The intent of this Supplemental EIR is to supplement environmental analyses from the certified 1990 Final EIR. The Supplemental EIR incorporates by reference, appropriate environmental analyses and several mitigation measures from the certified 1990 Final EIR that were conducted and prepared for the 1990 General Plan update. To eliminate redundancy, this Findings document references those mitigation measures from the certified 1990 Final EIR which shall continue to be implemented to alleviate impacts resulting with the General Plan Amendment. Applicable mitigation measures will not be restated in this document. These mitigation measures, however, are considered part of the Supplemental EIR, this Findings document, and the public record. 2 FINDINGS OF FACTS The General Plan Amendment Supplemental EIR identified the following significant or potentially significant environmental impacts under the following general topics. Each of the findings and facts supporting each finding are set forth below. LAND IISS 1. Environmentai Ef£ect There could be land use alterations from a development increment comprised of approximately 9,55o dwelling units, 8.4 million square feet of commercial uses, 19.1 million square feet of industrial uses, and 4,075 acres of other public uses. Findinc Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Fsets All prior mitigation measures pertaining to land use included in the certified Final EIR are applicable to the General Plan Amendment and development increment and shall continue to be implemented. No additional mitigation measures are recommended or required. CIRCOLATION AND TRAFFIC 1e Environmental Effect Total average daily trips occurring within the City and Sphere areas would be 2,358,953. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts Mitigation measure no. 1 in the certified Final EIR is superseded by the amended Circulation Element and is no longer relevant. All remaining mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR are relevant and required to reduce impacts resulting with the General Plan Amendment, development increment, and 1990 General Plan. In addition, the following additional mitigation measures are required to further reduce impacts. - Throughout implementation of the General Plan, those recommendations contained in the traffic study (Appendix B) shall be complied with and implemented. The following summarizes these recommendations. a. Recommended functional classifications of amended Circulation Element roadways, including freeway, urban arterial, major, secondary, collector, and local roadways. b. Special programs, including development impact monitoring programs, roadway implementation phasing programs, transportation facilities funding programs, local congestion management programs, and regional coordination programs. - The City shall review all future development on a project-by- project basis and establish conditions, as necessary, to ensure that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for future development that exceeds the CMP threshold of 200 peak hour trips. 2. Ennironmental Effect Total vehicle trips generated from 1990 General Plan buildout within City and Sphere areas would be about 15,843,480 vehicle-miles, with an estimated average trip length of about 5.2 miles. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts Mitigation measure no. 1 in the certified Final EIR is superseded by the amended Circulation Element and is no longer relevant. All remaining mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR are relevant and required to reduce impacts resulting with the General Plan Amendment, development increment, and 1990 General Plan. In addition, the following additional mitigation measures are required to further reduce impacts. ~ Throughout implementation of the General Plan, those recommendations contained in the traffic study (Appendix B) shall be complied with and implemented. The following summarizes these recommendations. a. Recommended functional classifications of amended Circulation Element roadways, including freeway, urban arterial, major, secondary, collector, and local roadways. b. Special programs, including development impact monitoring programs, roadway implementation phasing programs, transportation facilities funding programs, local congestion manaqement programs, and regional coordination programs. - The City shall review all future development on a project-by- project basis and establish conditions, as necessary, to ensure that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for future development that exceeds the CMP threshold of 200 peak hour tripse 3. Environmental Effect Buildout of the 1990 General Plan could result in roadways throughout the City and Sphere areas having levels of service exceeding L05 D(which is not necessarily considered adverse according to the amended Circulation Element). Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. F8Ct8 Mitigation measure no. 1 in the certified Final EIR is superseded by the amended Circulation Element and is no longer relevant. All remaining mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR are relevant and required to reduce impacts resulting with the 4 General Plan Amendment, development increment, and 1990 General Plan. In addition, the following additional mitigation measures are required to further reduce impacts. - Throughout implementation of the General Plan, those recommendations contained in the traffic study (Appendix B) shall be complied with and implemented. The following summarizes these recommendations. a. Recommended functional classifications of amended Circulation Element roadways, including freeway, urban arterial, major, secondary, collector, and local roadways. b. Special programs, including development impact monitoring programs, roadway implementation phasing programs, transportation facilities funding programs, local congestion management programs, and regional coordination programs. - The City shall review all future development on a project-by- project basis and establish conditions, as necessary, to ensure that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for future development that exceeds the CMP threshold of 200 peak hour trips. 4. Environmental Effect Additional parking could be required for future development. F1n83IIQ Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above siqnificant effect. F8Ct The City shall review all future development on a project-by- project basis and establish conditions, as necessary, to ensure that sufficient parking is provided in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. 5. Environmental Effect Traffic safety could be affected with future development. Findfna Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. FBCt - The City shall review all future development on a project-by- project basis and establish conditions, as necessary, to ensure that traffic safety is enhanced to the greatest extent possible. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Environmental Effect There could be effects to geology, soils, topography, ground surface relief features, seismicity, mining, and agricultural lands. 5 Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facta All prior mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan Update are applicable and shall continue to be implemented. No additional mitigation measures are recommended or required. HYDROLOGY 1. Environmental Effect There could be additional effects to FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps and regional drainage basins. FinBina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. FaCts All prior mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan are applicable and shall continue to be implemented. The following mitigation measure from the certified Final EIR: "3. All development shall conform with the standards of the Riverside County Flood Control District." is revised to read as follows: - The City shall review all future development on a project-by- project basis and shall ensure that all development proposals and associated drainage plans meet FEMA standards and regulations. The following are additional mitigation measures: - The City, when reviewing future development proposals within SFHAs, are required to ensure that FEMA flood protection criteria are met. - The City, as required by the National Flood Insurance Program, shall notify FEMA when future development results in changes to the SFHAs and obtain appropriate Letters of Map Revisions (LOMRS) or physical map revisions from FEMA. 2. Environmental Effect There could be additional impacts related to surface water and flood hazards. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. FBCts - The City shall review all•future development on a project-by- project basis and shall encure that all development proposals and associated drainage plans meet FEMA standards and regulations. - If future development results in excavation of five acres or more of area, then a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, in 6 compliance with NPDES requirements shall be acquired. BIOLOGY 1. $nnironmental Effect There could be effects on highly sensitive and potentially highly sensitive biological resource areas. Findinc Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts All prior mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan Update are applicable and shall continue to be implemented. The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce impacts. - The City shall review all future developments on a project-by- project basis and determine if additional biological surveys are necessary. If deemed necessary, the City shall utilize the recommended scope of analyses contained in the California Department of Fish and Game letter of January 20, 1994 as a basis, and establish the scope for biological analyses for future developments. AIR OOALITY 1. Environmental 8ffect Construction activities and equipment could result in significant emissions. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. FBCts All mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan Update are applicable and shall continue to be implemented. 2. Bnvironmental Effect In the long-term, total stationary and mobile emissions could exceed AQMD threshold levels for all pollutants, regardless of mitigation measures. This is considered an unavoidable impact. Furthermore, given that the General Plan Amendment covers the entire City and Sphere areas, the cumulative scenario overlaps the General Plan Amendment scenario. Therefore, cumulative impacts are, likewise, considered unavoidable. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which substantially lessen the above significant effect. Facts All mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan Update are applicable and shall continue to be implemented. However, long-term and cumulative impacts are considered unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and included in the Final EIR and public record. 3. Snnironmental Effect Air management and planning effects could result. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts - The City shall continue to participate in WRCOG~s programs to implement their Model Air Quality Element and continue to implement appropriate SCAG policies relating to air quality management and planning. NOISS Environmental Effect Noise resulting from construction activities and equipment could occur. FinBina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts Those mitigation measures recommended in the certified Final EIR are incorporated by reference into this Supplemental EIR and would continue to be implemented. The following are additional mitigation measures which would further reduce impacts to insignificant levels. - Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. - For new construction located near existing development, especially if extensive heavy equipment operations are anticipated, existing residents within 300 feet of anticipated development shall be provided with phone numbers for both the construction contractor and the City who would respond to any complaints and who would make measurements to verify that noise performance standards are met. 2. Ennironmental Effect According to noise contours, more land uses along major roadways would be disturbed by excessive noise (greater than 65 dB) at buildout. Each roadway segment in the City would exceed 3 dB, which is considered the acceptable threshold level. FindinC Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. 8 Facts Those mitigation measures recommended in the certified Final EIR are incorporated by reference into this Supplemental EIR and would continue to be implemented. The following are additional mitigation measures which would further reduce impacts to insignificant levels. - The City shall review all future development on a project-by- project basis and determine if additional noise evaluations are necessary. - The City shall discourage location of sensitive developments within areas exceeding 65 dB contours unless adequate mitigation is provided. - The City shall coordinate with Caltrans to construct a noise barrier along I-15 to achieve acceptable noise levels for existing dwellings exposed to excessive noise levels resulting from additional freeway improvements. 3. Environmental Effect Every analyzed roadways except for one, SR-74 near E1 Toro and Riverside would result in greater noise levels. Four roadway segments would be affected by increased noise levels exceeding 3 dB and therefore, would be considered significantly impacted. These segments are found all along SR-74 and are near Nichols, Mountain, and Lincoln; Lincoln, Grand, and Roadway A; Grand, L~ncoln, and Alvarado; and Grand, Corydon, and Roadway C. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect, Facts Those mitigation measures recommended in the certified Final EIR are incorporated by reference into this Supplemental EIR and would continue to be implemented. The following are additional mitigation measures which would further reduce impacts to insignificant levels. - The City shall review all future development on a project-by- project basis and determine if additional noise evaluations are necessary. - The City shall discourage location of sensitive developments within areas exceeding 65 dB contours unless adequate mitigation is provided. - The City shall coordinate with Caltrans to construct a noise barrier along I-15 to achieve ecceptable noise levels for existing dwellings exposed to excessive noise levels resulting from additional freeway improvements. 4. Environmental Effect Expansion of Skypark Airport could alter noise patterns. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts - If Skypark Airport is proposed for expansion, the City shall establish the proper mitigation and conditions of approval to ensure that noise increases resulting from the expansion would be reduced adequately. 1e Environmental 8ffect Population, housing stock, and employment would be increased. However, increases in population, housing, and employment would not directly affect the physical environment. The City's Housing Element has been revised. Residential development anticipated with the City's General Plan would assist in implementing policies and programs contained in the Housing Element since residences would be built in the future to meet housing demands of the City and Sphere areas. Findina Socioeconomic impacts are not expected. Facts Since increases in population, housing and employment would not result in direct adverse impacts, mitigation measures are not required. AESTHETICS i. Environmental Effect Landforms, public views, biological resources, and architecture could be affected. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. FaCts All prior mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan update are applicable and shall continue to be implemented. No additional mitigation measures are recommended or required. LIGHT AND GLARE 1. Environmental Effect Light emissions from streets and other lighting sources could potentially increase effects on sensitive receptors, including the Mount Palomar Observatory and sensitive wildlife. FiAdina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts - The City shall review all future developments on a project-by- project basis and ensure that light and glare issues are considered in the decision-making for future developments. 10 2e Ennironmentai Effect Glare could result from sunliqht off flat building surfaces, with glass potentially contributing the highest degree of reflection. Glare could create unpleasant distractions, and could be a hazard, potentially interfering with motorists' vision and concentration. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts - The City shall review all future developments on a project-by- project basis and ensure that light and glare issues are considered in the decision-making for future developments. COLTIIRAL RESOIIRCES 1. Environmental Bffect There could be effects on paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. Facts All prior mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan update are applicable and shall continue to be implemented. No additional mitigation measures are recommended or required. PUBLIC IITILITISB. FACILITIES. AND SERVICES 1. Environmental Effect There would be development and population increases and therefore, increased demands for more water, wastewater, police, fire, solid waste disposal, public schools, parks and recreation, library, electricity, natural gas, cable television, telephone, and medical utilities, facilities, and services. Findina Changes or alterations have been required in and incorporated into the project which avoid the above significant effect. FBCts All prior mitigation measures included in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan update are applicable and shall continue to be implemented. No additional mitigation measures are recommended or required except for the following which pertain to fire protection: - Future developers shall participate in the County's fire protection impact mitigation program, as appropriate. - The City shall cooperate with the County Fire Department to the greatest extent feasible, to assist in increasing the Fire Department's annual operating budget. ai The City Council has reviewed and considered all alternatives described in the Supplemental EIR. The nature and extent of impacts associated with implementation of each alternative were considered in determininq the "environmentally superior" alternative and are discussed as follows. NO-PROJECT (NO DEVELOPMENT) ALTERNATIVS This alternative assumes that no physical development would take place at all. Since this alternative would basically retain existing conditions, it provides a"base line" against which impacts of the proposed project could be measured. Consequently, those impacts resulting with buildout of the General Plan would not occur with this alternative, particularly impacts associated with land use, transportation and circulation, geology and soils, hydrology, biology, air quality, noise, socioeconomic, aesthetics, light and qlare, cultural resources, and public utilities, facilities, and services. This alternative is considered environmentally superior. It should be noted, however, that this alternative would not: 1, Encourage development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses on under utilized parcels in a manner which strengthen the economic vitality of the City. 2. Expand the City's economic base by increasing sales tax revenue and provides local employment opportunities. 3. Meet the residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational needs of the City and its residents. 4. Recommend roadway improvements to provide adequate access and internal circulation to accommodate existing and future development. 5. Create high quality developments compatible with and harmonious with surrounding uses and activities. 6. Ensure that sufficient housing would be provided in accordance with State Department of Housing and Comraunity Development requirements. NO-PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT WOIILD OCCIIR AS PROPOSED IN 1990 CERTIFIED FINAL EIR) ALTSRNATIVE This alternative also represents the No-Project Alternative. This assumes that development would occur as proposed in the certified Final EIR for the 1990 General Plan Update. This alternative considers 1990 General Plan buildout without improvements and proqrams associated with the amended Circulation Element and Housing Element. This alternative also does not include the development increment. In general, most impacts resulting with the 1990 General Plan update would also occur with this alternative, particularly impacts associated with land use, geology and soils, hydrology, biology, aesthetics, and cultural resources. However, since the development increment would not be implemented with this alternative, it is concluded that level of development would be somewhat lesser with this alternative. As a result, effects associated with transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, socioeconomic, light and glare, and public utilities, facilities, and services would likewise, be lesser. 12 Though this alternative would create less impacts for certain environmental topics, this alternative would also create similar types and degrees of other environmental impacts as with the proposed project. This alternative, therefore, can not be considered overwhelmingly environmentally superior. SOILDOUT AT A LOWER OVERALL DENSITY ALTERNATIVS This alternative proposes less development intensity; about a 42 percent reduction of residential units or 43,426 units. Total units proposed in this alternative is 59,969 units as compared with the 103,395 units proposed with the 1990 General Plan update. It is assumed that those areas proposed for development in the 1990 General Plan is also proposed for development under this alternative, albeit at a lesser residential intensity. In general, several impacts resulting with the 1990 General Plan update would occur with this alternative, particularly impacts associated with land use, geology and soils, hydrology, biology, aesthetics, light and glare, and cultural resources. Aowever, since less development intensity is proposed, lesser impacts would likewise result with this alternative, including effects associated with transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, socioeconomic, and public utilities, facilities, and services. Though some impacts could result at a lesser degree and/or magnitude, this alternative would also create similar types and degrees of other environmental impacts. This alternative therefore, can not be considered overwhelmingly environmentally superiore CLUSTER/MI%ED IIS& ALTERNATIVE This alternative proposes an increase in residential units of about 38 percent or 39,290 units. Total amount of units considered with this alternative is 142,685 units. This alternative would also reduce total commercial and industrial uses by about 11 percent or 806,763 sf. Total amount of nonresidential uses considered with this alternative is 4,781,997 sf. It is assumed that those areas proposed for development in the 1990 General Plan is also proposed for development under this alternative, albeit at a greater residential intensity and lesser nonresidential intensity. In general, several impacts resulting with the 1990 General Plan update would also occur with this alternative, particularly impacts associated with land use, geology and soils, hydrology, biology, aesthetics, light and glare, and cultural resources. However, since greater overall development intensity is proposed, more intense impacts would likewise result with this alternative, including effects associated with transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, socioeconomic, and public utilities, facilities, and services. Though this alternative would create similar types and degrees of environmental impacts, this alternative would also create impacts at greater degrees. This alternative, therefore, can not be considered overwhelmingly environmentally superior. CONCLIIBION The nature and extent of impacts associated with implementation of each alternative were considered in determining the "environmentally superior" alternative. It was determined that the No-Project (Development Would Occur As Proposed In 1990 Certified Final EIR), Buildout At A Lower Overall Density, and Cluster/Mixed Use alternatives would result in 13 generally similar types and degree of environmental impacts as with the proposed project. Therefore, these alternatives were not considered overwhelmingly environmentally superior. Only the No- Project (No Development) Alternative would eliminate most impacts. This alternative, however, would not implement objectives and purposes of the General Plan. It should be noted, that most significant impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures. Only air quality impacts within the General Plan buildout and cumulative scenarios are considered significant after mitigation. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared to balance benefits of the proposed project aqainst these unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. The City Council finds that these significant effects on the environment are adequately offset and acceptable within the meaning of Sections 15092 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on the extensive environmental analyses conducted and alternatives described in this section, the General Plan and proposed amendments provide reasonable uses for the City and Sphere areas. 14 TATBMENT OF OVERRIDINti CONSIDERATION BIIPPLEMENT TO FINAL GENERAL PLAN EIR CITY OF LARE ELSINORE The Final EIR concludes and the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore finds that certain significant environmental effects of the General Plan are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. Specifically, the General Plan would result in significant air quality effects for both the General Plan buildout and cumulative scenarios. For such significant effects, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the General Plan against these unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the General Plan and Circulation and Housing Element amendments. The City Council finds that these significant effects on the environment are acceptable within the meaning of Sections 15092 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any alternatives with less significant environmental impacts are not preferable, due to the following overriding considerations. 1. The General Plan encourages development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses on under utilized parcels in a manner which strengthen the economic vitality of the City. 2. The General Plan expands the City's economic base by increasing sales tax revenue and provides local employment opportunities. 3. The General Plan meets the residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational needs of the City and its residents. 4. The Circulation Element amendment recommends roadway improvements to provide adequate access and internal circulation to accommodate existing and future development. 5. The General Plan preserves important environmental features and resources to the greatest extent feasible. 6. The General Plan creates high quality developments compatible with and harmonious with surrounding uses and activities. 7. The General Plan would be serviced by sufficient levels of public services and utilities. 8. The General Plan complies with appropriate City development policies and standards. 9. The Housing Element amendment ensure that sufficient housing would be provided in accordance with State Department of Housing and Community Development requirements. Any of the foregoing specific economic, social, and other considerations constitute benefits of the General Plan and amendments which are sufficient to outweigh public costs associated with the unavoidable air quality impacts. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, VICKI KASAD, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE~ DO AEREBY 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 14th day of March, 1995, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALONGI, BENDER, BRINLEY, PAPE, WASHBURN NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE V~ ~ VICKI iZz::.~tD~ CIT'.: CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, VICKI KASAD, CITY CLERK OF TAE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, DO AEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 95-18 of said Council, and that the same has not been amended or repealed. . March 20, 1995 VIG''KI KA~1D, CIT~ CLERK CITY Or: LAKE EL~INORE (SEAL)