HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2018-88 (DA 2018-06, Cannabis, THT Group)RESOLUTION NO.2O18-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMTUISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 2018.06 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 20,891 SQUARE FOOT CANNABIS
FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 480 THIRD STREET (APN:
377-140-0271
Whereas, Bill Disegna, THT Group, LLC has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore
(City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2018-38 (Development Agreement No.
2018-06 (Exhibit A) and Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-10) to establish an approximately
20,891 Square Foot (SF) Cannabis Facility within an existing two-story building (Project). The
Project will consist of approximately 2,234 SF dispensary atea, 16,842 SF of cultivation and
ancillary use space, 907 SF of distribution space, and 885 SF of manufacturing space. The Project
is generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection 3rd and Pasadena and more
specifically referred to as 480 Third St (APN: 377 -140-027); 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) 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 Chapter 1 9.12 (Development Agreements) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal
Code (LEMC) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility
of reviewing and making a recommendation to the City Council (Council) whether the
development agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan (GP) and whether to approve
the development agreement; and,
Whereas, on November 20,2018, 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,
CALIFORNIA, OOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERII'INE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Commission makes the following findings
for MSHCP consistency:
'l . The Project is not subject to the City's LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority's (RCA) JPR processes as it is not located within a Criteria Cell.
2. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas, Vernal Pools Guidelines, and the
Fuel Management Guidelines as the Project is wholly located within an existing building and
does not include any earth disturbing activities therefore Sections 6. 1 .2 or 6.3.1 of the MSHCP
are not applicable.
PC Reso. No. 2018-88
Page 2 of 4
3. The Project is consistent with the protection of Narrow Endemic plant species (NEps)
Guidelines and the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures because the project is notlocated within any NEPS Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas.
4. The Project is consistent with.the. Fuels Management Guidelines because the project site isnot within or adjacent to any MSHCp Criteria Cell or conservation areas.
5. The Project has been conditioned to pay any applicable MSHcp Local DevelopmentMitigation fees.
$91!!4! The Commission hereby finds and determines that the Project is categorically exemptfrom california Environmentat euality Act (cal. pubt. Res. code ss2iooo et sei. ,cton,,y anoC-EQA Guidelines (14. cal. code Regs. ggl5000 et seq.), specificiiiy pursuant to Section 15301(Class 1 - Existing Facilities), be-cause theFroject propo#s to estabti!h a Cannabis Facitity withinan existjng building The site is fully developed and only minor interior arterations ire pianned inassociation with the proposed use.
Sgctio,4 3: That in accordance with california planning and Zoning Law and the section1.9.12.070 (Planning commission report) of the LEMC, the commisslon makes the followingfindings regarding Development Agreement No. 2018_06.
1. lt is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in theGP and any applicable specific plan.
The proposed Development .Agreement will hetp to offset the potentiat costs incurred by theCiU associated with the establishment of a cannabis related fatitity within ii iniiitrat oirtri"t.The Proiect site's GP Land use designation is Limited tndustriat (q. fne propiiii-erqect isconsistent the Ll land use designation and with the objectives, potiaes, ge'neiat hni uses andprograms specified in the Gp.
2. lt is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land usedistrict in which the real property is located.
The proposed Development Agreement wilt facilitate the establishment of the Cannabisrelated facility within an existing building. The Project is tocated in the Limited lndustnd (l)
GP t and use designation and the Generat Manuficturing (M-2) zoning desigiatiiii,- which isconslstent with the applicalle- Gl Land use Designation. The propoied uie is a permitted
use subject to the approval of a Conditional use permit within tie U_2 Zoning designation.
3. lt is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practices.
The proposed Cannabis related facility which wilt be facititated through the proposed
Development Agreement was found to be a high value development which ;ill have'beneficiat
impacts to the surrounding community. Fufthermore, the project has been reviewed and
conditioned by all applicable City departments to reduce the potential for any adverse effects.
4. lt will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare.
The proposed Development Agreement wilt facilitate the estabtishment of a Cannabis related
facility within an existing building. The proposed Project has been reviewed and conditioned
PC Reso. No. 2018-88
Page 3 of 4
by all applicable City departments to reduce the potential for any adverse effects to the health,
safety and general welfare.
5. lt will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property
values;
The proposed Development Agreement will facilitate the establishment of a Cannabis related
facility within an existing building. The proposed use has been analyzed and staff has
determined that the proposed use meefs all applicable secrions of the LEMC and will
complement the existing uses. Ihe Project was found not to adversely affect the orderly
development of propefty or the preservation of propefty values.
6. lt is consistent with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5.
The proposed Development Agreement includes all mandatory provisions required by
Govemment Code $ 65865.2 and does not include any provisions that are not authorized by
the Development Agreement Act.
Section 4: 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 5: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions of
Approval imposed upon the Project, the Commission hereby recommends that the Council
approve Development Agreement No. 20 18-06.
Section 6: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Passed and Adopted on this 20th day of November,2018, by the following vote:
PC Reso. No. 2018-88
Page 4 of 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) -COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
crTY oF LAKE ELSTNORE )
l, Justin Kirk, Assistant Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2018-88 was adopted by the planning commission of the city
of Lake Elsinore, california, at a Regular meeting held of November 20,-2otg, and that the same
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: commissioner's Gray, Armit and Klaarenbeek; Vice-chair carroll and chairman RossNOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None