HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 1 - MSHCP ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 2024-
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, ADOPT FINDINGS THAT PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 2021-43 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34249, REVISION NO.
1 AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2022-06) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
Whereas, Tri Pointe Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City)
requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2021-43 (Tentative Tract Map No. 34249,
Revision No. 1 and Residential Design Review No. 2022-06) to develop the approximately 81.32-
acre northeastern portion of the larger approximately 246.41-acre previously approved
subdivision. Revision No. 1 to TTM 34249 proposes to subdivide the 81.32-acre site into 133
single-family lots ranging in size from 3,206 sq. ft. to 15,747 sq. ft., three (3) open space lots, two
(2) water quality/detention basins, and one (1) 5.82-acre park. Residential Design Review No.
2022-06 includes the design and construction of 133 single-family residences, preliminary
plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, conceptual landscaping, and related site improvements.
The project proposes six (6) floor plans ranging in size from 2,314 sq. ft. to 4,225 sq. ft. and three
(3) architectural styles (Santa Barbara, Napa, and California Craftsman). The site is located south
of Canyon Hills Road and west of Cottonwood Canyon Road within the Canyon Hills Estates
Specific Plan (APNs: 365-230-005, 006, 009, 011, and 012);
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;
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;
Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) and Section 17.415.050 (Major
Design Review) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) the Planning Commission
(Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City
Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps and design review applications; and
Whereas, on February 20, 2024 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:
Section 1: The Commission has considered the project and its consistency with the
MSHCP prior to adopting Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP.
Section 2: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Commission makes the following
findings for MSHCP consistency:
PC Reso. No. 2024-____
Page 2 of 4
1. The project 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, consistent with the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine
Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic
Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures (MSHCP, Section 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP,
Section 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, Section 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels
Management Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, Section 4). The Project has been
reviewed in light of these sections and is consistent therewith.
2. The Project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the County’s Joint Project Review processes.
The project is located within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan but is not located within a
MSHCP Criteria Cell. Therefore, the project was not required to go through the LEAP or
JPR processes.
3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines.
Section 6.1. 2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool
habitat types based upon their value in the conservation of a number of MSHCP covered
species. All potential impacts to riparian /riverine areas will be mitigated as identified in the
Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). The project Site
does not have vernal pools, and no sensitive species listed in Section 6.1. 2 of the MSHCP
are expected to occur within the project Site due to the lack of suitable riparian vegetation
and habitat, and the negative results of focused surveys. The Project is therefore consistent
with Section 6.1. 2 of the MSHCP.
4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines.
The project is not located in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area as mapped in
Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. Therefore, the provisions of Section 6.1.3 are not applicable
to the project.
5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.
The project is located within the Burrowing Owl survey area as identified in Section 6.3. 2
(Additional Survey Need and Procedures) of the MSHCP. Five surveys were conducted on
the entire site. The results of the surveys indicated that no Burrowing Owls occupied the
project site. The Project will be required to conduct a pre-construction survey 30 days prior
to the commencement of grading. As such, the project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of
the MSHCP.
6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
The project site is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell. However, Cell 4951 is south of the
project site. A number of project design features have been included to address edge effects
beyond the limits of grading at the urban /wildlands interface that are consistent with the
guidelines of Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. In addition, the Project will avoid 126 acres of
PC Reso. No. 2024-____
Page 3 of 4
open space and include an additional 23. 9 acres of open space, and a conservation
easement or deed restriction will be placed over the Cottonwood Canyon Creek mitigation
area in the northeastern corner of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project is consistent with
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
The project site is not within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. Additionally, the site is not within the
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area; therefore, no Narrow Endemic Plant surveys
were required. However, plant communities were mapped and sensitive plant species not
adequately conserved or covered by the MSHCP were surveyed. These species include:
Parry’s spineflowe, Plummer’s mariposa lily, chaparral sand verbena, and Coulter’s matilija
poppy. Surveys and mapping were conducted pursuant to MSHCP requirements. Of these
species, only the Parry’s spineflower was observed within the study area. Of the 18,000
Parry’s spineflower plants estimated to occur within the study area, approximately one
percent would be impacted by the Project, and impacts to this species are considered less
than significant. For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the MSHCP
Vegetation Mapping requirements (Section 6.3.1)
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. The proposed project complies with the Fuels Management
Guidelines and therefore is consistent with the Fuel Management Guidelines.
9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee.
As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City’s MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits.
10. 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 20th day of February, 2024.
Jodi Peters, Chair
PC Reso. No. 2024-____
Page 4 of 4
Attest:
___________________________________
Damaris Abraham,
Assistant Community Development Director
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Damaris Abraham, Assistant Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2024-__ was adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on February 20, 2024 and that
the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Damaris Abraham,
Assistant Community Development Director