Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2016-66 (CDR 2011-03, CUP 2011-03, TPM 35869, MSHCP)RESOLUTION NO. 2016-66 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 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2O11.O3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2011.03, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 35869 ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHcP) Whereas, Larry Markham of MDMG on behalf of John Gamble (Applicant) has requested approval of Commercial Design Review (CDR 201 1-03), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2011-03), and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 35869), which are collectively referred to herein as the Project; 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 legaslative 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 Prolect applications; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects not within an MSHCP criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP Plan Wide Requirements; and, Whereas, the Pro.lect is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council (Council); and, Whereas, the Project is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Core or Linkage, but 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 August 16,2016, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Planning Commissron 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 reviewed and analyzed the proposed applications and their consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to recommend that the Council adopt Findingsof Consistency with the MSHCP for CDR 2011-03, CUP 201 1-03, and TPM 35869. Section 2. That in accordance with the City of LEMC, and the N/ISHCP, Findings for adoption have been made as follows: 1. The proposed Project is a Project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency Findrng before approval. r Reso No. 2016-66 Page 2 of 4 4. The proposed Project includes a Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Temporary Parcel Map requests that require a number of discretionary approvals from the City, including CEQA review. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the Project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with Other Plan Requirements. These include the Protection of Specles Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, Section 6.3.2), Urban/yvildlands lnterface Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1 .4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, Section 6.5.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, Section 4). The proposed Project is not subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. The proposed Project is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell area, therefore, no formal LEAP submittal was required. However, the Project is still required to demonstrate compliance with Other Plan Requirements. The Project is in compliance as described fufther below. The proposed Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Approximatety 0.06 acres of disturbed non-native vegetation habitat associated with the lake will be impacted. This habitat is considered a riparian/riverine area, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat ConseNation Plan (MSHCP), Protection of Specles Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, which defines riparian/riverine areas as "... lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to or depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a poftion of the yeaf' (MSHCP 2003). Although the project would result in impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas, as defined by the MSHCP, the disturbed, non- native habitat to be impacted does not provide suitable habitat for covered specles. Therefore, the Project /s consislent with the riparian/riverine and vernal pool requirements of the MSHCP. The proposed Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The Project sfte ls no, within the MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) or Criteria Area Specles (CASJ 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 conslstenl with the Narrow Endemic Plant Species requirements of the MSHCP. The proposed Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. Reso No. 2016-66 Page 3 of 4 The MSHCP requires additional surveys for ceftain species if the Prqect is located in Criteria Area Specles Survey A rea, Amphibian Specles Survey Area with Critical Area, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area, and Mammal Specles Suruey Areas with Criteria Areas of the MSHCP. The Project slte ls nol located within any of these MSHCP Additional SuNey Areas. No surveys are required and the proposed Project ls consisten, with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. 6. The proposed Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands lnterface Guidelines. The MSHCP UrbantWildland lntefface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effecls assoclated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Area and is not located adjacent to any Criteria Cell describing areas of conservation. The proposed Project is not expected to result in significant indirect impacts to spec,alstatus biological resources. The required compliance with all of the mitigation measures set fo tth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH# 20121 21 034) prepared for the proposed Project. Thus, the proposed Prqecl ls conslslent with the Guidelines Periaining to the U rban/Wildland I ntefface. 7. The proposed Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. No vegetation mapping requirements apply to the proposed ProJect. 8. The proposed Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The proposed Project site is separated from nearby criterra cells by other propefties. Therefore, the fuels management guidelines set fotth in the MSHCP are not applicable. 9. The proposed Project is conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. The developer will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. 10. The proposed Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. The Project ls conslstent 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 Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Council of the City adopt findings that Conditional Use Permit No.2013-06, Commercial Design Review No. 2013-08, Conditional Use Permit No. 2013- 07, Conditional Use Permrt No. 2013-08 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-09 are consistent With the MSHCP, Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I Reso No. 2016-66 Page 4 of 4 Passed and Adopted Elsinore, California this at a Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake 16th day of August, 2016. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE l, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016-66 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the Regular meeting of August 16, 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner's Jordan, Ross and Carroll, Vice-Chair Gray; and Chairman ArmitNOES. None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None )"