HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2010-039RESOLUTION NO. 2010-39
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS
THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
WHEREAS, Sachin Trivedi of "SCVC II Inc. ", submitted an application for a
Conditional Use Permit to establish and operate a 24 -hour veterinary clinic /hospital
within a portion of an existing office /retail building located at 31577 Canyon Estates
Drive (APN: 363- 670 -009) (the "Project "); and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all discretionary projects
within an MSHCP criteria cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process ( "LEAP ")
and Joint Project Review ( "JPR ") to analyze the scope of the proposed development
and to ensure consistency with the MSHCP criteria; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP further requires that the City of Lake
Elsinore adopt consistency findings demonstrating that the proposed discretionary
entitlement complies with the MSHCP cell criteria, and the MSHCP goals and
objectives; and
F1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.168 requests
for the consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed veterinary
clinic /hospital establishment is a discretionary action to be considered, reviewed, and
approved, conditionally approved or denied by either the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission and /or the City Council; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given and the Planning
Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this
item on August 3, 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the Project's
consistency with Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP.
SECTION 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Planning Commission
makes the following Consistency Findings:
1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must
make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval.
Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the Project is required to be reviewed
for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with other "Plan Wide
Requirements." The Project site lies within Criteria Cell # 4647. However, based
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-39
PAGE 2 OF 4
on a verbal "common law vested rights agreement" between the City and a
previous landowner, the site was exempted from the MSHCP. This agreement
was the result of extensive costs associated with infrastructure and road
construction in that area prior to the City's involvement in the MSHCP. Based
upon the site reconnaissance survey there are no issues regarding consistency
with the MSCHP's other "Plan Wide Requirements." The Project site is fully
developed and all on -site improvements are incorporated, and no habitat is
present on site.
2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review
processes.
As stated above, the Project is exempt from the MSHCP by virtue of a common
law vested right agreement between a previous landowner and the City.
Therefore the Project was not processed through a Joint Project Review.
3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Guidelines.
The Project site is already developed. The Project is exempt from the
requirements of the MSHCP based upon a common law vested right. A
reconnaissance survey revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool /fairy
shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. As such, the
Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.2
of the MSHCP are not applicable.
4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Guidelines.
The Project is exempt from MSHCP provisions. Moreover, the site does not fall
within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas. Neither a habitat
assessment nor further focused surveys are required for the Project. Therefore,
Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines as set forth in Section
6.1.3 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the Project.
5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.
The Project is exempt from MSHCP provisions. Moreover, the MSHCP only
requires additional surveys for certain species if the Project is located in Criteria
Area Species Survey Areas, Amphibian Species Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl
Survey Areas, and Mammal Species Survey Areas of the MSHCP. The site is
fully developed and all on -site improvements are incorporated. Therefore, the
provisions of MSHCP Section 6.3.2 are not applicable.
6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-39
PAGE 3 OF 4
The Project is exempt from MSHCP provisions. Moreover, the Project site is not
within or adjacent to any MSHCP criteria or conservation areas. Therefore, the
Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines of MSHCP Section 6.1.4 are not
applicable.
7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
There are no resources located on the Project site requiring mapping as set forth
in MSCHP Section 6.3.1.
8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
The Project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP criteria or conservation
areas. Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines of MSHCP Section 6.4 are
not applicable.
9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
The Project will not be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development
l i Mitigation Fee given that the site is fully improved and developed.
10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Based upon the information provided above, the Project is consistent with the
MSHCP.
SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the Planning Commission
hereby adopts the findings above regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, this 3rd day of August, 2010.
ohn Gonzales, Chair
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
II
A rt A. Brady
City Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-39
PAGE 4OF4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, ROBERT A. BRADY, City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2010 -39 as adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of August 2010, and
that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: CHAIRMAN GONZALES, VICE - CHAIRMAN MENDOZA,
COMMISSIONER MORSCH, COMMISSIONER O'NEAL
NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER JORDAN
F ABSTAIN: NONE.
obert A. Brady
City Manager