Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2018-16 (PA 2016-113, CUP 2017-03, IDR 2016-03, MSHCP)RESOLUTION NO.20{8.I6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO]I'IMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLTCATTON NO. 2016-113 (CONDIT|ONAL USE PERMTT NO. 2017-03 AND TNDUSTRTAL DESTGN REVTEW NO. 20{6-03) tS CONSTSTENT W|TH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHcP) Whereas, Chris Mulvania, Tig6 Watersports has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 201 6-1 13 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2017 -03 and lndustrial Design Review No. 2016-03) for the development of the Tig6 Watersports project (Project) to establish a boat sales, service, and assembly facility that involves the construction ofa 25,682 sq. ft. building and a 9,800 sq. ft. storage building with 66 parking spaces, 44,142 sq. ft. paved area, and 18,469 sq. ft. landscaped area on an approximately 2.78-acrc lot. The Project site is located on a currently vacant site, on the northwesterly side of Riverside Drive and southwesterly of Collier Avenue. (APN: 378-030-031); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the Joint Project Review (JPR) to analyze the scope of the proposed development and establish a building envelope that is consistent with the MSHCP Criteria Cell; 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 objectaves; and, Whereas, the Project site is within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The proposed project site lies within Criteria Cell 14266: and, Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 1 7.168 (Conditional Use Permits) and Chapter 1 7.184 (Design Review) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps and design reviews; and, Whereas, on March 6, 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 COMII'IISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SgllqL The Commission has considered the Project and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to recommending that the Council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. Section 2: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Commission makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: PC Reso. No. 2018-'16 Page 2 of 7 I IJE P_rgject is a project under the City's MSHCp Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. The Project is located within an MSHcp criteia celt. pursuant to the city's MsHcp R99o|ltion, the Pdect has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including'consistency with 'Other Plan Requirements." These include the Protection of Specles Aslo ciated withRiparian/Riveine Areas and vernal pool Guidetines (MsHcp, s 6 1.2), protection of Nanow Endemic Ptant species cuidetines (NEps) (MsHcp, s 61,9, Additionat survey Needs and Procedures (MSH)P, s 6 3 2), tJrbanrwitdlands lnteiace Guidetines(MSHCP, S 6 1 .4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHC?, S 6.3. , requirements, Fuels Management Guidetines (MsHCp, s 6.4), and payment oflne usilcp Locat Deveilopment Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, g 4). 2. The Project is subject to the city's LEAp and the county's Joint project Review (JpR) processes. The Proiect site (2.78 acres) is located within Citeria Celt M266. Therefore, a format and complete LEAP application, LEAp 2017-02 was submitted to the city on August 11 , 2017 and the JPR application, JPR 1T-10-06-02 was submitted to the county on october 3,2017. The county's Regional conservation Authority (RCA) comptetel the review on November 15, 2017 and found the Project consistent with both the Criteria and Other ptan Requirements. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The property was assessed forthe presence of Riparian/Riverine and Vernat pool habitats through a review of literature sources and an on-site evatuation. No drainage features were found on the Paed site, and hydrologicat flow occurs only as sheet flow from the noftheast toward the southwest corner. lt was determined that ihe project srte does not suppoft any areas that would be considered to be jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act or State regulation for isotated waters or streambeds. No riparian habitats were observed on the proiect site nor were any plant species typically associated with riparian areas observed on the project site. The "Western Riverside MSHCP Habitat Assessment Repoft" dated october 31, 2017 prepared by Btackhawk Environmental, lnc. identified no drainage features, water bodies, vernal pools or seasonally inundated waters within the Proiect site. There is no suitable habitat for fairy shimp to occur. The Project is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Poot Guidelines sei forth in Section 6.1 .2 of the MsHcP. No fufther action regarding this section of the MSHCp is required. 4. The Project is consistent with the protection of NEpS Guidelines. The propetty is located within the Narrow Endemic plant species suruey Area (NEpssA.) No suitable habitat was found onsite for nanow endemic sensitive plait species slender- horned spineflower, spreading navarretia, catifornia orcutt grass, san Miguel savory, Hammift's clay-cress or Wright's trichocomis. One additioial sensrtrye piant species, Palmer's grapplinghook, was found to have a low potential to occur onslfe, but since rl rsa CRPR 4.3 species, fhrs specles does not require a focused plant survey per CEeA standards. No additional non-MsHcP-covered sensitive NEPS with the potentiat to occuron site were identified during the literature review and slte assessment. However, the Proiect site does suppoft suitable habitat for nanow endemic sensltlve ptant species Munz's onion, san Diego ambrosia and many-stemmed dudteya. Therefore, ror usucp PC Reso. No. 201 8-16 Page 3 of 7 consistency, a focused rare plant suNey for these species was completed. The focused plant survey found no NEPS on the project site. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP requires additional surveys for ceftain species if the project is located in certain locations. Pursuant to MSHCP Figure d2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6-3 (Amphibian Specles Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6-5 (Mammal Specles Survey Areas With Criteria Area), bunowing owl surveys and surveys for Criteria Area species are required for the subject propefty prior to approval of a development proposal. Therefore, for MSHCP consistency, additional focused rare plant suNeys for these species are required. The property is located within a Criteria Area Specles Survey Area (CASSA,) No suitable habitat was found onsite for criteria area sensitive plant species Davidson's saltscale, Parish's brittlescale, Coulter's goldfields or little mousetail, nor narrow endemic senslllve plant species slender-horned spineflower, spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, San Miguel savory, Hammitt's clay-cress or Wright's trichocornis. One additional sensitive plant species, Palmer's grapplinghook, was found to have a low potential to occur onsite, but since it is a CRPR 4.3 species, fhrs specles does not require a focused plant survey per CEQA standards. No additional non-MSHCP-covered sensitive or NEPSW with the potential to occur on site were identified during the literature review and site assessment. However, the Project slte does support suitable habitat for criteria area sensitive plant species thread-leaved brodiaea, smooth tarplant and round-leaved filaree, plus narrow endemic sensrtrve plant species Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia and many-stemmed dudleya. Therefore, for MSHCP consistency, a "Focused Rare Plant Survey Repoft" dated July 12, 2017 was prepared by Blackhawk Envionmental, lnc. The focused plant survey found no Criteria Area Specles on the project site. The Project is not located within survey areas for amphibian specles (MSHC P Figure 6-3) or mammal species (MSHCP Figure 6-5) and surveys for those specles are not required. As noted in the "Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Repoft" dated July 12, 2017 prepared by Blackhawk Environmental, lnc., between April 6,2007 and June 29, 2017 a focused Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) survey was conducted. While most of the Project site is composed of open, disturbed vegetation suitable for burrowing owl foraging, nesting oppoftunities are limited to lhose areas supporting potential host burrows. Abundance of suitable bunows was generally low, and all soils onsite appeared to have been graded, filled, or othervvise leveled to the present human-altered condition. Developed Areas surrounding the Project were excluded from the surveys due to lack of suitable burrows or burrow surrogates. The surveys resulted in 15 bunows and one burrow surrogate (debris pile) suitable for burrowing owl within the Project and assocrated 15o-meter buffer (Survey Area). No burrowing owls and/or bunowing owl sign was observed during the focused suNeys. The Project site appears to undergo periodic maintenance through vegetation management. Bunowing owl-suitable burrows were found in several areas of the Project site and Survey Area. Optimally suitable areas were conelated with high California ground squinel activity, with the greatest concentration in the eastern end of the Survey Area, outside the Project footprint. Since no burrowing owls were identified during the focused survey effotts, no impacts to burrowing owls are anticipated to occur. Although suitable bunows were present onsite, many appeared currently occupied by California PC Reso. No. 2018-16 Page 4 of 7 ground squinels, and no burrowing owls or sign were observed. However, as a standard condition of approval for the development apptication, the City of Lake Etsinore wilt require a pre'construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owl to be conducted within 30 days of the commencement of project-related grading or other land disturbance activities to ensure that the species has not moved onto the slte srnce comptetion of the surveys.Therefore, the subject paed is consislent with the Additionat survey Needs andProcedures of the MSHC?. 6. The Project is consistent with the UrbanAr'Vildlands lnterface Guidelines. Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP sefs forlh guidetines that are intended to address indirecteffecls assoaate d with locating development in proximity to the MSHCp ConservationArea, where applicabre. The project slte is nof immediatety adjacent to a MSHCpConservancy Area and thus does not pose a risk of causing direci or indirect effects toM_sHcP conservancy Areas. However, there are two parcers removed from the project site but within Ceil 4266 that are sef asrde as public euasipubtic Conserved Laids. Bothpreserved parcels are owned by the Riverside County Ftood Control and occur within andadiacent to the riparian area of Alberhitt Creek. One parcel includes 4.72 acres and theother includes 0.86 acres. Both preserved parcels occur toward the western end of thecell, while the Project site is toward the eastern end of the ce , with several parcels separating the Project site from the preserved parcels. As such, the project will have nodirect or indirect effects on the urban wildtands lnterface. For these reasons, theUrbanrWildlife lnterface Guidelines are not applicable. However, fufther Ufuan Wildtands tnteiace anatysis is required under section 6.1.4 of theMSHCP for proposed Linkage 2 and the ftood controt mitigation area immediatety west ofthe Proiect site. Specificalty, edge effects due to constriction and long-1egi iperationsand maintenance of the proposed rige waterspotts facility are to bi adctreisea. rnePAed design includes a number of features to reduce edge effects to less than significantlevels First, the Project site wi be graded such that pr;ject site runoff (and aii toxinsswould be directed toward the nofth side of the Project site, where a proposed bio:fiftration basin planted with native riparian plant species would be ptaced. tne' bio-ittraiion nasinwould be designed to filter out runoff and toxins from the Project site, before directing anyexcess runoff to a proposed riprap energy dissipater/secondary filtration zone thatultimately ends at the Project site boundary. ihe combination of thebio-fittrationiasin andthe energy dissipater, when factoring in the votume of project sitegenerateai runoffpotential, is designed to reduce runoff and toxin thresholds into tne adjaient natural landsto less than significant levels. Second, noise-generating activities die to construction ofthe Project would be kept below 60 dBA in the adjbcent naturat lands through theimplementation of sound .walts at the project boundary; there are no noise ihpacts assocrated with the long-term operations and maintenance of the proposed busrness usage of the Proiect site. Third, any exterior lighting will be shielded away from the naturallands. Foutlh, the proposed usage of the projec[ site is as a containid hand-buitt boatconstruction and sales busrness, and as such, there are no plans to introduce domesticpredators. Fifth, the proposed buildings are situated toward the eastern edge ofthe parcel, as far as possrb le from the adjacent naturat lands. Sixth, invasive and/or ion-native plant specles on the California lnvasive Ptant Council List will not be used to landscape theProiect site. All of these design features collectively reduce potentiat construction-ietated and long-term operations and maintenance impacts to less titan significant tevets, throughavoidance and/or minimiz-ation techniques. For these reasons, the subject project is consistent with the Urbanlwildlife lntertace Guidelines. PC Reso. No.2018-16 Page 5 of 7 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The proposed Project is located within 2.78 acres of entiely disturbed/developed, vacant land 600 feet west of the intersection of Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive, isolated to the nofth and east from the larger extant habitats of the region; however, expansive, natural ripaian willow woodland and mulefat scrub habitat exisls ,o the west and southwest, adjacent the parcel limits. The southwestern boundary of the Project abuts an improved drainage channel and ditt roads. Natural mulefat scrub habitat exists beyond the aforementioned drainage channel and some disturbed-mulefat scrub ex,sts within the drainage itself. The nofthwest boundary abuts a parking lot and gymnastics facility. The northeast borders an RV facility, storage buildings and a vacant disturbed lot. The southeast perimeter of the project site in bound by Riverside Drive, beyond which exists a vacant disturbed lot. No native vegetation communities exist on the Project site, and the entire Project site appears to have been disturbed through disking and grading. One distinct vegetation community/land use type was obseNed within the Survey Area. A total of 2.56 acres of Exotic - Disturbed Areas were identified to occur within the Project site. The balance of the site (0.22 acres) is developed. Per the MSHCP, Exotic-Disturbed Areas land uses often include ruderal plant communities. These areas often occur as a result of the edge effects of developed roads and associated urban land uses. Typical species include common knotweed (Polygonum arenastru), common sow fh,st/e (Sonchus oleraceus), horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and goosefoot (Chenopodium spp.). Disturbed areas may also include escaped landscaping and ornamentals. Within the Project, these ruderal plant communities are fufther descibed as "Disturbed Areas." Disturbed Areas at the time of the suNey included ruderal vegetation with moderate vegetative cover. These areas exhibited non-native, ruderal, vegetative ground cover typical of frequent soil distuhances such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), smooth barley (Hordeum murinum), bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha) red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), rat-tail fescue (Festuca myuros), Mediterranean schlsmus (Schismus barbatus), lndian sweet clover (Melilotus indicus), Russran tumbleweed (Salsola tragus), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), cheeseweed (Malva parvtora), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), pickly leftuce (Lactuca seniola), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper), common sow thistle and wild oat (Avena fatua), with occasional native species such as rancher's fiddleneck (Amsinckia menzieseii), checker fiddleneck (Amsinckia intemedia), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), jimson weed (Datura wightii), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora) horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), pygmy weed (Crassula connata), ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), Coulter horseweed (Laeneccia coulteri), forget-me-not (Cryptantha spp.), comb-bur (Pectocarya linearis ssp. ferocula) and popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys sp.). This mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP vegetation mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The MSHCP acknowledges that brush management to reduce fuel loads and protect urban uses and public health/safety shall occur where development is adjacent to conservation areas. Surrounding land uses include the developed Twist'n U Gymnastics facility and associated parking lots to the nofthwest; an RV facility, storage buildings and a vacant disturbed lot to the noftheast; Riverside Drive and beyond a vacant disturbed lot PC Reso. No.2018-16 Page 6 of 7 to the southeast; and an improved drainage channet containing distufted mulefat scrub, beyond which lies a riparian woodland, to the southwest. The project site ,s not immediately adjacent to a MSHcp conservancy Area and thus does not pose a isk of causing direct or indirect effects to MSHCP Conservancy Areas. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set fotih in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. 9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the city's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. The proiect has been conditioned to pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees prior to issuance of a grading permit, in effect at the time of permit issuance. '10. The proposed Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Target conservation in Criteria Cell tt4266 will be range from 30%o to 40% of the Cett focusing in the western poftion of the Celt. There are two parcels removed from the project site but within Cell 4266 that are set asde as Public Quasi-Pubtic Conserved Lands. Both preserved parcels are owned by the Riverside County Flood Controt and occur within and adiacent to the ripaian area of Alberhill Creek. One parcet inctudes 4.72 acres and the other includes 0.86 acres. Both preserved parcels occur toward the westem end of the cell, while the Proiect site is toward the eastern end of the celt, with several parcels separating the Proiect site from the preserved parcets. Additionatly, the project sr'te does not meet the conservation requirements set fofth for Subunit 3 of the Elsinore Area ptan. Therefore, conservation of the project site or any pottion thereof, is not required. Theproposed project ls consrslenl with the MSHCq. $eqtion 3: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Commission hereby recommends that the Council find that the Pro.iect is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted on this 6th day of March, 2018, by the following vote: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ss. PC Reso. No. 2018-16 Page 7 of 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE l, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify thatResolution No. 2018-16 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Like Elsinore, California, at a Regular meeting held of March 6,2048, and that the same was adopted by thefollowing vote: AYES: Commissioner's Armit, Carroll; and Vice-Chair RossNOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Klaarenbeek and Chairman Gray ABSTAIN: None