The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Reso No 2005-172RESOLUTION NO. 2005-172 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-07, AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-3, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34017, LOCATED SOUTH OF MISSION TRAIL, WEST OF CORYDON STREET, NORTH OF COMO STREET AND EAST OF THE PROPOSED JOHN LAING HOMES PROJECT, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 370-020-003; 370-030-004, -006, AND -012; 370-040-036 THRU -038; 370- 0700-001, -002, -004 THRU -006, AND -010; 370-080-009 AND - 010. WHEREAS, Lumos Communities LLC has submitted applications for General Plan Amendment No. 2005-07, Amendment No. 8 to the East Lake Specific Plan No. 93- 3, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 34017, located south of Mission Trail, west of Corydon Street, north of Como Street and east of the proposed John Lain Homes project, and known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 370-020-003; 370-030-004, -006, and -012; 370-040-036 thru -038; 370-0700-001, -002, -004 thru -006, and -010; 370-080-009 and -010; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2005-07 and Amendment No. 8 to the East Lake Specific Plan No. 93-3 together 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, pennit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies; and WHEREAS, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Waterbury, SCH #2005061033 has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts resulting with the project; and WHEREAS, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 34017 implements the project and is therefore covered by Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Waterbury, SCH #2005061033; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on December 6, 2005, considered the project. However, the Commission CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2005-172 Page 2 of 6 failed to make its recommendation in favor or against the adoption of Findings of Consistency with the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan for 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 December 13, 2005. 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 General Plan Amendment No. 2005-07, Amendment No. 8 to the East Lake Specific Plan No. 93-3, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 34017. The City Council find and determines that the project known as "Waterbury" is consistent with all of the required procedures, policies, guidelines and provisions of the MSHCP based on the following 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. The proposed project requires a number of discretionary approvals from the City and is subject to CEQA review. 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, ~' 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, ~' 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, ,¢ 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, ~ 6.1.4), Vegetation 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. As outlined in the LEAP Application dated August 4, 2005 and submitted by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. on September 1, 2005, portions of the site are located within MSHCP criteria area cells subject to the City's of Lake CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0.2005-172 Page 3 of 6 Elsinore's Acquisition Process (LEAP). The proposed project implements the cell criteria in accordance with the agreement between the County of Riverside and the resource agencies to more accurately reflect biological resources in the Back Basin. MSHCP conservation within the Back Basin of Lake Elsinore was modified to total 770 acres comprised of several open space areas, as outlined in the MSHCP compliance letter prepared by i~andermost Consulting Services, Inc. dated February 9, 2005 and attached to the LEAP Application. The County of Riverside confirmed that the 770 acres of conservation provides compliance with MSHCP criteria area cell conservation in a letter dated February 3, 2004, also attached to the LEAP Application. Therefore the Project is not subject to the City's LEAP or County's Joint Project Review process for conservation within the MSHCP criteria area cells. However, the Project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project Review process for impacts to one Criteria Area Species, smooth tarplant, as outlined in 5. below. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. According to the LEAP Application dated August 4, 2005 and submitted by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. on September 1, 2005, no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources were identified on the proposed project site. As a result, no further MSHCP analysis or conservation measures are required. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. According to the Biological Technical Report prepared by Glenn Lukos and Associates on July 21, 2005 and the LEAP Application submitted by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. on September 1, 2005, the project is within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area. No suitable habitat or individuals of Narrow Endemic Plant Species were identified on-site. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2005-172 Page 4 of 6 According to the Biological Technical Report prepared by Glenn Lukos and Associates on July 21, 2005 and the LEAP Application submitted by Yandermost Consulting Services, Inc. on September 1, 2005, the project is within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area and Criteria Area Species Survey Area. Suitable habitat for burrowing owl was identified on-site, but no individuals or diagnostic sign of burrowing owls were observed during the peak breeding season. Therefore the site was determined not currently occupied by burrowing owl. To assure burrowing owls will not be impacted by project development, as a condition of project approval, apre-construction survey will be required within 30 days prior to grading to confirm the absence of burrowing owls, as required by the MSHCP. One criteria area species, Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), was identified on-site. Approximately 8, 000 to 10, 000 smooth tarplant were identified at the Project Site, occurring in several locations on site. The proposed project would impact all smooth tarplant at the Project Site. The project proposes to mitigate for impacts to the smooth tarplant by collecting seed from on-site populations and enhancing existing populations of smooth tarplant located in habitats supporting long-term conservation values within the Lake Elsinore Back Basin. The proposed project will submit for review and approval by the City a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) analysis prior to obtaining a grading permit for the project. The project is not within amphibian or mammal Survey Areas, therefore habitat assessments and/or focused surveys for these species are not required. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Additional Survey Needs Requirements. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. Measures have been incorporated into the proposed project so that there will be no project-related drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasives, barriers, and grading/land development impacts to any Conservation Areas. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. 7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. The vegetation of the entire project site has been mapped in the Biological Technical Report prepared by Glenn Lukos and Associates dated July 21, 2005. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.2005-172 Page 5 of 6 This mapping is consistent with MSHCP mapping protocol and has been provided in digital format to the City. The mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP requirements. 8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The proposed project has been designed to include landscape buffers on the western edge of the development boundary near the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area that will serve as Fuel Modification Zones. Within these areas there will be fire-resistant, non-invasive plants from the list contained within the MSHCP Ordinance and reviewed by the City's Fire Department. All fuel management areas will exist outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. 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. The current fee for residential development with a density of less than 8.0 dwelling units per acre is $1,651 per dwelling unit. This is consistent with the MSHCP Mitigation Fee requirement. 10. The proposed project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. The proposed project complies and is consistent with all of the required procedures, policies, and guidelines of the City's MSHCP Resolution and the MSHCP. 11. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2005-172 Page 6 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13`h day of December, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, MAGEE NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMEERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Robert E. M City of Lake Frederick Ray, qty Clerk City of Lake Elsinore APPROVED 1$~arbara Zeid eibold, City Attorney City of Lake lsinore