The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Reso No 2018-36 (PA 2018-05, RDR 2018-05, MSHCP)RESOLUTTON NO. 2018-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLTCATION NO. 2018-{5 (RESTDENTTAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2018-05) lS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY II'IULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Richmond American Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2018-15 (Residential Design Review No. 2018- 05) for the design and construction of 65 single-family residential units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, including a new model home complex and related improvements (Project). The Project is located in Tract Map No. 31920-'17 (APN: 371-270-023) of the Summerly Development of the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary poects 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; 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 objectives; and, Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 17.184 (Design Review) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibality of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the residential design review; and, Whereas, on May 1, 2018 al 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 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section l: 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: 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 must be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, which shall include an analysis of the Project's consistency with other "Plan Wide Requirements." The Project is located within the ELSP area. Prior to the City's adoption of the MSHCP, there were a serles of meetings between the County of Riverside, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice, and California Depaftment of Fish and Game to discuss conservatlon measures within the ELSP and to decide how to ensure development within the ELSP could PC Reso. No. 2018-36 Page 2 of 4 proceed consistently with the MsHcP and with the U.s. Army corps of Engineers section 404 permit. lt was determined that a target acreage of 770 acres was wananted for MSHCP conservation in the back basin area of the City. The Proiect site is within the ELSP and is covered by that conseNation agreement. Paft of the conseruation agreement also included a requirement that projects in the back basin area be consistent with the other "Plan Wide Requirements" set fotth in the fottowing secfions o/ the MSHCP: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernat Poot G-uidelines (MSHCP, S 6 1 2), Protection of Narrow Endemic plant Species (NE?S) Guideliles (MSHCP, S 6 ,.3), Additionat Suruey Needs and procedures (MSHC?, S 6 3.2j, UrbanrWildlands lnteiace Guidelines (MSHCP, S 61 4), Vegetation Mapping MSHC?, S6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHC?, S 6.4), and payment of the MsHcP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MsHcp ordinance, g e. The project has been reviewed in light of these sections and is consistent therewith. 2. The Project is subject to the city's LEAP and the county's Joint project Review (JpR) processes. The project is located within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan but is not tocated within a MSHC? Criteia Cell. Therefore, the project was not required to go through the LEA? or JpR processes. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was determined to be consistent with the Riparian/Riveine and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1 .2 of the MSHC?. The scope and nature of the Project have not been modifled from that which was previousty approved and is therefore conslsfert with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal Pools Guidelines. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was consrstenf with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSp and rrM 31920. Additiona y, based upon prior approvals, the entire PAed site has been graded and any plant species which may have existed on the site have been removed and reptaced with development. lt is for these reasons that the Project is consistent with the aforementioned guidelines. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and procedures. i The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was consistent with the Additionat Suyey Needs and Procedures as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP- The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSp and TTM 31920, and the entire project sffe has been graded pursuant to previously issued permits. The project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCp. 6. The Project is consistent with the UrbanMildlands lnterface Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was consistent with the lJrbanrWildlands lnteiace Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Because the Project has not PC Reso. No.2018-36 Page 3 of 4 been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP and TTM 31920, no fufther MSHCP review is necessary and the Project ls conslsfent with the Urbant!1/ildlands lnbrtace Guidelines. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was corsrsrerf with the Vegetation Mapping requirements as set forlh in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. Mapping was conducted as paft of the biological surveys for the original project. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved and therefore ,s conslslent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set fotth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. The Project site is not within or adjacent to conseMation areas where the Fuels Management Guidelines would be required. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved and therefore is consistent with the Fuel Management Guidelines. 9. The Project overall is consistent with the \SHCP. Section 3: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the above findings, the Commission hereby recommends that the Council find that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. @!!q{ This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted on this lsrday of May, 2018, by the following vote. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 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. 2018-36 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a Regular meeting held of May 1, 2018, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: I I l PC Reso. No. 2018-36 Page 4 ol 4 AYES: Commissioner's Carroll, and Klaarenbeek; Vice-Chair Ross and Chairman GrayNOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Armit ABSTAIN: None