HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2025-22 - VAR 2025-01 - PA 2019-31 - Blazed UtopiaRESOLUTION NO. 2025-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2025-01 TO
ALLOW A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR
THE PROPOSED PATIO FROM 15 FEET TO 9.4 FEET AND FROM 15 FEET
TO 3.5 FEET FOR THE PROPOSED STORAGE SHED LOCATED AT 233
WEST MINTHORN STREET (APN: 377-220-024)
Whereas, Rahman & Associates, LLC., has filed an application with the City of Lake
Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019-31, which includes a minor
Industrial Design Review (IDR No. 2025-04) to legalize an unpermitted 392 sq. ft. storage shed
and construct a 373 sq. ft. patio and a 21 sq. ft. fire riser room. The request also includes a
variance (VAR No. 2025-01) to reduce the proposed storage shed’s rear yard setback from 15 ft.
to 3.5 ft and the proposed patio’s rear yard setback from 15 ft. to 9.4 ft;
Whereas, the project is located on the northeasterly edge of West Minthorn Street on an
approximately 1.37-acre site at 233 West Minthorn Street and encompasses Assessor Parcel
Number 377-220-024;
Whereas, on June 23, 2020, the City Council approved Planning Application No. 2019-31
to establish an approximately 17,037 sq. ft. new cannabis business now known as Blazed Utopia;
Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell
undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and Joint Project Review (JPR) process
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 Section 17.415.080 (Variances), the Planning Commission
(Commission) has been delegated the responsibility of reviewing and approving, conditionally
approving, or denying this variance application; and
Whereas, on September 16, 2025, 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:
Docusign Envelope ID: 95BA2327-F590-46AC-AD43-AB9FF2DB47D8
PC Reso. No. 2025-22
Page 2 of 4
1. The project is not subject to the City’s LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority’s (RCA) JPR processes as it is not located within a Criteria Cell.
2. The Project site is flat, heavily disturbed and devoid of vegetation and the site has been
fully developed for commercial uses. The project is proposing to construct three (3) new
accessory structures on already fully developed 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.
3. The project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines
as set forth in MSHCP Section 6.1.3 and the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures as
set forth in MSHCP Section 6.3.2 because the project is not located within any Narrow
Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas.
4. The project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines because the project site
is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation areas.
5. The project has been conditioned to pay any applicable MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation fees.
Section 3: The Commission has reviewed and analyzed the proposed project pursuant to
the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 59000 et seq.), the Lake Elsinore
General Plan (GP), and the LEMC and finds and determines that the proposed project is
consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and
policies of the GP and the LEMC.
Section 4: The Commission finds the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§§21000 et seq.: “CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures)
and Section 15305 (Class 5: Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations).
Section 5: That in accordance with Section 17.415.080.F of the LEMC, the Commission
makes the following findings regarding Variance No. 2025-01:
1. Adequate conditions and safeguards pursuant to LEMC, Section 17.172.050 have been
incorporated into the approval of the variance to ensure development of the property in
accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning distric t in
which the site is located.
Appropriate and applicable conditions of approval have been included to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare. Further, compliance with the conditions of approval will
be reviewed during the plan check and inspection review process prior to commencing
construction and operations.
2. There are special circumstances, pursuant to the purpose of Chapter 17.415.080 of the
LEMC, applicable to the subject property which do not apply generally to other properties
in the neighborhood, and, therefore, granting of the variance shall not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
and district in which the subject property is located.
Docusign Envelope ID: 95BA2327-F590-46AC-AD43-AB9FF2DB47D8
PC Reso. No. 2025-22
Page 3 of 4
Granting the variance would not constitute a special privilege because there are certain
unique physical circumstances on the existing property that would preclude the applicant
from having the same development rights as the surrounding industrial zoned properties.
These physical circumstances include unique irregular shaped lot, narrow depth of the lot,
and grade difference in the topography. Furthermore, the property is fully developed with
an industrial building that has been constructed and occupied which creates an additional
difficulty for the applicant to strictly comply with the rear yard setback. The other
surrounding M-1 zoned properties feature more symmetrically shaped lots that generally
have the same width and depth with a flat even grade throughout. As such, these
properties are able to comply with the development standards including all required
setbacks unlike the subject property.
3. In approving the variance, any reductions authorized from the strict interpretation of the
zoning ordinance represents the minimum deviation from this code necessary to fulfill the
purpose of this chapter and enable reasonable development of the property.
The proposed variance would reduce the rear yard setback in order to allow the applicant
to reasonably develop the remaining areas of the property. These additional accessory
structures are necessary to continue supporting the cannabis business including its
cultivation facility. However, the accessory structures would still be required to maintain
the reduced minimum rear yard setback granted by the variance. The variance would not
outright remove the rear yard setback requirement or result in a zero-lot line setback.
4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district in which the property
is situated.
Granting the variance would not constitute a special privilege because there are certain
unique physical circumstances on the existing property unlike the other properties within
the vicinity with the same zone that do not have the same physical hardships and could
develop their property consistently with the industrial zone development standards and
requirements contained in the LEMC. Because of the physical hardships, it would preclude
the applicant from having the same development rights as the surrounding industrial
zoned properties.
Section 6: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions
of Approval imposed upon the project, the Commission hereby approves Variance No. 2025-01.
Section 7: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Passed and Adopted on this 16th day of September, 2025.
John Gray
Chair
Docusign Envelope ID: 95BA2327-F590-46AC-AD43-AB9FF2DB47D8
PC Reso. No. 2025-22
Page 4 of 4
Attest:
_____________________________
Damaris Abraham
Community Development Director
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Damaris Abraham, Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2025-22 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held September 16, 2025 and that the same was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Peters; Vice Chair Carroll; and Chair Gray
NOES: Commissioners Devor and Pease
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Damaris Abraham
Community Development Director
Docusign Envelope ID: 95BA2327-F590-46AC-AD43-AB9FF2DB47D8