HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2018-100 (DA 2018-05, Modern Leaf)RESOLUTTON NO. 2018-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 2018.05 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 2,074 SQUARE FOOT CANNABIS FACILITYwrHlN AN ExlsrlNG BUTLDtNG LocATED AT 3{877 coRyDoN (ApN:370-051-oi6)
Whereas, Joshua Grant, the Modern Leaf has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore(city) requesting approval of Planning Application No 2o1g-37 (Development Agreement No.
2018-05 (ExhibitA) and conditionat use permit No. 2018-09) to establish an approxlmatety 2,074
Square Foot (SF) Cannabis Facility within an existing building (Project). The project will consist
will consist of 1,528 sF of cultivation space and 546 SF of support and ancillary usls. The project
is generally located at the northwest corner of the intersection Mission Traii and Corydon and
more specifically referred to as 31871 Corydon (ApN: 370-051-016); and,
Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) requires that all disffetionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo theLake 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,
lVhereag, pursuant to Chapte|I9.12 (Development Agreements) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal
C-ode (LEMC) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibilityof reviewing and making a recommendation to the city couniil (council) whether the
development agreement is consistent with the city's General plan 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, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
-Sectign 1: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Commission makes the following findings
for MSHCP consistency:
1. 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.l.2 or 6.3.l of theMsHCP
are not applicable.
I
PC Reso. No. 2018-100
Page 2 ot 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 poect is not
located within any NEPS Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas.
4. The project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines because the Project site is
not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation areas.
5. The Project has been conditioned to pay any applicable MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation fees.
ggg!!!@4. The Commission hereby finds and determines that the Project is categorically exempt
iilm Catifornia Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Publ. Res. Code SS21000 et seq. "CEQA') and
CEQA Guidelines (14. cal. code Regs. ssl5ooo et seq.), specifically pursuant to section '15301
(Class 1 - Existing Facilities), because the Project proposes to establish a Cannabis Facility within
in existing building. The site is fully developed and only minor interior alterations are planned in
association with the proposed use.
Section 3: That in accordance with California Planning and Zoning Law and the- Section
1E76-ZO (ptanning Commission report) of the LEMC, the Commission makes the following
findings regarding Development Agreement No. 2018-05:
1. lt is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the
General Plan (GP) and any applicable specific plan.
The proposed Devetopment Agreement witt help to offset the potential costs incurred by the
City associated with the establishment of a Cannabis related facility within an industial district.
The project site's GP Land tJse designation is Limited lndustnal Gl) The proposed Proiect is
consistent the Lt land use designation and with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the GP.
2. lt is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use
district in which the real property is located.
The proposed Devetopment Agreement will facilitate the establishment of the Cannabis
related facility within an existing buitding. The Project is located in the Limited lndustrial (Ll)
GP Land use designation and the Limited Manufacturing (M-1) zoning designation, which is
conslstent with the appticable GP Land tJse Designation. The proposed use ls a permitted
use subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit within the M-1 Zoning designation.
3. lt is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practices.
The proposed Cannabis related facility which will be facilitated through the proposed
Devetopment Agreement was found to be a high value development which will have beneficial
impacts to the sunounding community. Fufthermore, the Proiect has been reviewed and
conditioned by alt appticable City depaftments 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 will facilitate the establishment of a Cannabis related
facility within an existing building. The proposed Project has been reviewed and conditioned
PC Reso. No. 2018-100
Page 3 of 4
by ail applicable City depaftments 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 f,as been anal@ed and staff has
determined that the proposed use rneefs all applicable sectlons of the LEMC and will
complement the existing uses. Ihe Project was found not to adversely affect the ordely
development of property or the preservation of propeiy 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
Government Code $ 65865.2 and does not include any provisions that are not authorized by
the Development Agreement AcL
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. 20'18-05.
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:
Mylds R/ss, Ch'airman
PC Reso. No.2018-100
Page 4 of 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) Ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
l, Justin Kirk, Assistant Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2018-100 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a Regular meeting held of November 20, 2018, and that the same
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner's Gray, Armit and Klaarenbeek; Vice-Chair Carroll and Chairman Ross
None
None
None