The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Reso No 2009-63RESOLUTION NO. 2009-63 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Royal Street Communications, c/o Sequoia Development Services Inc, has submitted application for a telecommunications facility and associated equipment (the 'Project') on property located at 31569 Canyon Estates Drive (APN: 363-910-001,002,003); and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all projects which are proposed on land covered by an MSHCP criteria cell and which require discretionary approval by the legislative body undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process ("LEAP") and a Joint Project Review ("JPR") between the City and the Regional Conservation Authority ('RCA") prior to public review of the project applications; and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects not within an MSHCP criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; and WHEREAS, the Project is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Core or Linkage, but is within the Elsinore Plan Area of the MSHCP, and therefore, the Project was reviewed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency findings prior to approving any discretionary project entitlements for development of property that is subject to the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of considering and approving, conditionally approving or denying requests for variances, conditional use permits, and minor design reviews; and WHEREAS, public notice of the project has been given, and the Planning Commission 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 1, 2009. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-63 PAGE 2 OF 5 SECTION 1. The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission makes the following findings for MSHCP consistency: 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 Implementing 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 City 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 infrastructure 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 in 2006 in association with the previous development of the site 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 are 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 and developed 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, according to the City's MSHCP Implementing Resolution, the site is exempt 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 is exempt from the MSHCP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a site reconnaissance survey was conducted in 2006 in connection with the site development approvals 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. Agenda Item No. Page _ of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-63 PAGE 3OF5 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The proposed project is exempt 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 is exempt 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 is exempt 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 is exempt from the MSHCP. Further, the entire proposed project site has been graded and developed. 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 is exempt from the MSHCP. Further, the project site is 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. 9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. At the time the project site was previously developed, the project was required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. 10. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. As stated in No. 1 above, the proposed project is exempt from the MSHCP based upon a "common law vested rights agreement" between the City and the Agenda Item No. Page _ of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-63 PAGE 4OF5 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 1st day of December, 2009, by the following vote: my Flores, Chairman City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST Tom Weiner Director of Community Development Agenda Item No. Page _ of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-63 PAGE 5OF5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, TOM WEINER, Acting Director of Community Development of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2009-63 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 1 st day of December 2009, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: CHAIRMAN JIMMY FLORES, VICE-CHAIRMAN JOHN GONZALES, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O'NEAL NOES: COMMISSIONER PHIL MENDOZA ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Tom Weiner Director of Community Development Agenda Item No. Page of