Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 2017-132 ELSPA No. 11 (SPA 2016-02) (MSHCP)RESOLUTION NO. 2017-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDMENT (ELSPA) NO. 11 (SPA 2016-02), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 2016-01, AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC) NO. 2017-03 ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN(MSHCP) Whereas, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) initiated ELSPA No. 11, and related GPA No. 2016-01 and ZC No. 2017-03 (collectively referred to herein as "Project"), to encourage and promote the "Dream Extreme" character of the area, and accommodate opportunities for a wide variety of recreational sporting venues; and, Whereas, the ELSP is located in the southwest portion of the City, and is accessible from Interstate 15, Highway 74 (Ortega Highway), and major roadways including Diamond Drive, Mission Trail, Bundy Canyon, Lakeshore Drive and Grand Avenue. Its boundaries include Lakeshore Drive and Malaga Road to the north, Mission Trail to the east, and Corydon Road to the south. The western boundary is approximately a quarter mile east of Grand Avenue; 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) process 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 adopt consistency findings demonstrating that the proposed discretionary entitlement complies with the MSHCP criteria cell, and the MSHCP goals and objectives; and, Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 17.204 (SPD Specific Plan District), LEMC Chapter 17.188 (Amendments) and Government Code Section 65354 the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to specific plans, general plan amendments and zone changes; and, Whereas, on November 7, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item, and adopted Commission Resolution No. 2017-94 recommending that the Council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP; and, Whereas, on November 28, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, 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 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section. The Council has considered the Project and its consistency with the MSHCP prior adopting Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. Reso No. 2017-132 Page 2 of 4 Section 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Council makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: 1. The 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 specific plan amendment and related general plan amendment and zone change that require a number of discretionary approvals from the City, including California Environmental Quality Act (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 (NEPS) 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). 2. The Project is consistent with the 770 Plan, developed in consultation with the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the federal Army Corps of Engineers, that establishes MSHCP consistency requirements for the City's Back Basin. The project is located within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan. The ELSP is located in Criteria Cells 4740, 4742, 4743, 4759, 4843, 4844, 4845, 4846, 4937, 4939, 4940, 5033, 5036, 5038, 5131, 5137, 5140, 5240, 5342. A portion of the ELSP is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. However, conservation in the Back Basin is not tied to protection of specific habitat or wildlife movement corridors, but rather to the need to conserve a minimum of 770 -acres in the Back Basin in order to meet the numeric requirements for the MSHCP (770 Plan). Each future implementing development project will go through the MSHCP approval process. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Approximately 61.27 acres of riparian/riverine areas, 342.84 acres of Tamarisk Scrub and potential vernal pools or depressions as defined under MSHCP vernal pool features are located within the Project site. A focused delineation for each future implementing development project will be necessary prior to project entitlement. In compliance with the MSHCP, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would be prepared to address proper mitigation to ensure the replacement of any lost functions and values for any on-site riparian areas and vernal pools lost due to future implementing development projects. The mitigation may include enhancement of existing riparian areas and/or creation of new riparian areas. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines. Portions of the Project site falls within the NEPS Survey Area. As ELSP implementing development projects within the NEPS Survey Area move forward, they will be_ required to survey for NEPS and identify mitigation in the conservation areas or other appropriate open space areas in the Back Basin for any species impacted. Reso No. 2017-132 Page 3 of 4 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP only requires addilional 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. Portions of the Project site is located within the Criteria Area Species Survey Area and/or within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area. ELSP implementing development projects that are located within these survey areas will be required to survey for Criteria Area Species and/or Burrowing Owl and identify mitigation in the conservation areas or other appropriate open space areas in the Back Basin for any impacted species. 6. The 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. Indirect impacts to conservation area are related to the following issues: Drainage, Toxics, Lighting, Noise, Invasive species, Barriers, and Grading/Land Development. As required by the MSHCP, ELSP implementing development projects that are located within proximity to conservation areas shall be required to comply with the MSHCP urban interface requirements detailed in Section 6.1.4 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. Vegetation mapping was conducted as part of the biological surveys completed on the entire Project Site and demonstrates that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP Section 6.3.1 Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. 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 and shall be implemented as part of the Project. As such, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a Condition of Approval, the implementing development project within the Project boundaries 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. The Project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. Section 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, the Council finds that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Reso No. 2017-132 Page 4 of 4 Passed and Adopted on this 28th day of November 2017, by the following vote Attest: 4 Susan . 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. 2017-132 was adopted by City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the Regular meeting of November 28, 2017, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Manos, Hickman, and Tisdale; Mayor Pro -Tem Johnson and Mayor Magee NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk