Chair Brittingham, Vice-Chair Barron, Commissioner Hurt, Commissioner Keith, Commissioner LaRock

Transcription

1 City of Calimesa SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, March 27, :00 P.M. Norton Younglove Multi-Purpose Senior Center 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Clerk s Office, (909) Notification of at least 24 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. Any public writings distributed by the City to at least a majority of the Commissioners regarding any item on this special meeting agenda will be made available at the public counter at City Hall located at 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: STAFF: 6:00 p.m. Chair Brittingham, Vice-Chair Barron, Commissioner Hurt, Commissioner Keith, Commissioner LaRock Keith Gardner, Community Development Director Megan Shea, Commission Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Please note that members of the public will be provided the opportunity to directly address the Planning Commission on the items described below before the Planning Commission considers such items. No other business shall be considered at the Special Meeting. (Government Code Section 54956(a).) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Item 1. Approve the Minutes of the March 13, 2017 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the action minutes from the February 27, 2017 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Item 2. VAR 17-02; PC RESOLUTION NO RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take public comment, close the public hearing, and the vote to adopt the following resolution: PC Resolution Number A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa, California, approving Variance 17-02, a Variance to Section A (Accessory Structures) of the Calimesa Municipal Code to allow a 4,400 square-foot garage which is 29 Commission Members Mike Brittingham, Chairperson Mike Barron, Vice-Chairperson Charles Hurt, Commissioner John Keith, Commissioner Larry LaRock, Commissioner

2 feet tall to be constructed in lieu of the 2156 square-foot, 27-foot-high maximum allowance, to be located at 900 W. Avenue L in the Rural Residential zoning district subject to the findings as set forth in this resolution. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Item 3. Mesa Verde Workshop Study Session Land Use / Circulation / Recreation / Open Space RECOMMENDATION: None at this time. The workshop is intended to provide information to the Commission, as well as an opportunity for the Commission to provide input and direction to staff. COMMISSIONERS REPORTS AND COMMENTS: This is the time for additional general comments, announcements, reports on meetings attended, requests of staff, and other issues of concern to Commissioners which may be presented briefly at this time. The Commission may not legally take action on any item presented at this time other than to request staff to investigate a complaint or place an item on a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the Regular Planning Commission meeting of Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. at the Norton Younglove Multipurpose Senior Center, located at 908 Park Avenue. Commission Members Mike Brittingham, Chairperson Mike Barron, Vice-Chairperson Charles Hurt, Commissioner John Keith, Commissioner Larry LaRock, Commissioner

3

4

5 Item 2 STAFF REPORT CITY OF CALIMESA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUBJECT: VAR 17-02; Request for Variance for a new garage to have increased square footage and height MEETING DATE: March 27, 2017 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Larry Cross Eartest and Sally Cross LOCATION: 900 W. Avenue L (APN ) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential (RR) PRESENTED BY: Keith Gardner, Community Development Director SUMMARY: The applicant, Larry Cross, has requested a variance from the size and height restrictions of accessory structures in residential zones so that the square footage of his proposed garage can exceed 50 percent of the square footage of his primary structure and can also be two feet taller in height than his primary structure. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The parcel that Mr. Cross resides is listed as portion of Lot 263 of Subdivision 9 of Yucaipa Valley, and is approximately 178,596 square feet in area. This particular subdivision was recorded in 1919, and the residence was constructed in Mr. Cross property is zoned Rural Residential (R-R). The basis of the request is to allow a proposed 4,400 square foot garage (50 x 60 building footprint) which is 29 tall. The table below compares the provisions of CMC A Accessory Structures with the proposed structure.

6 Development Standards: Accessory Structures Maximum coverage of rear yard Maximum size 30% of required rear yard 50% of primary structure (2,156 square feet) Proposed accessory structure Less than 30% 102% of primary structure (4,400 square feet; 3,000 on first floor, 1,400 on second) Maximum lot coverage 8% of lot 1.8% (approxi- Maximum height compatible 32 or two stories; or less than height of main structure mately) 27 tall; 2 taller than main structure Minimum side setback Minimum rear setback 25 More than 100 It should be noted that the property owner currently utilizes his side and rear yards for storage of a Recreational Vehicle, boat, tractor, three riding lawn mowers, four pickup trucks, electrical and wood-working tools, and other pieces of various equipment. Given that the project would constitute an improvement to the property by screening the abovementioned equipment from the public, staff has no objection to the variance request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission adopts Resolution No approving the variance request for the approval of Variance No ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Planning Commission Resolution No Attachment B: Site Plan Attachment C: Elevations and Floor Plans Attachment D: Zoning Map Attachment E: Subdivision 9 of Yucaipa Valley as recorded in 1919

7 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION

8 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE 17-02, A VARIANCE TO SECTION A (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) OF THE CALIMESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW A 4,400 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE WHICH IS 29 FEET TALLTO BE CONSTRUCTED IN LIEU OF THE 2156 SQUARE- FOOT, 27-FOOT-HIGH MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE, TO BE LOCATED AT 900 W. AVENUE L IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AS SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION The Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa hereby finds and determines that: WHEREAS, Larry Cross has submitted an application for Variance (VAR) 17-02, a variance from Calimesa Municipal Code Section A (Residential Development Standards- Accessory Structures) of the Calimesa Municipal Code, which sets forth the City s current requirements for accessory structures in the residential zoning districts at a maximum square footage allowance of fifty percent of that of the property s primary structure and at a maximum height of that of the primary structure or less, located at 900 W. Avenue L at the westerly end of W. Avenue L just north of Mesa View Middle School (APN ) also known as "the Project"; and WHEREAS, the applicant would not have full enjoyment of his property similar to other properties in the general vicinity without the variance; and, WHEREAS, the applicant would be at a disadvantage to other residences located within the same zoning district and within the project vicinity; and, WHEREAS, there is a general precedent for accessory structures to be within the required setback areas in the Rural Residential Zoning District in the project vicinity; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission finds that the recitals contained in this Resolution and the information contained in the attached exhibits are true and correct. Section 2. The Planning Commission, in approving Variance 17-02, finds as follows: (a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Facts: The property, sized approximately 4.2 acres, was created via a subdivision in Subsequently, structures were placed on the property in 2004 in accordance with the regulations of the City of Calimesa at the time. In the general vicinity between West Avenue L and the City / County line, most of the residential properties have installed accessory structures of various sizes. This request is similar in nature to other accessory structures in the area.

10 (b) That granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which a variance is sought. Facts: There are existing accessory structures in the same zoning district in the project vicinity, and the granting of this request allows for the property owner similar enjoyment of his property. (c) That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located. Facts: The proposed detached garage will affect public health, safety, or welfare to the subject property or other similar uses in the vicinity. (d) That granting the variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located. Facts: The applicant is requesting an accessory structure similar in nature to other properties in the project vicinity, and thus the request does not constitute a special privilege. (e) That granting the variance does not allow a use or activity, which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. Facts: Accessory structures are allowed in residential zoning designations; and thus the granting of this variance will not constitute an allowance expressly prohibited by the Development Code. (e) That granting the variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan. Facts: The granting of a variance for the size of the accessory structure will not be inconsistent with the General Plan, particularly since other properties in the project vicinity are of a similar development pattern. Section 3. Based on the findings contained in Sections 1 through 3 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 17-01, a proposal to vary from Calimesa Municipal Code Sections (Table , Residential Development Standards), which set forth the City s current requirements for the minimum building setback requirements in residential zoning districts. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 27th day of March Mike Brittingham, Chairman ATTEST:

11 I, Megan Shea, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa, California; that Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the Calimesa Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of March, Megan Shea, Secretary to the Planning Commission

12 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

13 ATTACHMENT B PROPOSED SITE PLAN

14 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

15

16 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

17 ATTACHMENT C ELEVATIONS/FLOOR PLAN

18 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

19

20 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

21 ATTACHMENT D ZONING MAP

22 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

23 R-R ZONE Mesa View Middle School Subject Property

24 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

25 ATTACHMENT E SUBDIVISION NO. 9 of YUCAIPA VALLEY AS RECORDED

26 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

27 Subject Property

28 Item 3 STAFF REPORT CITY OF CALIMESA PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SUBJECT: Specific Plan Amendment SP-13-01, Tentative Tract Map 33931, and Development Agreement for Mesa Verde, a 1,493-acre project consisting of 3,650 total proposed dwelling units, acres of mixed-use development and a minimum of 250,000 square feet (up to 350,000 square feet) of commercial development, 519-acres of natural open space, 56.2-acres of public park sites and private recreational facilities, 28.3-acres of public institutional uses including a total 2 school sites (two new), 23.1 miles of trails and paseos, and acres of roads, located west of the Interstate 10 Freeway off of Sandalwood Road between 7 th street and the City s western boundary, and between the Garden Air Wash and the City s northern boundary. APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: Paul Kim on behalf of Mesa Verde Re Ventures, LLC Generally located at the northwest portion of the City limits at current terminuses of Sandalwood Drive, 7 th Street and County Line Road, between the east by Interstate 10 north of the Riverside/San Bernardino County Line, south by Garden Air Wash. Multiple parcels and APN s. Specific Plan (SP) Area 2 Mesa Verde Estates MEETING DATE: March 27, 2017, continued from February 27, 2017 PRESENTED BY: Keith Gardner, Community Development Director RECOMMENDATION: None at this time. The workshop is intended to provide information to the Commission, as well as an opportunity for the Commission to provide input and direction to staff. DISCUSSION: Land Use As has been mentioned in a prior workshop, the current proposal for the Mesa Verde property is actually a reduction in density and intensity than has been approved before. Table 2 shows the evolution of the land uses since the adoption of the original Oak Valley Specific Plan. Table 1 below shows the current land use summary:

29 TABLE 1: LAND USE TABLE

30

31 In contrast with prior versions of the project, the residential densities in the current proposal are more mixed. In other words, the residential densities gradually increased from west to east in prior versions of the project. Now, lower densities are interspersed with small lot sizes. The planned commercial areas remain the same as in the last version of the Specific Plan, but with a slight reduction in acreage in Planning Areas 1 and 4. Recreational areas also more spread out in this proposal than in prior versions; and the amount of open space designations have increased. Circulation For the most part, the circulation plan of Mesa Verde reflects the prior versions of the project.

32 However, there are important distinctions. The proposed road system in the southeastern part of the project (generally south and east of Mesa View School) has been re-configured in order to be reflective of the greater amount of open space areas, particularly around the Garden Air Wash and those drainage areas leading into it. In particular, Street B now makes a direct connection to Street A ; after it intersects with re-aligned Street C. FIGURE A: SOUTHEAST PORTION OF MESA VERDE Another new feature of the circulation system of the project is the use of roundabouts. Three of these traffic-control devices are being planned: at the intersections of Streets A and E ; Streets B and E ; and Streets B and C.

33 FIGURE B: CIRCULATION SYSTEM Recreation The amount of active recreation within Mesa Verde is very similar to what has been planned previously. Currently, the project contains 56.1 acres of active park areas, which is a slight decrease from the prior version of the plan which had 57.5 acres, and are in similar locations. The most significant difference between the two plans is again in the southeast portion of the project, where Planning Area 45 was reduced to accommodate the Garden Air Wash, and the creation of Planning Area 67. The amount of passive recreation (aka trails) has also been adjusted. Sidewalks and bike lanes follow the backbone circulation system, and are intended to tie into other public streets. Equestrian trails are proposed to be separated from the main circulation system, and is instead to be located in the natural open space areas. It is the intent to tie into the regional equestrian train system maintained by the Riverside Land Conservancy.

34 FIGURE C: TRAILS / RECREATION PLAN Open Space Perhaps the largest difference between the current Mesa Verde project and the prior versions of the Specific Plan is the amount of land dedicated to open space. The genesis of this dedication is the review by the Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA) of the project. It was discovered that the prior dedications of open space were not sufficient to comply with the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Accordingly, the amount dedicated to the Garden Air Wash was increased, with the land use and circulation plans adjusted to reflect the change. The RCA has deemed this new open space configuration to be in conformance with the MSHCP. BACKGROUND: The history of Mesa Verde begins in 1985 when a project called Canyon Oaks was adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. It was entirely a residential project, with lot sizes ranging from approximately 7,200 square feet to several acres. This plan included about 1, 280 residential lots, and covered most, but not all, of the property covered by the current Mesa Verde project. Just a few years later, the Oak Valley Specific Plan 216 was approved and EIR 229 was certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 6, That plan included 6,405.5 acres, and had 13,000 residential units with varying densities from Low (.4-2 dwelling units per acre) to Very High ( dwelling units per acre). Also included was 560 acres of

35 business park, 434 acres of commercial, 837 acres of golf courses, 1,574 acres of open space, along with schools and parks and other uses. Oak Valley Specific Plan Amendment 216A1 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 10, 1990, for Planning Areas 1 and 9 of the Specific Plan. This amendment modified land uses that are currently in the City of Beaumont, and included standards for a planned golf/recreation oriented master planned community including single family and multifamily residential dwelling units, commercial, recreational, and community uses; and related infrastructure. When the City of Calimesa was incorporated in 1990, the City Council incorporated the northern two-thirds of the old Oak Valley Specific Plan into its boundaries, and renamed the Specific Plan to Oak Valley SP 1. The proposed Project by Oak Mesa Investors, LLC includes the northerly half of the SP1 with the remaining southerly half being developed by Sun Cal Communities as the Summerwind Ranch Specific Plan. It should be noted that the portion of the Oak Valley SP 1 that now comprises the Mesa Verde Specific Plan had the following land uses: 3,458 residential units in Low, Medium, Medium High, and Very High densities; 191 acres of open space, 428 acres of golf course uses, 60 acres of parks, 45 acres of schools, and approximately 374,000 square feet of commercial uses. After the approval of Oak Valley Specific Plan 216 and 216A, the City of Beaumont annexed the portion of the Specific Plan east of Interstate 10 into the City. On August 14, 2001, the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approved Oak Valley Specific Plan 318 and certified EIR 418 on approximately 1,747.9 acres of the Oak Valley Specific Plan 216 and 216A located on the west side of Interstate 10, to the south of the Calimesa city limits. Specific Plan 318 provided for the development of up to 4,367 residential dwelling units, 53 acres of commercial development, 796 acres for institutional and open space, a golf course, and 52 acres for roadway purposes. Subsequent to the adoption of Oak Valley SP1 by the City, a lawsuit was filed on the portions of the Oak Valley Specific Plan 318 resulting in a settlement agreement. Terms of the agreement provided an opportunity for the purchase of a portion of the Oak Valley SP1 site for open space purposes and an option for the purchase of additional lands for similar open space purposes. The Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA) had purchased approximately 358 acres of Oak Valley SP1 with an option for the conversion of an additional 581 acres for open space. In October of 2007, Fiesta Development petitioned the City adopted the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan (Resolution No , Oak Valley Specific Plan Amendment SPA 04 03,) and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No , FEIR SCH No ). The Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan permitted the development of a mixeduse residential and commercial project on 1,493 acres with the following generalized land uses: 3,850 residential units in varying densities from 4,000 square foot minimum lot size to 10,000 square feet minimum lot size, acres of mixed use commercial / residential uses, and acres of open space. Two important things should be noted with this approval: 1) this is the current version of the Specific Plan that is reflected in the City s General Plan; and 2) although the open space designations were reviewed by the Riverside Conservation Agency, the City adopted this Specific Plan before the review of the open space designations was completed.

36 Since the time of the 2007 approval, Fiesta Development lost the property to foreclosure during the economic recession, and Sandalwood Road was partially constructed from 7 th Street west of I-10 to the previously constructed Mesa View Middle School. In October, 2013, Mesa Verde Re Ventures, LLC, a group who has been successful at acquiring the Mesa Verde properties, made an application to amend the previously approved Specific Plan. Since that time Staff has been working closely with the applicant on various issues, including the revised Tentative Tract Map, a Development Agreement, and an Addendum to the original 2007 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. It should be noted that the Riverside Conservation Agency has now accepted the proposed increase in natural open space designations as shown on the current Specific Plan proposal, and SB 18 (Native American Consultation) has occurred. Specific Plan Amendment Project Details The current Specific Plan Amendment has the following land uses on 1,492.4 acres: 3,292 residential units on varying densities from 4,000 square foot minimum lot size to 10,000 minimum lot size, 46.5 acres of commercial / mixed use (which may include another 358 multifamily residential units), 519 acres of native open space, 56.2 acres of parks and private recreation, 25.4 acres of school uses, among other uses. The circulation plan is similar, but not identical to the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan approved in The primary difference is the adjustment in the southeastern portion of the project to accommodate a greater open space designation. The table below illustrates the evolution of the land use plan from 1990 to today: TABLE 2: OVERALL LAND USE COMPARISON Number of Commercial Public Golf Natural Residential Acres Park Course Open Units (including Acres Acres Space Mixed Use) Original Approval 3, Mesa Verde Estates 3, Mesa Verde 3, Revised TTM Originally approved in 2007, Tentative Tract Map No was intended for financing purposes, and proposed the subdivision of the entirety of the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan into large parcels for future development, along with reflecting the proposed mass grading of the developed areas of the project, as well as reflecting a master plan of streets and infrastructure. A revision to this map is proposed along with the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment. As currently designed, the map subdivides 1,493.4 acres into 80 parcels; 33 of which will be for future residential subdivisions, 4 will be for future commercial / mixed use development, 8 are

37 for future park spaces, 2 are for private open space parcels, 6 parcels are for flood control basins, and many are for natural open space. Development Agreement Per Chapter (Development Agreements) of the CMC, the applicant wishes to enter into a Development Agreement for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan development with the City. Pursuant to Article 2.5, Title 7 of the California Government Code, commencing with Section 65864, an applicant may propose a development agreement by filing an application with the Community Development Department and demonstrating that the project satisfies the eligibility requirements of the aforementioned title and code sections. To be eligible to enter into negotiations for a development agreement, an application may be filed only by the property owner or other person having a legal or equitable interest in the property that is the subject of the development agreement or by that person s authorized agent. Furthermore, the City Council must make findings that the development agreement is in the city s best interest. Per Chapter , in order to enter into a development agreement, it must be demonstrated that the construction of the project will be phased over a several-year period of time; is a large-scale development; shall occupy substantial acreage; or in some other way requires long-term certainty on the part of the developer and the City. The City Council reserves the sole right to determine whether a development agreement is appropriate and in the best interest of the City for a specific development project. In this case, the applicant is requesting the development agreement for various reasons, including setting a time frame of development (15 years with one 5-year extension), of which all implementing projects will have the same life span, financial considerations (fee credits) for various infrastructure improvements to be completed in a timely manner, as well as various other development related provisions. In general, by entering into a development agreement and relying thereon, a developer is obtaining the vested rights to proceed with the development of the property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. A more thorough discussion of this agreement will occur at a future Planning Commission Workshop. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Environmental Impact Report (SCH# ) was certified with the adoption of the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan in Given the modifications proposed with this application (a reduction of residential units, a greater amount of open space set-asides, etc), Staff has preliminarily determined that an Addendum to the previously-certified EIR is appropriate. An Addendum EIR may be prepared as long as none of the following conditions exist: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous

38 EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) (B) (C) (D) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Canyon Oaks Specific Plan adopted in Original Oak Valley Specific Plan land use plan, adopted in 1988 and amended in Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan Amendment land use plan, adopted in Current Mesa Verde Specific Plan land use plan 5. Proposed Tentative Tract Map No Draft Development Agreement

39 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

40 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CANYON OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN

41 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

42

43 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

44 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORIGINAL OAK VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN

45 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

46

47 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

48 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MESA VERDE ESTATES SPECIFIC PLAN

49 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

50

51 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

52 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MESE VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT

53 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

54

55 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

56 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO

57 THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

58

59 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT