HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 1990-115RESOLUTION NO. 90- 115
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING TFIE
FINAL EI~'VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
88020114) FOR THE GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE LAKE ESLINORE
GENERAL 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 hearings were beld 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 unpacts, mitigation measures and project
alternatives associated with the proposed General Plan~, and
D. WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR was prepazed pursuant to the
requirements of the Caiifornia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA
Guidelines ("Guidelines") and the City's policies for the implementation of CEQA; and
g VJ~-IEgEps~ 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 tesrimony and
documentation presented by the public and any concemed govemmental agencies.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that the City Council 5nds and
deiermines with respect to the proposed General Plan EIIZ as follows:
A The City Council bereby certifies that the information contained in the
Environmental Impact Report (Sch 88020114) bas been reviewed and considered by tl~e
members of the CYty Council with respect to the projecK.
B. The GSty Council certi5es 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 C~ty 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 commenu on tbe draft EIR, bave 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 aze summarized in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by ,this reference, and the City
Council 5nds and determines that measures have been incorporated into the project
wtilch mitigate or avoid tt~e adverse impacu identified in the environmental impact
report and in F.xhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference;
3. That based on information set forth in the environmental impact
report and in F_xhibit 'B" hereto, there are significant unavoidable environmental effect
which cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is implemented. Those
unavoidable signi5cant 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
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 aze set forth in Exhibit "B" wlvch is attached bereto
and incorporated herein by this reference;
4. That no additional foreseeable adverse impact will have a signi5cant
effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
environment as a result of the proposed project;
5. T1~e General Plan Environmental Impact Report has described all
reasonable altematives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives to
the project (including the "no project altemative"), even wben these altematives might
impede the attainment of the project objectives and might be more costly.
6. The speci~c 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 altematives to tbe project, or to the location of the
project, which could feasibly achieve the basic objective of the project, have been
considered and rejected in favor of tbe proposed project.
g. C~mulative unpact of the project in relationship to other projects in
the area have been considered and except with respect to those impacu identified in
Exhibit "S" hereto, mitigation measures aze incorporated into the project to reduce such
impacts to acceptable levels.
A The CSty Council further 5nds and determines that all significant
environmental effecu identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report have
been reduced to an acceptable level in that:
i. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through fmdings set forth
3
in this resoIution and Fxiubit "A" hereto and other documenu in the record, specific
economic, sorial, and other considerations make infeasible otber project altematives
identified in said Environmental Impact Report; and
2. Based upon the Environmental Impact Report, Exhibit "A" and other
docvmenu in the rccord, all remaining foreseeable unavoidab]e sigii£cant effects of the
project are ovemdden by tlie bene5ts of tbe project as described in Exhibit "B" and the
G`ity Council hereby adopu said Exhibit "B" as a statement of overriding considerations
for the proposed project.
BE TI' FURTHER RESOLVED that the GYty Council of the C~ty of Lake
Elsinore certifies the Final EIR for the Lake Elsinore General Plan (SCH 88020000114),
makes its above-described findings of signi5cant environmental effects aud adopu 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 tbe CYty
Council, approves the Lake Elsinore General Plan upon adoption of the appropriate
ordinance therefor and reasons as set forth berein, based on the 5ndings, authorizes
implementation of the mitigation measures and monitoring thereof, and directs the filing
of a Notice of Determination.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED'this 27th day
ST:
~.
CTTY CLERK
November
M~i
APPROVED
1990.
F~ORM:
~
4
RESOLUTION N0. 90-115
1
EXHIBIT A
2 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS -
3 FOR Ti~ LAKE EISINORE GENERAL PLAN EIR (SCH #88020114)
~ November 27 , 1990
g - SIGNIFiCANf ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
6 PROJECI', FINDINGS W1TH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND
7 STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT Ti-~REOF, ALL WTTti
g RESPECT TO TI~ PROPOSED ADOPTION OF TT~ GENERAL
g PLAN FOR THE CTI'Y OF LAKE ELSINORE.
10 BACKGROUND
lI The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA EIR
12 Guidetines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant tbereto provide:
13 "No public agency shaIl approve or carry out a project for which an environmental
14 impact report has been completed and which identified one or more significant
15 effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings
16 for each of tbese significant effects, accompanied by a brief expianation of the
17 rationale for eacb findings." (Section 15091)
lg The City of Lake Elsinore approved the proposed Genera] ~lan at iu heariag on
ig November 27 , 1990, wlrich bearing was scheduled and noticed as required by law. Thc
2p 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 Fina] EIR was presented to, reviewed and
23 considered by the Ciry Council prior to approving the project. Because the proposed
24 actions constimte a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Lake ~lsinore
25 bas prepared an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #88020114). T'he env~ronmental
26 impact report (EIR) identi6ed certain significant effects which may occur as a result of
27 this project. Further, this City Council bas determined that the EIR as complete and
~ 1
28 adequate and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and the
2g Cyty's environmental procedures. Therefore, tt~e following findings aze set fonh herein
3U ~ pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines,
31. tbe possible findings ares
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 wittvn the responsibility and '
36 jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agenry making the
, finding. Such cbanges have been adopted by such other agency or
3g can and should be adopted by such other agency.
39 (3) Specif'ic economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
40 mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
41 EIR.
42 LAND USE
4:~ A. Si~nificant Effect - Development of the General Plan may result in direct land use
44 conflicu between differing land uses prior to mitigation.
45 FTNDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
46 the project which avoid~ or substantially lessen the signi~icant environmental effect as
47 identified in tbe Final EIR.
48 Facts in S,~poort of Findine - All future development projects shall be subject to
49 site plan review and appropriate land uses, and requiremenu for buffering of differing
50 Iand usc~,will be established at that time. Project's will also be subject to design review
'_ and adherence to landscaping gaidelines.
. 2
52 All si~ificant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantiallylessened
53 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
54 project or future projed approvals as set forth above.
-; (;FnT nc;Y/SOII~
56 A. S;vnificant Effect - Bu~7dout of the Generat Plan will result in significant
57 alteration of general topograpby in some portions of the ciry tluough grading for roads,
58 development and drainage facilities. Development in some hillside areas may subject
59 structures and persons to landslide and slope stability hazazds• .
60 FINDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
61 the project wlvch avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
62 identified in the Final EIR.
63 Facts in Suvoort of Findine - Geotechnical reports shall be required for all
64 developments in azeas 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 hiIlside 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.
6g Al] significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened.
70 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in tl~e Final EIR and incorporated into the
71 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
72 g, $~nificant Effect - Buildout of the General Plan may result in the loss of
73 valuable mineral resources, including those included in Mineral Resoutce Areas.
7q FTNDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
75 the project wbich avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
76 identified in the Final EIR.
~ 3
77 ' Fact~n__S11pDOrt of Findine~ - Prior to approval of developments that may
78 eliminate tbe extraction of regionally signi~cant 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 continua
82 AII si~cant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
g3 by virme of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
84 ~ project or future project approvals az set forth above.
85 -ZTYDROLOGY
g6 p. Si~nificant Effect - 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 azeas available for absorption and result in increased storm runoff.
g9 FINDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
90 the project which avoid or substantially ]essen the significant environmental effect as
91 identified in the Final EIR.
92 Facts in S~nort o~ ~nQ - 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 F1ood Control District. Erosion control measures and
9S street sweeping will be required. The ciry shall also implement tbe Lake Management
96 ProjecG
g7 All signi5cant environmental effeets 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 apptovals as set forth above.
4
ioo BIOL9~rY
l01 A: iienificant Effect - As a result of buildout of the General Plan, sensitive plant
l02 species and w7dlife habitat may be removed and wildlife displaced or terminated by
tp3 • development activides. .
104 - FTNDTNG i_ Cha~ges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
OS within the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmentai effect
06 as identified in the Final EIR.
07 ~acts in Sunnort of Findines - All proposed development in riparian areas shall
O8 be subject to U. S. Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fisb and Game
O9 regulations. Development in all areas of high and potentially high resource. sensitiviry
10 shall be subject to additional site specific biological analysis and mitigation through the
11 environmental review process. Peimanent open space areas shall be designated in
12 specific plan azeas for the protection of significant biological resources
" 13 FINDING 3- Specific economic, social, or otber considerations make infeasible
14 the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
15 Facts in Sunvort of Findines - While extensive feasible mitigation measures for
16 preservation of biological resources aze recommended in tl~e 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
1g future development All project alternatives, other than the no project altemative, would
20 also result in some impacts on natural resources following mirigation.
zl The remainin8, unavoidable signi5cant effect is acceptable when balanced against
22 facts set forch above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below,
Z3 giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable signi5cant effect.
. 5
[2d T'rt aFFt /CIRCi n ,ATION
C25 A. Sienificant ffect - Buildout of the General Plan will result in significant impacts
t26 upon the circvlation system prior to mitigation. Development of proposed land uses
~27 withhia the city w~71 result in the need for unprovement and expansion of the circulation
network
Zg F7NDING 1- Changes or aiterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
30 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as '
31 identified in tl~e Final EIR.
32 Facts in Sunnort of Findines - A comprebensive tr~c 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 welI as freeway overcrossings, financing mechanisms, bike and pedestrian pathways,
36 and deve]opment of transportation demand management programs.
37 All significant environmental effects bave been eliminated or substantially lessened
38 by vinue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
39 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
l0 ~TR OUALITY
tl A. ~ignificant Effect - Demolition, grading and rnnstruction for buildout of the
12 ~ General Plan will result in short-term dust emissions for adjacent uses.
t3 FINDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
I4 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signilicant environmenta] effect as
~S identi5ed in the Final EIR.
G6 Fa tt in up~ort of Findit~ - Mitigadon measures are required which result in
t7 reducing dust emissions. These measures include periodically sprinkling the site with
~ 6
~_qg water, paving parlan8 a~'~~ ~ soon as possible, and avoiding grading during Santa Ana
~.49 wind conditions.
50 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
51 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in tl~e Final EIR and incorporated into the
; project or future project approvals as set forth above.
53 B. Sienificant Effect - The total emissions generated by General Pian buildout are
54: considered significant for the subregional prior to mitigation and are only partiallY
55 mitigated. Daily standards for ozone and particulates aze exceeded in the basin witb or
56 witbout the project. These impacu are only partially mitigated by the recommended
57 mitigation measures.
5g 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.
i; a Facts in Suonort of Findines - Project development shall comply with all
62 applicable n~les and regulations adopted by tbe South Coast Air Quality Management
53 District. The city shall also incorporate the goals and objectives of the 1989 Air Quality
64 Management Plan in its General Plan. In addition, traf5c 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.
ri7 FII~TDING 2- Such changes or alterations aze within the responsibility and
58 jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency maldng the finding. Such
G9 cbanges have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
70 other agency.
71 ~cts in Sunno*~ ~f Findines - The South Coast Air Quality Management District
]2 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
14 implement the local air quali~Y management plan and adopt regulations. The SCAQMD
~
~5 and CARB should ensure that all applicable regulations pertaining to the project area
~6 aze enforced.
17 FINDING 3- Specific economic, social, or otber consideradons make infeasible
18 the midgation measures or project altematives identified in the Final EIR.
79 Fact~ in $~pnort of Findines - Regional ambient air quality conditions, combined
t0 ~, with regional cumulative traffic wntributes to the exceedance of daily state and federal
il . standards for several air pollutants. All feasible mitigation measures to reduce sir
32 quality emissions for the project have been applied and state and federal standards will "
i3 be exceeded witb or without the proposed project. All project alternatives, including the
i "no project" altemative, would also result in some emission standards being exceeded
~S on a daily basis within the basin.
;G The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
37 facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below.
48 ACOUST7CS
49 A SiPnificant Effect - Project construction activity wi11 result in short-term acoustical
9~ impacts and vehiculaz traffic will result in long-term acoustical impacu on adjacent areas.
gl FINDING 1. Changes or alterations bave been required in, or incorporated into,
92 the project which avoid or substantially lessen tl~e signi5cant environmental effect as
93 identi5ed in the Final EIR.
94 k'acts in SUDDOiI of Findine - Construction activities must comply with specif'ied
95 hours of operation to minimize noise impacts. Truck routes for hauling operations will
96 be reviewed to minimize noise impacts on residential areas. Additiona] acoustica]
97 analysis shall be required when tentative maps aze submitted and future construction
9,, must meet all city and state noise standazds.
8
Igg All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
200 eliminated or substantially lessened by vircue of mitigation measures identified in the
201 Final EIIt and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth
2U2 above.
3 ~Q~'tOECONOMICS
'04 Increases in population, housing and employment will not result in d'uect adverse impacu
'OS and growth, by iuelf sbould not be considered an adverse environmental impact. All
?06 associated impacts related to population, housing and employment growth are addressed
?07 in other sections of the EIR and these findings.
?08 AFS'i'HE7TCS
>pg ~4. ~igniflicant Effect - Buildout of the General Plan and hillside development, in
'10 particular, may alter the visual character of the area, diminish the e~cisting open space
t] character of the city, and may result in major intensification of land uses throughout the
'.12 Lake Elsinore area.
!13 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 ~,~ in Suvvort of Findine - T6e city sball implement the goals and policies of
'17 the Communiry 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 lullside development
20 ordinance and require a visual impacc analYsis for projects in sensitive locations. GYry
21 review of important vistas and viewpoinu will also assure that natural aesthetics are
'22 integrated into the design of future projecu.
'23 FINDING 3- Specific economic, social, or other eonsiderations make infeasible
'24 the mitigation measures or project altematives identi5ed in tt~e final EIR.
9
225 Facts in SllDD07L of Findines - While extensive project review and control of
27' hiIIside developmenf will **>in;m;~e the aesthetic impacts of development, the impact on
127 .' the natural topograpby and viewshed of future development is only partially mitigated.
228 A11 project alternatives, other than the no project altemative would result in similaz
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.
~1 ~ The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
~Z facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below,
33 giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable signi5cant effect.
?, ~[TBL1C SERVICES
35 A Sipnificant Effect - The project will result in increased demand for all urban
'36 services, including police, schools, pazks, fire, water, wastewater, electrical, gas, solid
:37 waste and telepbone. Prior to mitigation, the demands for sewer, water, solid waste,
:38 schools, parks and police and fue services are regarded as signi5cant.
'39 FINDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
'40 the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signi~icant environmenta] effect as
:4' identified in the Finai EIR.
'42 Facts in S~pyort of Findine - 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 ciry sbal] periodically evaluate the level of police services and work witb the
47 Riverside County Sheriff Department on plans and funding for police services. Private
48 security shall be required for specified commercia]/industrial developments. The city and
4_ the Riverside County Fire Department shall implement the Fire Protection Stud~Fpon
50 and Area Specific Plan for the Cltv of Lake Elsinore and update the plan as needed.
S1 Provisions for adequate fire services shall be reviewed when tract maps are submitted.
lo
,52
'S3 Future projects shall comply witl~ a11 citY roSulations regazding solid waste and the
'.54 ciry sball comply with AB 939• Developments shall be subject to schoo] impact fees and
SS the city shall consider requiring dedication of land and improvements for school facilities.
~- Tye city shall provide park acreage at the ratio of 5ve acres per 1,000 population.
~<' Other mitigations for library, electrical and natural gas, and cable services are provided
'.58 in th8 FinaI EIR.
~Sg 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.
'b2 CUT TUKAI- RESOURCES
'63 A ienificant Effect - Buildout of the General Plan will result in significant impacts
~fi4 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 tbe significant environmental effect as
'68 identified in the Final EIFt.
'.69 ~cts in Sunnort of Findine - T'he city shall require projecu in azeas of potential
!70 arahcaeoIogical and paleontological significance submit technical studies with their
'.71 applications, wit1~ mitiBations defined in accordance with Appendix K of the CEQA
!72 Guidelines. The city shall also review the status of potential historic suuctwes in the
?73 environmental review process.
:7q AIl significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened
?75 by virtue of mitigation measures identified in tbe Final EIR and incorporated into the
>_76 project or future project approvals as set forth above.
11
7T PRO~CT Ai TERNATIVE~
78 The "no project" alternative, a buildout under the 1982 General Pian alteraative,
79, a buildout under a lower overall density, and a cluster/mixed use residential alternative
80. were evaluated in the EIIL These altemaUves are considered a reasonable range of
81 altematives, include altematives which have lower projected environmental impacts than
42 the project, and include altematives which address some, but not all of the project
33 objectives.
i4 Recent court cases regazding tl~e discussion of alternate site locations indicate that
;' an environmental document may or may not include an altemate site as a project
t6 alternative. While other cities of similar size may be altemadves for growth within Lake
i7 2Elsinore, regional growtb is occurring throughout tbe region. Furthermore, if altemate
i8 locations were feasible, they may have similu or greater environmental impacts than
i9 additiona] development in the ciry of Lake Elsinore. Consideration of an altemate
i0 location is rejected primarily because it would concentrate growth impacts in one or
~1 more other communities and not provide for residenu of the ciry. The altematives
~2 evaluated in the Final EIR were rejected for the following reasons.
~3 "No Pr9iect" Alternative
~4 The "no project" altemative fails to meet the goals of the city to wntinue to
~S provide housing, economic opportunity and an orderly pattem 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 altemative.
'9 Buildout Under the ]982 General Plan
K This altemative would not comply with provisions of state law which require cities
~i to regularly update their General Plan. Increased empioyment opportunities, within the
i2 city, proposed by the project, would not occur in this altemative. Residenu would
12
303 continue to seek employment outside the ciry, adding to total velucle miles traveled, and
304 associated air quality impactc ouuide the city. Future projected growth within the ciry
305 would not be accommodated, the circulation system may be adequate for travel demands
306 and demands for public services may exceed service provisions. Although this alternative
"'7 reduces total vips compazed to the project, it is a less economically feasible alternadve
R for tl~e city, Therefore, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the city.
~09 Buildout at a Lower Overall Densitv
10 This altemative proposes appro~umately 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 aItemative. 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 altemative may result in less open
15 space than the project. Therefore, this altemative would not meet all of the objectives
t6 of the city.
t7 C~ter Mixed Use Residential
[8 This altemative shifu land from commercial/industrial uses to residentiai uses,
l9 resulting in an increase of approximately 14,950 dwelling uniu. Since higher residential
'.0 densities are proposed, fewer detached single family uniu may occur. This altemative
'1 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
'.3 nonresidential uses are proposed, city objectives for employment within the city and fiscal
:4 revenues may not be adequate.
~ 13
(4~
%
1 EXf~TT B
2~ •. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
3 FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN EIR (SCH #88020114)
q . October _, 1990
g BACKGROUND
6, The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA EIR
7 Guidelines promulgated pursuant tt~ereto provide:
"(a) . CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the bene5ts of a proposed
9 project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
ip approve the project. If the beneSts of the proposed project outweigh the
11 unavoidable adverse environmental effects, tbe 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 agenry
IS must state in writing ttie reasons to support its action based on the Fina] EIR
~' and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the
17 agency also makes the finding under Secdon 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
Ig (c) If an agenry makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
19 should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
2p in the Notice of Deternunation. (Section 15093 of the Guidelines)."
21 After balancing the benefits of tbe proposed project against iu unavoidable
22 environmental risks, the Giry Council specifically finds and makes this statement of
23 overriding considerations that this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all
2, significant effecu on the environment where feasible, and has determined that any
25 remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable
25 due to the overriding concerns described below:
1
~ 27 gecause the actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, an
28 environmental impact report (E1R) has been prepazed by the City of Lake Elsinore. The
29 EIR has identi5ed certain significant effects that will resnlt from this project that cannot
30 feasibly be completely avoided.
31 Therefore, the following ovemding considerations aze provided against which the
32 unavoidable adverse effects aze balanced in reaching a decision on this project. The
33 remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are found acceptable given the mitigation,
34 conditions and ovemding considerations contained in this Resolution.
35 1. Implementation of the General Plan will provide need~.~l ~ommercial services
36 and empIoyment opportunities for city residents in close pro~mity to the'u place of
37 residence. These opportunities will both lower the total vehicle miles traveled in the
38 region and Iower 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,
Z2 employment and circulation.
l3 3. Climulative traffic impacts can be reduced by the recommended mitigadon
34 measures for the project. The proposed Circulation Plan is designed to accommodate
~5 bw7dout of the General Plan. All feasible traffic mitigation measures have been recom-.
46 mended for the project.
3? 4. Air quality emissions are reduced to the extent feasible by facilitating traffic
flow, by providing new jobs within tLe city and by designating commercial uses near
' residentia] uses. Further reductions aze dependent on the California Air Resources
50 Board (CARB) requiring vehicles with lower emissions. Although project-generated
51 emissions are partially mitigated, some state and federal daily air pollution standards (ie.,
i2 ozone, particulates) are exceeded on a daily basis with or without tbe project.
2
. _ _ __
;g 5, planning for some public services must proceed in shorter time incremenu than
~Q~ buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, master plans for these services, and particularly
~S -~ for fira services must be updated regularly to provide needed services. •
;6 ` 6. Some areas within the city with natural landforms wi11 be altered with
~7 development. The value of aesthetic and topographical resources must be balanced
•8 against other city goais for housing, economic development and circulation.
9 ~ 7. Existing noise levels within the city will increase with buildout of the General
0 PIan. Some areas of existing development may be e~cposed to noise levels beyond city
1 standards. Regional and azea circulation needs must be balanced against the noise
< policies and goals in tbe General Plan.
3 8. Buildout of the General Plan will expose additiona] persons in the city to
4 regional seismic events in Southern California. Potential safety impacts will be m;n;mi?ed
S by proper construction and seisznic "exposure" must be balanced against the need for
6 residential areas.
7 9. Temporary flooding may occur in some azeas of the city prior to implementa-
8 tion of the Lake Management Plan. While feasible mitigation measures are proposed,
9 partia] mitigation is acceptable when balanced against the needs for long range planning
0 and imp]ementation.
3
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 o£ November, 1990, and that it was so
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
\
VICKI LYNN~ KASA , CITY C ERK
CITY OF LA ELSINORE
BUCK, DOMINGUEZ, WINKLER,
WASHBURN
NONE
STARKEY
NONE
(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.
D ED: November 28, 1990
~ ~~~
CKI LYNNE SAD, CITY CLERK
CITY OF L•AKE LSINORE
(SEAL)