Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2016-12 (CUP 2016-01)RESOLUTION NO. 2016.12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPT FINDINGS THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016.01 AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2015.09 ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECtES HABTTAT CONSERVATTON PLAN (MSHCp) WHEREAS, Joseph Karaki, Western States Engineering for approval of the construction of a 36,664 square foot four (4) story 64 room hotel on an approximately 1.05 acre site generally located at the northeast corner of Dexter Ave and Third Street and is specifically referred to as Assessor parcel Number 377-0g0-036.; and WHEREAS, Section 6 0 of the MSHCP requires that all discretionary prolects within an MSHoP 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 distretionary entitlement complies with the MSCHP cell criteria, and the MScHp goals and objectives; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Lake Etsinore 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 the residential design review; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016, at a duly noticed public heanng the planning commission has considered evidence presented by the community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. 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 project and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to recommending that the city council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the planning Commission 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. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the Project is required to be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with other .plan PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016.12 PAGE 2 OF 4 Wide Requirements." The Project site /res ls not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. Based upon the site reconnalssance survey there are no lssues regarding consistency with the MSCHP's other "Plan Wide Requirements." The only requirements potentially applicable to the Project were the Protection of Specles Assoclaled with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (Secfion 6.1.2 of the MSHCP) and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (Section 4 of the MSHCP Ordinance). The Project site has is located adjacent to the lnterstate 15 freeway, and has no habitat present on site, including nparian/riveine 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. 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 sel forlh in Sectlon 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. Neither a hablfal assessment nor fufther focused surveys are required for the Project. Therefore, Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines as set forlh in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the Project. 5. 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 Specles Survey Areas, Amphibian Specles Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas, and Mammal Species Survey Areas of the MSHCP. The Prolect site is not located within any of the CriticalSpecles Survey Areas. Therefore, the provisions of MSCHP Secllon 6.3.2 are not applicable. 6. The Project is consistent with the U rbanlr'Vild lands lnterface Guidelines. The Project site rs not within or adjacent to any MSHCP criteria or PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016.12 PAGE 3 OF 4 conseruation areas. Therefore, the UrbantWildlands lnterface Guidelines of MSHCP Secfion 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 se/ forth in MSCHP Secfion 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. 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 Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find 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 this 2nd day of February 2016, by the following vote: City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission ATTEST: Justin I Princip ,l f I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016.12 PAGE 4 OF 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE l, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016-12 as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of February 2016 and that the same was adopted by the following vote. AYES: CHAIRMAN JORDAN, COMMISSIONER GRAY, COMMISSIONER RAY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: VICE CHAIR ARMIT )ss ri