Temecula commission approves 164‑lot Paloma Del Sol homes and private Elderberry Park recreation center with security, fencing conditions

The Temecula Planning Commission on March 4 approved two planning applications covering a new 164‑lot neighborhood in Planning Area 4 of the Paloma Del Sol specific plan and a private recreation center for the Elderberry Park subdivision, subject to revised conditions of approval.

Staff presented the home product review (PA25‑0168) describing six floor plans ranging from about 1,993 to 3,252 square feet and four architectural styles — prairie, farmhouse, Mediterranean and Italian eclectic — plus an “architecture‑forward” approach that recesses garages 6 to 12 feet on most plans. Staff said the product will include 164 residential lots and five enhanced elevation locations and recommended approval with a revision to Condition of Approval 31.

Janine, a city planner, and Scott, the city’s home‑product reviewer, also presented a development plan (PA25‑0163) for an approximately 3,686‑square‑foot private amenity building to be used by Elderberry Park residents only. That amenity package includes a multipurpose building, a swimming and lap pool, a spa, cabanas, a barbecue area, a pickleball court, a tot lot, separate dog park areas, bicycle racks and about 2.5 acres of landscaping. Staff noted the project’s consistency with the previously adopted Paloma Del Sol environmental impact report and its addenda and recommended approval subject to conditions, including a photometric plan and lighting restrictions (all exterior LED fixtures 3,000K or below, with pickleball lights on timers).

During questions, commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on access controls, gate locations, fencing and materials, grading adjacent to existing neighbors, and how the project will address potential cut‑through traffic. Project manager Nicole Balchunas of Taylor Morrison said access to amenity gates will be controlled with a mobile‑credential system and that some public greenspace will remain open; she also said the developer will explore alternatives such as PIN codes and agreed to provide additional details about solar readiness and conduit for battery systems once plans are finalized.

Resident Sarah Evans of Paseo Del Sol urged the commission to limit through traffic from the new neighborhood onto Volterra Street and asked the developer and commission to consider an emergency‑only vehicle access gate so the street serving long‑time residents does not become a cut‑through. "It would create a definitive line for the HOA between Paseo Del Sol and the new community," Evans said, noting many neighbors have lived on the street for more than a decade.

In response, the applicant said the HOA for Elderberry Park will maintain the concrete v‑ditch between the communities, that the developer will replace certain fences at the perimeter where needed, and that construction traffic will be routed to De Portola rather than through the existing neighborhood. Staff and a building official noted some gated separations are required by code because of restroom travel‑distance limits associated with pool facilities; removing those gates could trigger additional restroom requirements.

After discussion the applicant agreed to several concessions and clarifications: developer‑installed security cameras around the amenity building (to be maintained by the HOA), removal of two internal gates to allow free access to the tot lot, and to work with staff on fence/wall details and on alternatives to fully access‑controlled gates where code allows. Commissioners also asked staff and the applicant to further examine the extent of block‑wall versus vinyl fencing in areas with substantial grade changes.

The commission voted to approve both items. Chair Shirley Trejo read the motions; Commissioner Bob Hagel moved and Commissioner Mark Watson seconded both motions. The commission voiced assent and the motions carried.

The approvals include the revised conditions of approval read into the record: updated COA language for PA25‑0163 and PA25‑0168, developer‑installed cameras maintained by the HOA, gating limited to the dog park, pickleball courts, pool and spa and the amenity building, and elimination of two internal gates to allow access to the tot lot.

Next steps: the motions adopted detailed conditions that the developer must meet; staff and the applicant will finalize plan revisions and COA language. The commission closed the public hearing and moved on to alternate business; the meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting on April 1 at 10 a.m.