Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2016-08 (IDR 2015-02, MSHCP)RESOLUTION NO. 2016-08 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE GITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT FINDINGS THAT THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2015-02 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Kirk Moeller of MMA Architects filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of lndustrial Design Review No. 2015-02 for the design and construction three (3) industrial buildings located and related improvements on three (3) proposed to be subdivided lots as follows: Building f 24,026 SF building on a 1.47 AC lot, Building U: 20,089 SF building on a 1.02 AC lot, Building V: 29,885 SF building on a 1.53 AC lot (the "Entitlement") located on the north side of Chaney Street, approximately 920 feet west of Minthorn Street, APN: 377-140-124 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the 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 prolect 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 Applications are discretionary in nature and require review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; and WHEREAS, the Applications are not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Core or Linkage, but are 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 Entitlement for development of property that is subject to the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council regarding the consistency of discretionary Entitlement with the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Entitlement 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 January 19,2016. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-08 PAGE 2 OF 5 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 proposed application and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council adopt findings that the Entitlement are consistent with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the MSHCP, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. The Property is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. However, the Property is within the Elsinore Plan Area and must be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements," including Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines. 2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. As staled above, the Properly is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell and therefore the Entitlement were not reviewed through the LEAP or Joint Project Review processes. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Gurdelines. The proposed project would impact two water features: the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel located adjacent to the project site, and a 0.61-acre ponded feature located within the project site at the end of Birch Street. According to the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report (DBESP), the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel meets the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) definition of a riparian/riverine resource, because it contains freshwater flow during all or a porlion of the year. The other water feature does not meet this definition because it is arlificially created and does not have freshwater flow. lmplementation of the proposed project would directly impact 900 square feet (0.02 acre) of the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel at each of three proposed outfall structure locations during construction. The total impact area would be 2,700 square feet (0.06 acre). Should a fourth storm drain outfall structure be constructed, an additional impact to 900 square feet (0.02 acre) of the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel would occur, thereby totaling 3,600 square feet (0.08 acre). As paft of the DBESP, the project would be required to implement mitigation, and best management practices (BMPs) as part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) designed to prevent and avoid impacts to water quality within the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel during construction. Longlerm impacts would be minimized through project design features including bio-swales PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016.08 PAGE 3 OF 5 which would treat potential water quality impacts. All potential impacts to riparian/riverine habitat have been handled in accordance with the MSHC?. ln addition, no vernal pools exist on the project site; therefore, due to the tack of suitable habitat, there is a very low potential for vernal poolspecles to occur. The project is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal pool Guidelines set forlh in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic plant Species Guidelines. Per MSHCP requirements, the ProperTy is not subject to the Narrow Endemic ptant Species Guidelines set forlh in Section 6.1.3. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. Per MSHCP requirements, the Propefty is not subject to any of the Critical Area Species Survey Area Guidelines as set fotth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCp, with the exception of Burrowing Owl. No burrowing owls or burrowing owl signs were observed within the project site or adjacent lands. The project site does not suppott any active burrows or suitable habitat due to the heavy soil composition, ongoing mechanical disturbance of the site, and the surrounding commercial urban setfrng. As required by the MSHCP, mitigation has been included to conduct a Burrowing Owl survey 30 days prior to any ground-disturbance, including removal vegetation or other debris. No furiher action regarding thls secfion of the MSHCp is required. The proposed project is consistent with the UrbanAlVildlands lnterface Guidelines. The Properly is surrounded by existing development or graded parcels planned for development. Therefore, the UrbantWildlands lntefface Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are not applicable. No fufther action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The project biologist has mapped the riparianhiverine resources as part of the DBESP, in accordance with the requirements of Vegetation Mapping set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. No furlher action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. As stated above, the Propefty is surrounded by existing and planned development. Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines as set fotth in Section 6.4 of the 6 7. B, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016.08 PAGE 4 OF 5 MSHCP are not applicable. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. 9. The proposed project will be 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 Entitlement are consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No fufther actions related to the MSHCP are required. SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings that the Entitlement are 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 this 19th day of January 2016. Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Ju PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016.08 PAGE 5 OF 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE l, Justrn Kirk, Senior Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 20'16-08 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore on the 19th day of January, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: CHAIRMAN JORDAN, COMM}SSIONER GRAY COMMISSIONER FLEMING, COMMISSIONER RAY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: VICE CHAIR ARMIT ) )ss )