Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2009-26 r-, RESOLUTION NO. 2009-26 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Central Valley Coalition has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of the Project identified as Tentative Parcel Map No. 36017 and Residential Design Review No. 2007-12 (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the 7.28-acre Project Site is located on the south side of Lakeshore Drive between Machado and Viscaya Streets (the "Project Site"); and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP indicates that projects which are proposed for development in an area not covered by an MSHCP criteria cell shall be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements" and that the City of Lake Elsinore shall make findings that the Project is consistent with those requirements; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is not located within a criteria cell, but was reviewed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and t WHEREAS, action taken by the Planning Commission and City Council with regard to the tentative tract map and residential design review applications is a discretionary action subject to the MSHCP; 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 April 7, 2009. 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 the MSHCP prior to recommending that the City Council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Planning Commission makes the following MSHCP Consistency Findings: 1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Implementing Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approving the Project. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Implementing Resolution, prior to approving any discretionary entitlement, the City is required to review the Project to ensure PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-26 PAGE 2 OF 5 consistency with the MSHCP criteria and other "Plan Wide Requirements." The Project, as proposed, was found,to be consistent with the MSHCP criteria. In addition, the Project was reviewed and found consistent with the following "Plan Wide Requirements": Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Species (MSHCP § 6.1.3), Urban/Wild/ands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP § 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP § 6.3.1), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP § 6.3.2), Fuels Management (MSHCP § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance § 4.0). 2. The Project is subject to the City's Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the County's Joint Project Review processes. The Project Site is within the Elsinore Area Plan, but the site is not within a Criteria Cell. Therefore, a Joint Project Review with the RCA was not required. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. I I Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of Riparian/Riverine areas and Vernal Pool habitat types based upon their value in the conservation of a number of MSHCP covered species. All potential impacts to Riparian/Riverine areas will be mitigated as identified in the Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). The Project Site does not have Vernal Pools. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The Project is located in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area as mapped in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. However, these surveys were not conducted. This requirement was realized after the 2006 survey season had passed. The MSHCP requires that 90% of the area containing these species should be avoided. Upon further evaluation regarding the needs for these surveys, it was determined that more than 90 % of the chaparral where these species could potentially exist was avoided by the Project design. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 5. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. n While the Project is not located adjacent to an identified habitat preserve or corridor, about half of the Project Site is being considered for conservation. The Applicant is considering providing conservation area to the Regional i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-26 l i PAGE 3 OF 5 Conservation Authority or similar organization for permanent preservation. If this land is set aside for conservation, the UrbanAWildlands Guidelines would apply to the Project. The design of the Project already includes features that ensure compliance with the Guidelines. Further, mitigation has been included in the Project to prohibit the placement of potentially invasive plant material in or adjacent to the conserved areas. As such, the Project is consistent with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. 6. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The Riparian/Riverine habitat as described in the DBESP has been mapped consistent with Section 6.3.1 Vegetation Mapping requirements. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 7. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The Project is not located within an area requiring additional surveys. As such, the provisions of Section 6.3.2 do not apply to the Project. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. F1 The Fuels Management Guidelines presented in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address brush management activities around new development within or adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project is not located adjacent to a conservation area. Should the Applicant set aside land for permanent conservation, Fuels Management Guidelines would apply to the Project. Currently, these provisions do not apply to the Project. 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP. For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the conditions of approval imposed upon the Project, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. i 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-26 ' PAGE 4 OF 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 7th day of April 2009. Axel ane't i, airman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Tom Weiner Acting Director of Community Development I I i II I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-26 PAGE 5 OF 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, TOM WEINER, Acting Director of Community Development of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2009-26 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 7m day of April 2009, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: CHAIRMAN AXEL ZANELLI, COMMISSIONER'S JOHN GONZALES, PHIL MENDOZA, AND MICHAEL O'NEAL NOES: NONE I ABSENT: VICE-CHAIRMAN JIMMY FLORES ~I ABSTAIN: NONE Il Tom Weiner Acting Director of Community Development