HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 02 Attachment 1 - TPM Resolution PA 2025-11 (TTPM 39310) SubdivisionRESOLUTION NO. 2025-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 39310, TO SUBDIVIDE 81.38 ACRES INTO TWO PARCELS THAT ARE 35.64
ACRES AND 45.74 ACRES IN SIZE FOR FINANCING PURPOSES WITHIN THE
CANYON HILLS ESTATES SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT APN 365-230-001
Whereas, Tri Pointe Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore (City)
requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2025-11 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 39310) to
subdivide an existing 81.38-acre parcel into two parcels (35.64 acres and 45.74 acres,
respectively) for financing purposes. The site is located south of Sugarbush Lane and east of
Cottonwood Canyon Road within the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan (APN: 365-230-001);
Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore
Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the Joint Project Review (JPR) 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 Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 16.24 (Tentative
Map) the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of
making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the tentative map review;
and
Whereas, on December 2, 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 has found it acceptable.
Section 2: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Commission makes the following
findings for MSHCP consistency:
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 and undeveloped. The project is proposing a subdivision for
financing purposes only and no development or construction is involved. As such, the
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the
MSHCP are not applicable.
PC Reso. No. 2025-____
Page 2 of 4
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 is exempt from MSHCP local development mitigation fees pursuant to LEMC
Section 16.85.090.B because the project does involve any development or construction as
the project is strictly a subdivision for financing purposes.
Section 3: Prior to making a recommendation to the Council, the Commission has
reviewed and analyzed the proposed project pursuant to the appropriate Planning and Zoning
Laws, the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan, and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the LEMC.
Section 4: The Commission finds and determines that the project is exempt from the
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 15061(b)(3)
(“Common Sense Exemption”). The land division is for financing purposes only and does not
propose any development or construction. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the land division may have a significant effect on the environment and is not subject
to CEQA.
Section 5: That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the LEMC, the
Commission makes the following findings to recommend for approval of TPM No. 39310:
1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan
(Government Code Section 66473.5).
The project is located within the Canyon Hills Estates Specific Plan (CHESP). The proposed
project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs as
identified in the CHESP. The CHESP was subject to a consistency finding with the General
Plan prior to adoption. The proposed project complies with the minimum standards of the
Single Family-1 (SF-1) and Open Space (OS) land use designations for minimum lot size
and street frontage requirements. The proposed project is consistent with the provisions of
the CHESP and is therefore found to be consistent with the General Plan.
2. The site of the proposed subdivision of land is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development in accordance with the General Plan.
The project is strictly a subdivision for financing purposes and does not involve any
development or construction. Any future development would require a separate application
and review process and would be subject to its own public hearing(s) at Planning
Commission and/or City Council.
PC Reso. No. 2025-____
Page 3 of 4
3. The effects that this project are likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the
public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental
resources have been considered and balanced.
The project would create an additional parcel without altering existing entitlements, land use
designations, or environmental conclusions previously adopted under Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 2006‑04 (SCH No. 2006051073) for the approval of the CHESP. The
subdivision does not introduce new residential components nor modify the topography,
hydrology, or access conditions of the property. Furthermore, the project does not involve
any development or new construction.
4. The proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to result in any significant
environmental impacts.
The project is exempt from the 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 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense Exemption”). The land division
is for financing purposes only and does not propose any development or construction.
Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the land division may
have a significant effect on the environment and is not subject to CEQA.
5. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
TPM No. 39310 has been designed in a manner consistent with the General Plan and the
CHESP and does not divide previously established communities. In addition, the project
does not involve any type of improvement(s) since it is strictly a TPM for financing purposes.
6. The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed division of land.
The project has been reviewed by all applicable City departments, including the Engineering
Department and outside agencies, and it has been determined that TPM No. 39310 will not
conflict with easements for access or use of the property. Legal access to both parcels will
be provided via public improvements currently under construction through the previously
approved Tract No. 34249, satisfying the access standards set forth in Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code Sections 16.12.030 and 16.12.040.
Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented and the above findings, and the conditions
of approval imposed upon the project, the Commission hereby recommends that the Council
approve TPM No. 39310.
Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PC Reso. No. 2025-____
Page 4 of 4
Passed and Adopted on this 2nd day of December, 2025.
John Gray, Chairman
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-__ was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held December 2, 2025 and that the same was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Damaris Abraham,
Community Development Director