HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2025-24 - VAR 2025-07 - PA 2025-08 - SunnyslopeRESOLUTION NO. 2025-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2025-07 TO ALLOW A
REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 12 FEET TO 5
FEET ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME LOCATED IN THE R-H ZONE OF THE COUNTRY CLUB HEIGHTS
DISTRICT (APNs: 375-272-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -036, AND -037)
Whereas, Frank Arredondo has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City)
requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2025-08 for a Variance (VAR No. 2025-07) to
deviate from the 12-foot required side yard setback for a new proposed approximately 2,900
square-foot single-family home in the R-H zone. The project is requesting to reduce the side yard
setback along the western property line from 12 feet to five feet which is a seven-foot reduction.
No reduction is requested for the other side yard setback along the eastern property line since it
complies with the five-foot minimum requirement;
Whereas, the project is located on seven separate but contiguous parcels for a combined
project site of 0.68-acres. More specifically, the parcels are located between Skyline Drive and
Sunnyslope Avenue within the Country Club Heights District and are currently zoned Hillside
Single-Family Residential (R-H). The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) include 375-272-001, -
002, -003, -004, -005, -036, and -037;
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. 2025-24
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 vacant but is surrounded by disturbed areas that have been fully
developed with residential structures. The project is proposing to construct a new
approximately 2,900 square-foot single-family home with a variance from the side yard
setback along the western side. 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. 2025-07:
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. 2025-24
Page 3 of 4
Due to the existing steep hillside topography creating a smaller development area and
unique irregular lot shape configuration with narrow dimensions, the applicant’s proposed
single-family home design could not comply with the 12-foot side yard setback
requirement. As such, granting a variance to reduce the side yard setback to five feet
would be appropriate for this proposed single-family home given the existing physical
development constraints as described in the staff report. 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 properties.
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 side yard setback in order to allow the applicant
to reasonably develop their single-family home. However, the single-family home would
still be required to maintain the reduced minimum side yard setback granted by the
variance. The variance would not outright remove the side yard setback requirement or
result in a zero-lot line setback. Furthermore, the development would also be required to
comply with all other applicable development standards.
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 R-H zoning district’s 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
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. 2025-07.
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. 2025-24
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. 2025-24 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 Devor, Pease and Peters; Vice Chair Carroll; and Chair Gray
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Damaris Abraham
Community Development Director
Docusign Envelope ID: 95BA2327-F590-46AC-AD43-AB9FF2DB47D8