Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2016-76 (Summerly, Beazer Homes, MSHCP)RESOLUTION NO. 2016.76 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 FINOINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION 2016. 64 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Beazer Homes, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application 2016-64 (Residential Design Review No. 2016-14) for the construction of a 63 single-family detached residential development and associated improvements for property located within Tract 31920-10 of the Summerly development of the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 (ESLP No. 6) (Project); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary pro.iects 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 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 (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the residential design review: and, Whereas, the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment (ELSP) No.6 is partially covered by two distinct MSHCP criteria cells. approximately three (3) acres of the ESLP 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 the ESLP No. 6 that are covered by the aforementioned cell sites; and, Whereas, on November 17, 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 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. 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 review shall include an analysis ofthe Project's consistency with other Reso No. 2016-76 Page 2 ol 4 "Plan Wide Requirements." The Project is located within the ELSP area, specifically within the ELSP Amendment No. 6 area. Prior to the City's adoption of the MSHCP, there were a series of meetings between the County of Riverside, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Depaftment of Fish and Game to dlscuss conservation measures within the ELSP and to decide how to ensure development within the ELSP could proceed consistently with the MSHCP and with lhe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. lt was determined that a target acreage of 770 acres was warranted for MSHCP conseNation 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 conslstenf with the other "Plan Wide Requiremenrs" set forlh in the following sections of the MSHCP: Protection of Specles Assoc/afed with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6 1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Specles (NEPS) Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6 7 3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, S 6 3.2), UrbanltVildlands lntefface Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, $ 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, $ 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, S 4). The Project has been reviewed in light of these sectlons and ls conslstent therewith. 2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project 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 JPR process. Nevertheless, both the City and Dudek (acting on behalf of the County) agreed that the Project was consislenl with the MSHCP due to the extensive acreage set aside for conservation. The Project has not been modified and was paft of the overall ELSP which has been determined to be conslsfenl with the MSHCP. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The previously approved ESLP No. 6 was determined to be cons/stenf with the Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Guidelines as sel forth in Section 6.1.2of theMSHCP. The scope and nature of the Project have not been modified from that which was previously approved and is therefore consistenl with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consisfent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines as set forTh in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Project has notbeen modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP Amendment No. 6. Additionally, based upon prior approvals, the entire Project site has been graded and any plant species which may have existed on the site have been removed and replaced with development. It is for these reasons that the Project is conslsfenf with the aforementioned guidelines. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. Reso No. 2016-76 Page 3 of 4 The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was conslstent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures as set fotlh 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 project site has been graded pursuant to previously issued permits. The Project is conslslenl with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCp. 6. The Project is consistent with the Urban^/Vildlands lnterface Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was conslstent with the UrbantWildlands lnteiace Guidelines as set forlh in Section 6.1 .4 of the MSHCP. Because the Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP No. 6, no fufther MSHCP review is necessary and the Project is conslsrenf with the Urbanlwildlands lntefface Guidelines. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was conslsfe nt with the Vegetation Mapping requirements as set fotth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. Mapping was conducted as parl of the biological surveys for the original project. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved and therefore ls conslsrenf with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was conslste nt with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. The PAed slfe ls nol 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 conslstenl with the Fuel Management Guidelines. L The Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. As stated in No. 1 above, the Project is within the ELSP area which has previously been determined to be consistent with the MSHCP. Section 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions of Approval imposed upon the Project, the Commission hereby recommends that the 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 and Adopted this 17th day of November 2016. m Armit, Chairman Reso No. 2016-76 Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AYES: Commissioner's Ross, Carroll and Klaarenbeek; Vice-Chair Gray and Chairman ArmitNOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT' None )'. l, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the city of Lake Elsinore, california, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016-76 as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a Regular meeting held on November 17,2016 and that the same was adopted by the following votei