Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 2006-140RESOLUTION NO. 2006-140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE MiJLTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS RAMSGATE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 89-1 ' FOURTH REVISION, TENTATNE TRACT MAP NO. 25475 REVISION NO. 1, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34231 LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 74, AND WEST OF GREENWALD AVENUE WHEREAS, White Rock Acquisition Co., L.P. has submitted an application for Ramsgate Specific Plan No. 89-1 Fourth Revision, Tentative Tract Map No. 25475 Revision No. 1, and Tentative Tract Map No. 34231 (Ramsgate applications), located approximately one mile east of Interstate 15, south of Highway 74, and west of Crreenwald Avenue; and WHEREAS, these Ramsgate applications comprise the "project" as defined by Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., which is defined as an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and which includes the issuance to a person of a lease, pernut, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies; and WHEREAS, Addendum No. 3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH 88090525) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts resulting with the project; and WHEREAS, public notice of said project has been given, and the City Council has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on August 22, 2006. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 2006-140 Page 2 of 8 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the proposed Ramsgate applications and their consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision. SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning laws, the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, and the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, findings for adoprion have been made as follows: MSHCP CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding befare approval. The proposed project includes two (2) tentative tract maps (TTMs) and requires a number of discretionary approvals from the City, including CEQA review. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with "Other Plan Requirements. " These include the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Yernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, ~ 61.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, ~ 61.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, ~ 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, ~ 6.1.4), Tregetation Mapping (MSHCP, ~ 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, ~ 4). 2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. The project site is within the MSHCP Lake Elsinore Area Plan. The site proposed for Tentative Tract Map No. 25475 Revision No. 1 lies within Criteria Cell 4176 and Independent Criteria Cells 4174, 4178 and 4272. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 2006-140 Page 3 of 8 Therefore, a formal and complete LEAP (Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process) application, LEAP 2005-10 was submitted to the City on December 9, 2005. This application and documentation was reviewed by the City and it was determined that no additional conservation as required for compliance with the MSHCP. The City also determined that TTM 25475 had complied with the MSHCP "Other Plan Requirements. " The City's LEAP determination was submitted to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for its Joint Project Review(JPR), and was given a finding of consistency by the RCA on May 1, 2006. TTM 34231 is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell area, therefore, no formal LEAP submittal was required. However, the project is still required to demonstrate compliance with "Other Plan Requirements. " Both TTMs are in compliance as described further below. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. No vernal pools exist on the site and therefore vernal pool species are not expected to occur. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitat types based on their value in the conservation of a number of MSHCP-covered species, none of which has any potential to occur on the project site. Any impacts to the southern willow scrub and herbaceous wetland are the Yesult of off-site road improvements. Relocation of the roads is not feasible without eliminating access to the project site and impacts cannot be reduced by an alternative location, since all of the drainages would still need to be crossed. Impacts to the small riparian area and unvegetated drainages will be mitigated through acquisition of credits from the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District Mitigation Bank, which provides significant enhancement to riparian habitat along the Santa Ana River through removal of giant reed (Arundo donax). A number of the species targeted for conservation through consistency with Section 6.1.2 occur within bank boundaries, and the bank is within the MSHCP Conservation Area boundaries. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 2006-140 Page 4 of 8 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The project site is not located within the NEPSSA as shown on Figure 6-1 of the MSHCP; however, an MSHCP Narrow Endemic Species (Munz's onion) was observed in the north-central portion of TTM No. 25475. This population of the Munz's onion occurs outside of the Conservation Area spelled out in the Cell Criteria for the tentative tract and the project site is not one of the fifteen known locations targeted for conservation. Additionally, since the site lies outside of a NEPSSA or Critical Area Species Survey Area (CASSA), no conservation is required. Based on its location outside of any NEPSSA or CASSA, the project is compliant with MSHCP Section 61.3. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in Criteria Area Species Survey Areas, Amphibian Species Survey Areas With Critical Area, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas With Criteria Area, and Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Areas of the MSHCP. The project site is located outside of any Critical Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) for plants and mammals and no CASSA plant species were observed during the focused surveys for the site. However, the TTMNo. 25475 site is located within the area requiring burrowing owl surveys. A burrowing owl habitat and burrow suYVey was conducted on the TTM No. 25475 site in August 2004 by PCR Services Corporation. The habitat assessment found that the study area exhibited multiple key indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat including occurrence of low- growing vegetation and the presence of small fossoYial mammal burrows. However, no burrowing owl sign was observed during the habitat assessment and burrow survey, and the burrowing owl is not expected to occur at this site. Additionally, the site was surveyed on multiple occasions during other focused surveys by biologists familiar with the burrowing owl. No owls were obser°ved during any of these surveys; therefore, TTM No. 25475 is consistent with the policies of MSHCP Section 6.3.2. However, as required by the MSHCP, an additional pre- CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 2006-140 Page 5 of 8 construction survey for burrowing owl will be included as a condition of project approval. In addition, TTMNo. 34231 is located within the survey area identified for the burrowing owl. The site has already been rough gr•aded and adjacent road improvements constructed. No suitable burrowing owl habitat currently exists on the project site. However, due to the migratory nature of the burrowing owl, there is a possibiliry that although burrowing owls are not currently located on the project site, they could occupy the site prior to actual project construction. Therefore a pre-construction burrowing owl survey will be required per the MSHCP. Based upon the above, it can be concluded that the proposed TTM No. 25475 and TTM No. 34231 are consistent with the provisions of the MSHCP. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The TTM No. 25475 site is located adjacent to land that has been set aside for conservation. Therefore the project is required to comply with the policies set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP which are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, where applicable. Future Development in proximity to the MSHCP Consef-vation Area may result in Edge Effects that will adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize such Edge Effects, guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private Development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Through implementation of mitigation measures the project will minimize the adverse effects of the project on conservation configuration and minimize management challenges that can arise fi'om development being located adjacent to consef-ved habitat; and will be consistent with the policies set forth in MSHCP Section 6.1.4. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 2006-140 Page 6 of 8 The TTM No. 34231 project site is separated from nearby criteria cells by ezisting residential subdivisions located within the Ramsgate Specific Plan. Therefore, the urban/wildlands interface guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are not applicable. 7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The vegetation of the project site has been mapped as part of the City's LEAP application for TTM 25475. This mapping is consistent with MSHCP mapping protocol. The mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP requirements. No vegetation mapping requirements apply to TTM 34231. 8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The TTM No. 25475 site has been designed to include Fuel Modification Zones along its north and west boundaries in open space adjacent to the Conservation Areas. The proposed project has been designed so that no additional take of conserved habitat will be necessary for fuel modification purposes. Within the project open space area plantings are limited to fire- resistant, non-invasive native species from the list contained within the MSHCP Ordinance and reviewed by the City's Fire Department. All fuel management areas will ezist outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. TTM No. 25475 is therefore consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The TTMNo. 34231 site is separated from nearby criteria cells by existing residential subdivisions located within the Ramsgate Specific Plan. Therefore, the fuels management guidelines set forth in the MSHCP are not applicable. 9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 2006-140 Page 7 of 8 The proposed project will not be required to pay the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee because all such fees have been satisfied by virtue of the development agreement for the project. 10. The proposed project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. The City received a letter dated May 1, 2006, from Sarah Lozano, Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authoriry stating that TTM 25475 is consistent with the MSHCP from both a criteria and other plan perspective. Because there was no formal LEAP requirement for TTM No. 34231, the City ensured the consistency of this project site with the MSHCP. The City received a letter dated February 27, 2006, from Thomas B. Mullen, Executive Director, Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authoriry stating that projects within the Ramsgate Specific Plan are covered by the mitigation program contained in that plan and accepted in anticipation of the MSHCP being adopted and the agency permits signed. Mr. Mullen concludes that the preservation of the mitigated lands for the Ramsgate SP helped to insure that the permits were signed. The entire project is consistent with the MSHCP and provides effective conservation on the project site to meet the biological issues and considerations of the MSHCP. 11. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record befare the City Council, that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 2006-140 Page 8 of 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED in final form this 10`" day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: nu~kiey, Hickman, Kelley, Schiffner, Magee NOES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COLJNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COLJNCILMEMBERS: None ~ ~ ~ /- Robert E. Magee, City of Lake Elsu A Clerk City of Lake APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~ ~ ;' ~-' -, / ~' ~ ~~ ~ G ~ 2 arbara Zeid eibold, City Attorney City of Lake Elsinore