Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2018-12 (PA 2016-01, CUP 2017-13, SP 2018-01, MSHCP)RESOLUTTON NO. 2018-.t2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT PLANNING APPLICATION 2016.0I (coNDrTroNAL USE PERMTT NO. CUp 2017-13 AND S|GN pERMtT 2018-01) ARE CONSISTENT wlTH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABTTAT CONSERVATTON PLAN (MSHCp). Whereas, Peninsula Retail Partners submitted an application requesting the approval of two specific entitlements, the first is the approval of a modification to a previously approved commercial building to add a drive thru and the second is a sign permit which would permit the construction of one freeway fronting commercial center identification sign and two monument signs (one located on Central and on located on Collier). The project site is located on 7.25 acres generally located at the southeast corner of Central Avenue (State Highway 74) and Collier Avenue. The site contains five parcels, identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 377-080- 014, 031, 032, 033, and 034; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (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 project applications; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 further requires that discretionary development projects be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements" even if not within an MSHCP criteria cell; and, Whereas, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning Commission (Commission) and City Council (Council); and, Whereas, a portion of the Project is within MSHCP Criteria Cell 4743 and the entire Project is 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 entitlements for development of property that is subject to the MSHCP; and, Whereas, on February 20, 2018, 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. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Commission has reviewed and analyzed the proposed applications and their consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP for the Project. Section 2: That in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and the MSHCP, Findings for adoption have been made as follows: PC Reso No.2018-12 Page 2 of 4 1. The proposed project is a project underthe City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency Finding before approval. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP lmplementing Resolution, prior to approving any discretionary entitlement, the City is required to review the Project to ensure consistency with the MSHCP criteria and other "Plan Wide Requirements." The Project, as proposed, was found to be consistent with the MSHCP criteria. ln addition, the Project was reviewed and found consistent with the following "Plan Wide Requirements". Protection of Specles Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP $ 6-2), l.Protection of Narrow Endemic Specles MSHCP S 6.3), l.Urbanrw/ildlands lnteiace Guidelines (MSHCP S 6.4), l.Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP 5 6.1), 3.Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP SO 2),3 Fuels Management (MSHCP 56.4), and payment ofthe MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance $ 4.0). 2. The proposed Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's JPR processes. The proposed Project is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell area, therefore, no formal LEAP submittalwas required. However, the Project is still required to demonstrate compliance with "Other Plan Requirements." The Project is in compliance as described further below. 3. The proposed Project is consistent with the Ripariani Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Section 6.21.of the MSHCP focuses on protection of riparian/iverine areas and vemal pool habitat types based upon their value in the conseuation of a number of MSHCP covered species. No riparian/riveine areas are located within the project site and there are no potential vernal pools within the project site, therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.21.of the MSHCP, 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) Guidelines. The project site is not within the MSHCP NEPS or Criteria Area Specles (CAS) survey areas. There were no rare plants found within the project area and there is no suitable habitat for rare plants. Thus, the project is consistent with the NEPS requirements of the MSHCP. 5. The proposed Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The proposed Project is not within any MSHCP Criteria Area Specres Survey Area (CASSA.) for plant or animal species. 6. The proposed Project is consistent with the UrbanMildlands lnlerface Guidelines. Section 6.41 .of the MSHCP sets fo rih guidelines which are intended to address indirect effects assocrated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP ConseNation Area, where applicable. Future Development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in Edge Effects that will adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize such Edge Effects, guidelines sha// be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private Development projects in proximity to the MSHCP PC Reso No. 201 8-12 Page 3 of 4 Conservation Area. Currently, the proposed Project is not located adjacent to land dedicated to the MSHCP Reserve. 7. The proposed Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. Vegetation mapping was conducted as part of the biological surveys conducted on the entire Project Site and is consistent with the MSHCP Section 6.13.Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The proposed 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 ConseNation Area and shall be implemented as paft of the PAed. As such, the Project is consrstent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The Project will not be affected by fuels management requirements either on site or on adjacent undeveloped land. 9. The proposed Project is 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 reserve assembly requirements of the MSHCP. The MSHCP provides for the assembly of a ConseNation Area consisting of Core Areas and Linkages for the conservation of covered species. The subject project is not located in a Criteria Cell, exlstlrg Reserve Area, or in Public/Quasi-Public habitat conservation land. 11. The proposed Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. The Project ls consisfenf with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No fufther actions related to the MSHCP are required. Section 3: Based upon the evidence presented and the above findings, the Commission hereby recommends that the Council of the City of adopt findings that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. $g!!4[ This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. Passed and Adopted this 20th day of February, 2018, by the following vote: PC Reso No. 2018-12 Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALTFORNTA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) l, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No.2018-12 as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a Regular meeting held of February 20, 2018, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner's Armit, Carroll and Klaarenbeek; Vice-Chair Ross and Chairman Gray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None )