The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Reso No 2006-171RESOLUTION NO. 2006-171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE MULTI- SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS LAKE ELSINORE MEDICAL PLAZA WHEREAS, HC&D Architects, C/O Chris Lindholm, has submitted application for Lake Elsinore Medical Plaza located on the south side of Canyon Estates Drive and west of Summerhill Drive; and WHEREAS, the application comprises the "project" as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 21065, which is defined as an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environxnent, ar 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, the project has been found exempt from further environmental review in accardance with California Public Resources Code, Article II, Section 15162; and WHEREAS, public notice of the project has been given, and the City Council has considered evidence presented by the Cornmunity Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on October 10, 2006. 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 application and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP. SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning laws, the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and the MSHCP, the City Council makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: CITY COiJNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2006-171 PAGE 2 OF 5 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 before approval. Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Resolution, the project is required to be reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with other "Plan Wide Requirements. " The proposed project site lies within Criteria Cells #4646 and #4647. However, based upon a verbal "common law vested rights agreement" between the Ciry and the previous landowner, the site was exempted from the MSHCP. This agreement was the result of the previous landowner's extensive costs associated with anfrastructure and road construction in that area prior to the City's involvement in the MSHCP. Accordingly, the current proposed project would also be subject to this same agreement. City Planning Staff conducted a site reconnaissance survey to ensure that no issues could be raised regarding consistency with the MSCHP's other `Plan Wide Requirements ". The only requirements potentially applicable to the proposed project were the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, ~ 6.1.2) and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, ~ 4). The proposed project site has already been graded as approved under the previous agreement and no habitat is present on site, including riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools. 2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review processes. As stated above, the City exempted this site from the MSHCP and therefore it was not processed through a Joint Project Review. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, a site reconnaissance survey was conducted, and no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources were identified on the proposed project site. As such, the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2006-171 PAGE 3 OF 5 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the site does not fall within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas. Neither a habitat assessment nor further focused surveys are required for the proposed project. Therefore, Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the MSHCP only requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in Criteria Area Species Survey Areas, Amphibian Species Survey Areas, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas, and Mammal Species Survey Areas of the MSHCP. The project site is located outside of any Critical Area Species Survey Areas. Therefore, it can be concluded that the provisions as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP criteria or conservation areas. Therefore, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 in the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. No additional mitigation measures or conditions of approval are required. 7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the entire proposed project site has been graded. There are no resources located on the project site requiring mapping as set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the MSHCP. 8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP. Further, the project sate as not within or adjacent to any MSHCP criteria or conservation areas. Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP are not applicable to the proposed project. No additional mitigation measures or conditions or approval are required. CITY COLTNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2006-171 PAGE 4 OF 5 9. The proposed 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. lO.The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. As stated in No. 1 above, the proposed project was exempted from the MSHCP based upon a"common law vested rights agreement" between the City and the previous landowner. That exemption continues to apply to the current proposed project. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this lOth day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, MAGEE NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE City of Lake CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2006-171 PAGE 5 OF 5 ATTE T: Fredrick Ray ity Clerk City of Lake Elsinore AP~ OVED AS O,~'O, ,~ ~~ ~Y B rbara Zeid L ibold, City Attorney City of Lake Elsinore