The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Reso No 2016-132 PA 2016-64 Beazer MSHCPRESOLUTION NO. 2016 -132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT PLANNING APPLICATION 2016 -64 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Beazer Homes, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Planning Application 2016 -64 (Residential Design Review No. 2016 -14) for the construction of a 63 single - family detached residential development and associated improvements for property located within Tract 31920 -10 of the Summerly development of the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 (ESLP No. 6) (the Project); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all discretionary projects within a 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 (City) 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 (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the residential design review; and, Whereas, the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 is partially covered by two distinct MSHCP criteria cells: approximately three (3) acres of the ESLP No. 6 are within cell 4846 and approximately three tenths (0:3) of an acre are within cell 4937; and, Whereas, the Project site within the boundaries of the ESLP No. 6 that are covered by the aforementioned cell sites; and, Whereas, on November 17, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 17.184.090 of the LEMC the Council of the City has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Commission for commercial design review applications; and, Whereas, on December 13, 2016, at a duly noticed Public Meeting, the Council has considered the recommendation of the 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 considered the Project and its consistency with the MSHCP. CC Reso. No. 2016 -132 Page 2 of 4 Section 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the 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 must be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, which review shall include an analysis of the Project's consistency with other "Plan Wide Requirements. " The Project is located within the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) area, specifically within the ELSP Amendment No. 6 area. Prior to the City's adoption of the MSHCP, there were a series of meetings between the County of Riverside, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game to discuss conservation measures within the ELSP and to decide how to ensure development within the ELSP could proceed consistently with the MSHCP and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. It was determined that a target acreage of 770 acres was warranted for MSHCP conservation in the back basin area of the City. The Project site is within the ELSP and is covered by that conservation agreement. Part of the conservation agreement also included a requirement that projects in the back basin area be consistent with the other "Plan Wide Requirements" set forth in the following sections of the MSHCP: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines•(MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3. 1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, § 4). The Project has been reviewed in light of these sections and is consistent therewith. 2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. The ELSP MSCHP consistency determination was submitted to the County of Riverside in October 2003, prior to the initiation of the City's LEAP and County's Joint Project Review process. Nevertheless, both the City and Dudek (acting on behalf of the County) agreed that the Project was consistent with the MSHCP due to the extensive acreage set aside for conservation. The Project has not been modified and was part of the overall ELSP which has been determined to be consistent with the MSHCP. 3, The Project is consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was determined to be consistent with the Riparian /Riverine and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The scope and nature of the Project have not CC Reso. No. 2016 -132 Page 3 of 4 been modified from that which was previously approved and is therefore consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP Amendment No. 6. Additionally, based upon prior approvals, the entire Project site has been graded and any plant species which may have existed on the site have been removed and replaced with development. It is for these reasons that the Project is consistent with the aforementioned guidelines. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP Amendment No. 6, and the entire project site has been graded pursuant to previously issued permits. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. 6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Because the Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP Amendment No. 6, no further MSHCP review is necessary and the Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements as set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. Mapping was conducted as part of the biological surveys for the original project. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved and therefore is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. The Project site is not within or adjacent to conservation areas where the Fuels Management Guidelines would be required. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved and therefore is consistent with the Fuel Management Guidelines. CC Reso. No. 2016 -132 Page 4 of 4 9. The Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. As stated in No. 1 above, the Project is within the ELSP area which has previously been determined to be consistent with the MSHCP. Section 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented and the above findings, the Council hereby 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 AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 2016. Brian " e, ayor Attest: Susan M. 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 -132 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the Regular meeting of December 13, 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hickman, Johnson, Manos, Mayor Pro Tern Magee and Mayor Tisdale NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk