HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2017-84 (Jeff Pomeroy, Civic Partners)RESOLUTTON NO.2017-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMi'ENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT FINDINGS THAT PLANNING
APPLICATION 2017.37 IS CONSISTENT WTH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
MULTIPLE SPECTES HABTTAT CONSERVATTON PLAN (MSHCP)
Whereas, Jeff Pomeroy, on behalf of Civic Partners, has submitted an application for the
development of 143 unit affordable multifamily development with associated features and facilities
including 333 residenUvisitor parking, a leasing/management office, a community center, onsite
laundry facility and active and passive open spaces located on 23 parcels totaling 19.43 acre.
TTM 37393 is also a part of the project, which proposes to consolidate the 23 parcels into one
parcel and reconfigure the adjacent right of way. The 19.43-acre project site is generally located
on vacant land north of Corydon Road, east of Grand Avenue, west of Mission Trail, and south of
Stoneham Street and is more specifically referred to as Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-
030-004 through -007, -016 through -023, and -027 through -037; 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 legislative 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 project applications; and,
Whereas, Section 6.0 further requires that discretionary development projects be analyzed
pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements" even if not within an MSHCP criteria cell; and,
Whereas, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning
Commission (Commission) and City Council (Council); and,
Whereas, a portion of the Project is within MSHCP Criteria Cell 4743 and the entire Project 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 October 17 , 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 COMTUISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
@!.: The 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
Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP for the Project.
Section 2: That in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and the MSHCP,
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 Finding before approval.
Pursuant to the City's MSHCP lmplementing Resolution, prior to approving any discretionary
entitlement. the Citv is reouired to review the Proiect to ensure consistencv with the MSHCP
PC Reso. No. 2017-84
Page 2 of 3
criteria and other "Plan Wide Requirements." The Project, as proposed, was found to be
consistent with the MSHCP criteria. ln addition, the Proiect was reviewed and found
consisfent with the following "Plan Wide Requirements". Protection of Species Assoc,ated
with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP $ 6.2), l.Protection of
Nanow Endemic Specrbs (NEPS) MSHCP S 6.3), l.Urban/Wildlands lnteiace Guidelines
(MSHCP S 6.4), l.Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP 5 6.1), 3.Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures (MSHCP S 6.2), 3. Fuels Management (MSHCP 5 6.4), and payment of the
MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance $ 4.0).
2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's JPR processes.
The Project is not located within a Criteia Cell and therefore was not required to go through
the LEAP and JPR processes.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Guidelines.
Section 6.21 .of the MSHCP focuses on protection of ripaian/riverine areas and vernal pool
habitat types based upon their value in the conservation of a number of MSHCP covered
specles. There are no vernal pools orfairy shimp habitat on the Project Site, and therefore,
the Project is consistent with Section 6.21 .of the MSHCP.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines.
The site does not fall within any NEPS Survey Areas. Neither a habitat assessment nor
fufther focused suNeys were required for the Project. Therefore, Protection of NEPS
Guldelrnes as set forth in Section 6.1 .3 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the Project.
5- The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.
The MSHCP only requires additional surveys for ceftain species f the Project is located in
Citeria Area Species Survey Areas, Amphibian Spectes Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl
Survey Areas, and Mammal Species Survey Areas of the MSHCP. The Project sife ,s 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 UrbanMildlands lnterface Guidelines.
The Project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation 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 cons,sts of the estab/ishment of a Recreational Vehicle (RV) sales facil$ within
an existing building on a fully developed site. There are no resources located on the Project
site requiring mapping as set forth in MSCHP 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 conservation areas.
Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines of MSHCP Section 6.4 are not applicable.
9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee.
The Proiect site is not within or adiacent to anv MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation areas.
PC Reso. No.2017-84
Page 3 of 3
The Project does not propose any construction as such no permits are required.
10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCp.
The Proiect site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation areas.As described above, the project compties witi ail apptication usiu)i ,iqriiiiit".
section 3: Based upon the evidence presented and the above findings, the commission herebyrecommends that the Council of the City adopt findings that the Project is consisteni with theMSHCP.
Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
Passed and Adopted this 17th day of October 20i7, by the following vote.
STATE OF CALTFORNTA )
COUNTY OF RIVERS|DE ) ss.
ctTY oF LAKE ELSTNORE )
l, Justin Kirk, Principal planner of the city of Lake Elsinore, california, hereby certify thatResolution No. 2017- 84 as adopted by the itanning commission or tne city oi r_a[e L'isinore ata Regular meeting held of october 17,2017, and t-nat the same was adopted by the fo owingvote:
AYES: commissioner's Armit, carrol and Kraarenbeek; Vice-chair Ross and chairman GrayNOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Justin