Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2017-40 (PA 2016-35, Daniel Casillas, MSHCP)RESOLUTION NO. 2017.40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2016.35 (RES|DENT|AL DESTGN REVTEW NO. 2016-08) tS CONSTSTENT W|TH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, Dantel Casillas has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsrnore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2016-35 (Residential Design Review No. 2016-08) to construct a 6,349 Square Foot (SF) two-story single-family residence with 2,597 SF first floor covered patios, 994 SF second-floor balconies, 440 SF gym, a 745 SF attached three-car garage, a 773 SF attached Recreational Vehicle (RV) garage, and related improvements on a 1.21-acre lot (Project). The Project is located northerly of Lincoln Street, on the southerly side of Le Gaye Street, westerly of Machado Street, and easterly of Terra Cotta Street and more specifically referred to as Assessor Parcel Number 379-140-078; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and Joint Project Review (JPR) processes 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 the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 17.184 (Design Review) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of reviewing and approving, conditionally approving, or denying the minor design review; and, Whereas, on June 6, 2017, 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 NISHCP prior to adopting 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 is required to be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with other "Plan Wide Requirements." The Project site is not located within a MSHCP criteria cell. Based upon the site reconnaissance survey there are no lssues regarding consistency with the MSHCP's other "Plan Wide PC Reso. No. 201 7-40 Page 2 of 3 Requirements." The only requirements potentially applicable to the Project were the Protection of Specles Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP) and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (Section 4 of the MSHCP Ordinance). The Project site is located in a previously disturbed site, and has no habitat, including riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools, present on site. 2. The Project is sublect to the City's LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Joint Project Review (JPR) processes. As stated above, the Project is not located within a criteria cell and therefore the Project was not processed through the City's LEAP or JPR processes. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The Project consisfs of constructing a single-family residence on a lot that has been previously disturbed. As such, the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guldelmes as set fotth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not applicable. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection o'f Narrow Endemic P/anf Specles (NEPS) Guidelines. The site does not fall within any NEPS Survey Areas. Neither a habitat assessment nor further focused surveys are required for the Project. Therefore, Protection of NEPS Guidelines as set Forth in Section 6.1 .3 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the Project. 5. The Project is consistent wrth the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP only requires additional suNeys for cerTain species if the Project is located in Criteria Area Species Survey Areas, Amphibian Specles Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas, and Mammal Specles Survey Areas of the MSHCP. The Project site ls not located within any of the Critical Species Survey Areas. Therefore, the provisions of MSHCP Section 6.3.2 are not applicable. 6. The Project is consistent with the UrbanANildlands lnterface Guidelines. The Project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP cell criteria or conseNation areas. Therefore, the Urban/Wildlands lnterface Guidelines of MSHCP Section 6.1.4 are not applicable. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The Project conslsls of constructing a single-family residence on a lot that has been previously disturbed. There are no resources located on the Project site requiring mapping as sef forth in MSHCP Section 6.3.1 . 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The ProJect site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP criteria cell or conseNation areas. Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines of MSHCP Section 6.4 are not applicable. PC Reso. No. 2017-40 Page 3 of 3 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. ' As a Condition of Approval, the PAect will be required to pay the City's MSHC7 Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. '10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP. The Project conslsfs of constructing a single-family residence on a lot that has been previously disturbed. As described above, the Project complies with all applicable MSHCp requirements. Section 3. Based upon all ofthe evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions of Approval imposed upon the Project, the Commission hereby finds that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted this 6ih day of June, 2017. 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. 2017-40 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a Regular meeting held on June 6,2017, and that the same was adopted by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner's Ross, Carroll and Klaaren None Gray and Chairman Armit J ustin Planner m Armit, Chairman