Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2017-92 ( ELSP, EIR)RESOLUTION NO.2017.92 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF FINDINGS THAT EAST LAKE SPEGIFIC PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 11 (SPA 2016.02), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016.01, AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2017.03 ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) initiated East Lake Specific Plan Amendment (ELSP) No. 'l 1 , and related General Plan Amendment No. 2016-0"1 and Zone Change No. 2017-03 (collectively referred to herein as Project), to encourage and promote the Dream Extreme character of the area, and accommodate opportunities for a wide variety of recreational sporting venues; and, Whereas, the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) is located in the southwest portion of the City, and is accessible from lnterstate 15, Highway 74 (Ortega Highway), and major roadways including Diamond Drive, Mission Trail, Bundy Canyon, Lakeshore Drive and Grand Avenue. lts boundaries include Lakeshore Drive and Malaga Road to the north, Mission Trail to the east, and Corydon Road to the south. The western boundary is approximately a quarter mile east of Grand Avenue; and, Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary poects within a MSHCP criteria cell undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and Joint Project Review (JPR) process 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 17.204 (SPD Specific Plan District), LEMC Chapter 17.188 (Amendments) and Government Code Section 65354 the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to specific plans, general plan amendments and zone changes; and, Whereas, on November 7, 2017 aladuly 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 RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section t 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. @]!g_?: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Commission makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: PC Reso No.2017-92 Page 2 oi 4 1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval. The proposed project includes a specific plan amendment and related general plan amendment and zone change that require a number of discretionary approvals from the City, including CEQA review. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with "Other Ptan Requirements." These include the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal pool Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic ptant Species (NEPS) Guiclelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.3), Additional Suryey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, Section 6.3.2), UrbantlVildlands lnterface Guidetines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, Section 6.5.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Devetopment Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, Section 4). 2. The Project is consistent with the 77O Plan, developed in consultation with the Regional Conservation Authority, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the federal Army Corps of Engineers, that establishes MSHCP consistency requirements for the City's Back Basin. The Proiect is located within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan. The ELSP is located in Criteria Ceils 4740, 4742, 4743,4759,4Uq4844, 4845,4846, 4937, 4939, 4940, 5033, 5036, 5039, 5131, 5137, 5140, 5240, 5342. A pot'tion of the ELSP is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. However, conservation in the Back Basln is not tied to protection of specific habitat or wildlife movement corridors, but rather to the need to conserve a minimum of 770-acres in the Back Basin in order to meet the numeric requirements for the MSHCP (770 Plan). Each future implementing development project will go through the MSHCP approval process. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Approximately 61.27 acres of riparian/riverine areas, 342.84 acres of Tamarisk Scrub and potential vernal pools or depresslons as defined under MSHCP vernal pool features are located within the Project site. A focused delineation for each future implementing development project will be necessary prior to Woject entitlement. ln compliance with the MSHCP, a Determination of Biologicaily Equivalent or Superior Preseruation (DBESP) would be prepared to address proper mitigation to ensure the replacement of any lost functions and values for any on-site riparian areas and vernal pools /osf due to future implementing development p@eds. The mitigation may include enhancement of existing riparian areas and/or creation of new riparian areas. 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines. Portions of the Project slte fal/s within the NEPS Survey Area. As ELSP implementing development projects within the NEPS Survey Area move forward, they will be required to survey for NEPS and identify mitigation in the conservation areas or other appropriate open space areas in the Back Basin for any species impacted. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. PC Reso No.2017-92 Page 3 of 4 The MSHCP only requires additional surveys for certain species if the Project is located in Criteria Area Species Survey Areas, Amphibian Species Survey Areas, Bunowing Owl Survey Areas, and Mammal Species Survey Areas of the MSHCP. Portions of the Project site is located within the Criteria Area Specles Survey Area and/or within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area. ELSP implementing development projects that are located within these survey areas will be required to survey for Criteria Area Specles and/or Burrowing Owl and identify mitigation in the conservation areas or other appropriate open space areas in the Back Basin for any impacted spec,es. 6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands lnterface Guidelines. The MSHCP UrbantlVildland lnterface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conseruation Area. lndirect impacts to conservation area are related to the following issues: Drainage, Toxics, Lighting, Noise, lnvasive specles, Barriers, and Grading/Land Development. As required by the MSHCP, East Lake Specific Plan implementing development projects that are located within proximity to conservation areas shall be required to comply with the MSHCP urban interface requirements detailed in Section 6.1 .4 Guidelines Peftaining to the Urban/Wildlands lnteiace. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. Vegetation mapping was conducted as part of the biological surveys completed on the entire Project Site and demonstrates that the Project is consisfent with the MSHCP Section 6.3.1 Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The Fuels Management Guidelines presented in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address brush management activities around new development within or adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area and shall be implemented as part of the Project. As such, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. 9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. As a Condition of Approval, the implementing development project within the Project boundaries will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits. 10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP. The Project is cons,stenf with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. Section 3: Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions of Approval imposed upon the Pro.ject, the Commission hereby recommends that the Council find that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Approved on the 7th day of November, 2017, by the following vote. PC Reso No.2017-92 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, do hereby certify that Resolution No.2017-92 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the Regular meeting of November 7 , 2017 , and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner's Armit, Carroll and Klaarenbeek; Vice-Chair Ross and Chairman GrayNOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None