HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 2007-182RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 182
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF
CONSISTENCY WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) FOR MISSION TRAIL CENTER
BUILDING "G"
WHEREAS, Miramar West LLC has submitted an application for Commercial
Design Review No. 2007-12 (the "EntitlemenY'), for the development of the "Mission
Trail Shopping Center Buiiding G" within the existing Mission Trail Shopping Center
complex, within Redevelopment Area No: 1(the "Property'); and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP indicates that projects whieh are
proposed for development in an area not covered by an MSHCP criteria cell shall be
analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements" and that the City of Lake
Elsinore shall make findings that the Project is consistent with those requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is not located within a criteria cell, but was reviewed
pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements'; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Entitlement has been given, and the City Council
has considered evidence presented by the Communiry Development Department and
other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on October 23,
2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the proposed application and its
consistency with the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements".
SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the
MSHCP, the City Council makes the following findings:
The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the
City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding aefore approval.
The Property is not located wifhin a MSHCP Criteria CeIL However, pursuant fo
the City's MSHCP Resolufion, fhe project is required to be reviewed for
consistency with the MSHCP "Other Plan Wide Requirements," inc/uding
consistency with Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal Pool
Guidelines.
2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project
Review processes.
As stated above, the proposed project is not /ocafed within a MSHCP Criferia
Cell and therefore, it was not processed through a LEAP or Joint Project Review.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal
Pools Guidelines.
The Prope~ty is located within the paved parking /ot of an existing shopping
center. No riverine/riparian areas, vernal pools, or fairy shrimp habitat are
presenf on the Property. The Project is therefore consistent with the
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal Pool Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of
fhe MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Guidelines.
Per MSHCP requirements, the Project is not subjecf to the Nar~ow Endemic
Plant Species Guidelines set forth in Section 6.9.3. No further acfion regarding
this section of the MSHCP is reguired.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures..
Per MSHCP requirements, the P~oject is not subject to the Critical Area Species
Survey Area Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. No further
action regarding this secfion of the MSHCP is required.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface
Guidelines.
The Project is surrounded by exisfing development or graded parcels planned for
development Therefore, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines sef forth in
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the Project No further action
regarding this section of the MSHCP is requi~ed.
7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
There are no resources exisfing on the Property that would be subject to the
requiremenfs of Vegetation Mapping sef forfh in Secfion 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. No
furfher action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required.
8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
As stated above, the Project is sur~ounded hy exisfing and planned developmenf.
Therefore, the Fuels Managemenf Guidelines set forfh in Section 6.4 of fhe
MSHCP are not applicab/e to fhe Project. No further acfion regarding this section
of fhe MSHCP is required.
9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee.
The developer will 6e required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Deve/opment
Mitigation Fee.
10.The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP.
The Project is consistent wifh all applicable provisions of the :MSHCP. No further
acfions related to the MSHCP are required.
SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
attached conditions of approval, the City Councii hereby adoptS Findings that the
Entitlement is Consistent with the MSHCP.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Councii of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on this 23roday of October 2007.
/ /, ~~`/L~ ~-
MAYOR
CITY OF LAKE
ATTEST:
9 ,t,...._.. ~. /~.~.,.sa,.,l
VIVIAN M. MUNSON
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~ V~`(.t~
BARBARA ZEID LEIBOLD
CITY ATTORNEY
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, VIVIAN M. MUNSON, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, Califomia, hereby
certify that Resolution No. 2oo7-is2 was ado~ted by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 23 ° day of October 2007, and that the same
was adopted by the foilowing vote:
AYES: MAYOR ROAERT E. MAGEE
MAYOR PRO TEM DARYL HICKMAN
COUNCILMEMBERS TAOMAS BUCKLEY,
GENIE KELLEY AND ROBERT SCHIFFNER
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: ~vorrE
ABSENT: rroNE
~_,__ ^~. ~Lw,s~"---
VIVIAN M. MUNSON
CITY CLERK
4