Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2016-29 (Woodside Homes-RDR 2016-03-MSHCP)RESOLUTTON NO.2016-29 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 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2016.03 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Woodside Homes, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Residential Design Review No. 20'16-03 for the construction of a 59 single-family detached residential development and associated improvements for property located within Tract 3'1920-9 of the Summerly development of the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all discreiionary projects within an 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 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 has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City 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 East Lake Specific Plan Amendment 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 East Lake Specific PIan Amendment No. 6 that are covered by the aforementioned cell sites; and WHEREAS, on April 5,2016, 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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016.29 PAGE 2 OF 5 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 ihe City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the Proiect must be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, which review shall include an analysis of the Proiect's consistency with other "Plan Wide Requirements." The Proiect 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 serles of meetings between the County of Riverside, U.S. Flsh and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game lo drscuss 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 Secfion 404 permit. lt 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. Paft of the conservation agreement also included a requirement that projects in the back basin area be conslstent with the other "Plan Wide Requirements" set fotth in the following sectlons of the MSHCP: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, S 61 2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6 7 3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, $ 6.3.2), tJrbantWildlands lnterlace Guidelines (MSHCP, S 61 4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, S 6.3., 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 ihese sectlons and is conslsfent therewith. 2. The Project is sub.ject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Proiect 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 Prolect Review process. Nevertheless, both the City and Dudek (acting on behalf of the County) agreed that the Project was conslsteni with the MSHCP due to the extensive acreage sel as/de for conservation. The Project has not been modified and was paft 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 Guide nes. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 2016-29 PAGE 3 OF 5 The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was determined to be conslstent 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 Proiect have not been modified from that which was previously approved and is therefore consislent 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 Sectlon 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Proiect has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP Amendment No.6. Additionally, based upon prior approvals, the entire Proiect site has been graded and any plant species which may have existed on the site have been removed and replaced with development. lt is for these reasons that the Project is conslslenl with the aforementioned guidelines. 5. The Prolect is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was conslslenf with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures as set fotih 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 proiect site has been graded pursuant to previously issued permits. The Proiect is conslstenl with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. 6. The Project is consistent with the UrbanMildlands lnterface Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was consistent with the tJrban/Wildlands lnteiace Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Because the Proiect has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP Amendment No. 6, no further MSHCP review is necessary and the Prolect is consistenf with the UrbantWildlands lnterface Guidelines. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The previously approved ELSP Amendment No. 6 was consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requiremenis as set fo rth 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 consislenf with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016.29 PAGE 4 OF 5 B. 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 conslslenf with the Fuel Management Guidelines. L The Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. As sfated in No. 1 above, the Project is within the ELSp area which has previously been determined to be consistent with the MSHC?. 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 Sth day of Aprit 2016, by the foilowing vote: helly rma n City of Lake nore Planning Commission J ustiri l_ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-29 PAGE 5 OF 5 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. 2016-29 as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of April 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: cHAIRMAN JoRDAN, vlcE CHAIR ARMlr, coMMtssroNER GRAy, COMMISSIONER RAY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE }SS