HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 2015-059 City Council Reso.RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -059
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 2005 -02 AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014 -07 ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE MULTIPLE SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
WHEREAS, Peter M. Olah, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore
requesting approval of amendments to a previously approved Specific Plan proposing a
single - family detached condominium project and building designs for 163 detached
condominiums and related improvements located at the northwest corner of Grand
Avenue and Riverside Drive (Assessor Parcel Numbers 379-050-006, 379- 050 -034, 387-
170 -004, 387 - 170 -006, 387 - 180 -001, 387 - 080 -003, and 387 - 080 -004); and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (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 establish a
building envelope that is consistent 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 MSCHP cell criteria, and the MSCHP goals and objectives;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 17.184
(Design Review) the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of
making recommendations to the City Council pertaining to Residential Design Review;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph A of LEMC Section 17.204.130 (SPD Specific
Plan District) the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of
making recommendations to the City Council pertaining to the approval or denial of
specific plans subject to specified modifications and conditions; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning
Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and adopted Resolution
No. 2015 -40 recommending that the City Council adopt findings that Amendment #1 to
Specific Plan # 2005 -02 and Residential Design Review No. 2014 -07 are consistent with
the MSCHP; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.184.090 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
( "LEMC') the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore has the responsibility of making
decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Planning
Commission for commercial design review applications; and
City Council Resolution No. 2015 -059
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph B of LEMC Section 17.204.130 (SPD Specific
Plan District) the City Council has the authority to approve, approve with modifications or
conditions, or deny the final specific plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council
considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as evidence
presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the Project and its consistency with
the MSHCP prior to adopting Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP.
SECTION 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the City Council makes the
following findings for MSHCP consistency:
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 is not located within a MSHCP Criteria
Cell. Based upon the site reconnaissance survey there are no issues
regarding consistency with the MSCHP's other "Plan Wide Requirements."
The only requirements potentially applicable to the Project were the
Protection of Species Associated with Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal
Pool Guidelines (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP) and payment of the MSHCP
Local Development Mitigation Fee (Section 4 of the MSHCP Ordinance). The
Project site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Riverside
Drive, and has no habitat present on site, including riparian /riverine areas or
vernal pools.
2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Joint Project Review processes.
As stated above, the Project is not located within a Criteria Cell and therefore
the Project was not processed through the City's LEAP and a Joint Project
Review.
3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Guidelines.
City Council Resolution No. 2015 -059
Page 3 of 4
The site 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 site does not fall within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas.
r. Neither 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.
The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.
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 Project site is not located within any of the Critical Species
Survey Areas. Therefore, the provisions of MSCHP Section 6.3.2 are not
applicable.
6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
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.
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.
City Council Resolution No. 2015 -059
Page 4 of 4
10. 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 City Council finds 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.
- PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the 23rd day of June, 2015.
U
Mayor
T:
APPROVED AS TO
Leibold, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 2015 -059 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of June 2015, and that the
same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member Johnson,
Magee, and Mayor Manos
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Hickman
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor Pro Tern Tisdale, Council Member