Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2017-09 (Calatlanic Homes - Summerly , MSHCP)RESOLUTION NO. 2017.09 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 APPLICATION 20'I6-93 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Calatlantic Homes, has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Planning Application 2016-93 (Residential Design Review No. 2016-20) for the construction of a 59 single-family detached residential development and associated rmprovements for property located within Tract 31920-1 1 (APN: 371-040-0'13) of the Summerly development of the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 (ESLP No. 6) (the Project); and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all discretionary Projects within an Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (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 of Lake Elsinore 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 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 January 17,2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered evidence presented by the Communrty Development Department and other interested parties with respect to th is 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 followlng findings for MSHCP consistency: 1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an IMSHCP 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 of the Project's consistency with other Reso No. 2017-09 Page 2 of 4 "Plan Wide Requirements." The Project is located within the East Lake Specific Plan (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. Flsh and Wildlife Service, and California Deparlment of Fish and Game fo dlscuss conservation measures within the ELSP and to decide how to ensure development within the ELSP could proceed consistently with the MSHCP and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Secfion 404 permit. lt was determined that a target acreage of 770 acres was warranted for MSHCP conservation in the back basin area of the City. The Projecl sife is within the ELSP and is covered by that conservation agreement. Part of the conservation agreement also included a requirement that Projects in the back basin area be consrslenf with the other "Plan Wide Requirements" set forlh in the following secfions of the MSHCP. Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, S 61 2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6 7 3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, S 63.2), UrbantWildlands lnbrtace Guidelines (MSHCfl S 61.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, S 6.3.7) requiremenfs, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6 4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, $ 4), The Project has been reviewed in light of these secfions and is consisfenf therewith. 2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's JPR processes. The ELSP MSCHP consistency determination was submitted to the County of Riverside in October 2003, prior to the initiation of the Ctty's LEAP and County's Joint Project Review process. Nevertheless, bofh the City and Dudek (acting on behalf of the County) agreed that the Project was consistent with the MSHCP due to the extensive acreage sef aside for conservation. The Project has not been modified and was parl of the overallELSP which has been determined to be consistent with the MSHCP. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The previously approved ESLP No. 6 uzas determined to be consistent with the Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Guidelrnes as set forth in Section 6.1,2 of the MSHCP. The scope and nature of the Project have not been modified from that which was previously approved and is therefore consisfent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools G uidelines. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP No. 6 uras consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines as sef forth in Secfion 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP Amendmenf No. 6. Additionally, based upon prior approvals, the entire Project sffe has been graded and any plant species which may have existed on the site have been removed and replaced with development. It is for fhese reasons that the Project is consisfent with the aforementioned guidelines. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. I Reso No. 2017-09 Page 3 of 4 The previously approved ELSP No. 6 uzas consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures as set forih 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 srte has been graded pursuant to previously issued permits. The Proiect is consls/e nt with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. The Project is consistent with the UrbanMildlands lnterface Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consistent with the lJrban/Wildlands lnterface Guidelines as sef forth in Secfion 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 rs necessary and the Projecf is conslstent with the UrbantWildlands lnterface Guidelines. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requiremenfs as set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. Mapping was conducted as part of the biological surveys for the original project. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved and therefore is consisfent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP No. 6 was consisfenf with the Fuels Management Guidelines as sef forih in Seclion 6.4 of the MSHCP. The Projecf sife is not 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 consistent with the Fuel Management Guidelines. The Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. As sfafed in No. 1 above, the Project is within the ELSP area which has previously been determined fo 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 January 2017 .,/fu (dam Armit, Chairman I 6 7 8 Reso No. 2017-09 Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE l, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2017-09 as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California at a Regular meeting held of January 17,2017, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner's Ross, Carroll, Klaarenbeek; and Vice-Chair GrayNOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT. Chairman Armit }SS