HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 2016-104 Western Riverside County Multiple Species HabitatRESOLUTION NO. 2016 -104
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
2011 -03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2011 -03, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 35869 ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
WHEREAS, Larry Markham of MDMG on behalf of John Gamble (Applicant) has requested
approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2011 -03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011 -03, and
Tentative Parcel Map 35869, which are collectively referred to herein as the (Project), and,
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP requires that all Projects which
are proposed on land covered by an MSHCP criteria cell and which require discretionary approval
by the legislative body undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and a Joint Project
Review (JPR) between the City and the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) prior to public
review of the Project applications; and,
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects not within an MSHCP criteria
cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP Plan Wide Requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the
Planning Commission and /or City Council (Council); and,
WHEREAS, the Project is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Core or Linkage, but is within the
Elsinore Plan Area of the MSHCP, and therefore, the Project was reviewed pursuant to the
MSHCP Plan Wide Requirements; and,
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency findings prior to
approving any discretionary Project entitlements for development of property that is subject to the
MSHCP; and,
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2016, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Planning Commission has
considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested
parties with respect to this item; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.168 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal
Code (LEMC) the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or
disapprove recommendations of the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit
applications; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.184 (Design Review) of the LEMC the Council has the
responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the
Planning Commission for Commercial Design Review applications; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.24 (Tentative Maps) of the LEMC the Council has the
responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the
Planning Commission for parcel maps; acrd,
Reso. No. 2016 -104
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, at a duly noticed public meeting, the Council has 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 Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed applications and their
consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to recommend that the Council adopt
Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP for Commercial Design Review No. 2011 -03,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2011 -03, and Tentative Parcel Map 35869.
SECTION 2. That in accordance with the LEMC, and the MSHCP, Findings for adoption have
been made as follows:
The proposed Project is a Project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must
make an MSHCP Consistency Finding before approval.
The proposed Project includes a commercial design review, conditional use permit,
temporary parcel map requests that require a number of discretionary approvals from the
City, including CEQA review. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the project has
been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with "Other Plan
Requirements." These include the Protection of Species Associated with
Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.2), Protection
of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.3), Additional Survey
Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, Section 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
(MSHCP, Section 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, Section 6.5. 1) requirements,
Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, Section 4) and has been found
consistent.
2. The proposed Project is not subject to the City's Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP)
and the County's Joint Project Review processes.
The proposed Project is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell area, therefore, no
formal LEAP submittal was required. However, the Project is still required to demonstrate
compliance with Other Plan Requirements. The Project is in compliance as described
further below.
3. The proposed Project is consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Guidelines.
Approximately 0.06 acres of disturbed non - native vegetation habitat associated with the
lake will be impacted. This habitat is considered a riparian /riverine area, as defined by
Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with
Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, which defines riparian /riverine areas as "lands
which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent
mosses and lichens which occur close to or depend upon soil moisture from a nearby
fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the yeas"
(MSHCP 2003). Although the project would result in impacts to Riparian /Riverine Areas,
as defined by the MSHCP, the disturbed, non - native habitat to be impacted does not
Reso. No. 2016 -104
Page 3 of 4
provide suitable habitat for covered species. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the
riparian /riverine and vernal pool requirements of the MSHCP.
4. The proposed Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species
(NEPS) Guidelines.
The Project site is not within the MSHCP NEPS or Criteria Area Species (CAS) survey
areas. There were no rare plants found within the Project area and there is no suitable
habitat for rare plants. Thus, the Project is consistent with the NEPS requirements of the
MSHCP.
5. The proposed Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.
The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in
Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Amphibian Species Survey Area with Critical Area,
Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area, and Mammal Species Survey Areas with
Criteria Areas of the MSHCP. The Project site is not located within any of these MSHCP
Additional Survey Areas. No surveys are required and the proposed Project is consistent
with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP.
6. The proposed Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
The MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects
associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The
Project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Area and is not located adjacent to any
Criteria Cell describing areas of conservation. The proposed Project is not expected to
result in significant indirect impacts to special- status biological resources. The required
compliance with all of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) (SCH# 2012121034) prepared for the proposed Project. Thus, the
proposed Project is consistent with the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildland
Interface.
7. The proposed Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
No vegetation mapping requirements apply to the proposed Project.
8. The proposed Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
The proposed Project site is separated from nearby criteria cells by other properties.
Therefore, the fuels management guidelines set forth in the MSHCP are not applicable.
9. The proposed Project is conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
The developer will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation
Fee.
10. The proposed Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP.
The Project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No further actions
related to the MSHCP are required.
Reso. No. 2016 -104
Page 4 of 4
SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented and the above findings, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the Council adopt findings that Conditional Use Permit No.
2013 -06, Commercial Design Review No. 2013 -08, Conditional Use Permit No. 2013 -07,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2013 -08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2013 -09 are consistent with
the MSHCP.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, held on August 23, 2016.
r
fffd
aan-T sdale, Mayor
ATTEST:
Su-g -n"-K Domen, MMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 2016 -104 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at the Regular meeting of August 23, 2016, and that the same was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hickman, Johnson, and Manos; Mayor Pro Tern Magee and Mayor Tisdale
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk