The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Reso No 2017-69 (RSI, PA 2017-44, MSHCP)RESOLUTTON NO.2017-69 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 NO. 2017n14 (RES|DENT|AL DEStcN REvtEw NO. 2017-18) tS CONSISTENT wlTH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABTTAT CONSERVATTON PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, RSI Communities, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No.2017-44 (Residential Design Review No. 2oj7- 18) 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. 3'1920-15 (ApN: 371-2to-o2o) of the Summerty 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 projects 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 responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the residential design review; and, Whereas, the ELSP, Amendment No. 6 (ELSP#6) is partially covered by two distinct MSHCP Criteria Cells: approximately three acres of the ELSP#6 are within cell 4846 and approximately three tenths (0.3) of an acre are within cell 4937; and, whereas, the Project site is within the boundaries of the ESLp#6 that are covered by the aforementioned cell sites; and, Whereas, on September 5, 2017 at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered evidence presented bythe 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 consistencywith 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. PC Reso. No. 2017-69 Page 2 of 4 Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the Proiect 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, specifically within the ELSP#6 area. Prior to the City's adoption of the MSHCP, there were a seres of meet ngs between the County of Riverside, US. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Depaftment of Fish and Game fo discuss conservation rneasures within the ELSP and to decide how to ensure development within the ELSP could proceed consistently with the MSHCP and with the tJ.S. Army Corps of Engrneers Section 404 permit. ltwas determined that a target acreage of 770 acres was waranted for MSHCP conservation 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 consistent with the other "Plan Wide Requiremenfs" sef forth in the following sectbns of the MSHCP: Protection of Specles Assocraled with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernat Poot Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6.1.2), Protection of Natrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6. r.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, S 6.3.2), urbanrlVildlands lnterface Guidelines (MSHCP, S 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, 5 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP' S 6-4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance' S 4). The Project has been reviewed in light of these sections and ls consistent therewith. 2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's JPR processes The MSHCP consistency determination for the ELSP 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 conslstenf with the MSHCP due to the ertensive acreage sef aslde for conservation. The Project has not been modified and is part of the overall ELSP that has been determined to be consistent with the MSHCP. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The previousty approved ELSP#6 was determined to be conslsfent with the Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The scope and nature of the Proiect have not been modified from that which was previously approved and is therefore corslstent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP#6 was consistent 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 EISP#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. lt is for these rcasons that the Project is consistent with the aforementioned guidelines. 5. The Poect is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. t PC Reso. No.2017-69 Page 3 of 4 The previously approved ELSP#6 was consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures as set folth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP#6, and the entire project site 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#6 was corsrstent with the UrbantWildlands lnterface Gurdeltnes as set forth in Section 6.1 .4 of the MSHCP. Because the Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP#6, no further MSHCP review is necessary and the Project is corsisterl with the UrbanMlildlands lnterface Guidelines. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The previously approved ELSP#6 was conslstent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements 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 rs consr'stent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP#6 was consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set fotth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. The Project slfe 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. 9. The Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. As sfaled ,n No. 1 above, the Project is within the ELSP area which has previously been determined to be conslstent with the MSHCP. 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. @l!4f,, This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted on this Sth day of Septembet, 2017 , by the following vote. PC Reso. No. 2017-69 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. 2017-69 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a Regular meeting held of September 5, 2017 , and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner's Armit, Carroll and Klaarenbeek; Vice-Chair Ross and Chairman Gray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ) ) ss. ) IL