The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Reso No 2018-63 (DR Horton, Summerly, MSHCP)RESOLUTION NO.2O18-63 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, AOOPT FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLTCATION NO. 2018-56 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2018-19) lS CONSISTENT wlTH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Whereas, D.R. Horton has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2018-56 (Residential Design Review No. 2018-19) for the design and construction of 58 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. 31920-19 (APNs: 371-270-007 and 025) of the Summerly 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, on August 21 , 2018 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: !gg!!q[ 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 following findings for MSHCP consistency: 1. The P@ect 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 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. Prior to the City's adoption of the MSHCP, there were a serles of meetings between the County of Riverside, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game to discuss conservation measures within the ELSP and to decide how to ensure development within the ELSP could PC Reso. No. 2018-63 Page 2 of 4 proceed consistently with the MsHCp and with the lJ.s. Army corps of Engineers section 404 permit. lt was determined that a target acreage of 770 acres was wanaited for MSHC? conservation in the back basin area of the City. The Proiect site is within the ELSP and is covered by that conservation agreement. part of the conseruation agreement also included a requirement that projects in tie back basin area be consistent with the other 'Plan Wide Requirements' set forth in the fotlowing sections of the MSHCP: Protection of Specles Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas ani Vemal pool G-ui!9t!1es Y|HC?,5 61.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic plant Species (NEpS) 9.u.idelile: {MSHCP, S 6., 9), Additionat Suruey Needs and procedures (MSHC7, S 6 3 2), UrbanrWildlands lnteiace Guidetines (MSHC?, S 61.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCa S6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidetines (MSHC?, $ 6.4), and piyment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MsHcp ordinance, g 4). The project has been reviewed in light of these sectlons and is consistent therewith. 2. The Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County,s JpR processes. The Project is located within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan but is not located within a MSHCpciteria cell. Therefore, the project was not required to go through the LEA? or JpR processes. 3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was determined to be consistent with the Riparian/Riveine and Vemal Pool Guidelines 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 consrstent with the Ripaian/Riverine Areas and Vemat Poois Guidelines- 4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP and rrM 31920 was corsr.sfenf with the protection of NEps Guidelines as set fotth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELS? and rrM 31920. Additionatty, 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 reptaced with devetopment- lt is for these reasons that the Project is consistent with the aforementioned guidelines. .. 5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and procedures. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was corsislenf with the Additiondt Survey Needs and Procedures as set forth in section 6.3.2 of the MSH)P. The project has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSp and rrM 31920, and the entire project slte has been graded pursuant to previously issued permits. The pdect is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCp. 6. The Project is consistent with the UrbanM/ildlands lnterface Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was consistent with the uhan/Witdlands lnterface Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1 .4 of the MSHCP. Because the pAed has not been modified from that which was previously approved under the ELSP and TTM 31920, no PC Reso. No. 2018-63 Page 3 of 4 fufther MSHCP review is necessary and the Project rs consistent with the lJrbanAA/ildlands lntefface Guidelines. 7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements as set fotth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. Mapping was conducted as part of the biological surueys for the original project. The Project has not been modified from that which was previously approved and therefore ls consr.slenf with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. 8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The previously approved ELSP and TTM 31920 was cons,stenf with the Fuels Management Gurdelrnes as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. The Project site is not within or adjacent to conservation areas where the Fuels Management Guidelines would be required. The Proiect 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. 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. Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted on this 2lstday of August, 2018, by the following vote: -^ / 0* /7*. Myles ffiss, Chairman PC Reso. No.2018-63 Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALTFORNTA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. clTY oF LAKE ELSTNORE ) l, Justin Kirk, Assistant Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2018-63 was adopted by the Planning commission of the city of Lake Elsinore, California, at a Regular meeting held of August 2'1, 2018, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner's Gray, Armit and Klaarenbeek; and Chairman RossNOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chair Carroll ABSTAIN: None L. _