Item 5 - Ordinance No. 187 (ZOA 86-01) - Second Reading 1 l
•
V„1 o`�n9
ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY ENGINEERING AND
GENERAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS
OF AMERICA SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSOCIATION
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION
6336 GREENWICH DRIVE,SUITE F SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92122 (619).587-0292
April 21 , 1986
Honorable Carl R. Kruse, Mayor RECEIVED
Poway City Council
City Hall APR 2 3 1985
P.O. Box 789 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Powayy,, California 92064
•
Dear Mayor Kruse and Councilmembers:
Following the City Council meeting of April 15, 1986, the Federation would like
to offer the industry's perspective on the City's proposed General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments resulting from the city-initiated
Ridgeline/Hillside Study. •
While the Federation generally concurs with the City's desire to preserve it's
natural amenities, the industry is concerned with the level of specificity
contained in the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes. While the industry
prefers standards and criteria for development which are quantified and
objective, overly restrictive development standards are of concern because of
the severe limitations they place on development.
Though any hillside review standards should be well specified, the
implementation procedure must allow flexibility and consideration of overriding
factors. The rigid language included in the proposed ordinance would require
any project even slightly deviating from the standards to go through the
variance procedure, an additional level of discretionary review, which can be
costly and cause uncertainty and delay. In addition, the regulation may be
legally suspect if the standards are so restrictive as to preclude reasonable use
when applied to specific parcels. As a result of these concerns, many
jurisdiction's hillside policies are designed to be used as guidelines within
which some variation is allowed, rather than absolute restrictions.
For these reasons, the Federation requests • that flexibility be
incorporated into the proposed standards.
Your consideration of these comments is appreciated by the Federation and it's
member organizations, the Associated General Contractors, the Building
Industry Association, and the Engineering and General Contractors Association.
Sincerely,
•
Theresa Cherniak
Legislative Analyst
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
1 �
.-S AGENDA REPORTS NoFCITY OF POWAYTO: Honorable Mayor and Members of _ye City Council
FROM: Janes L. Baaersox, City Mana4:-.)\
INITIATED BY: Reba Touw, Director of Planning Services ,
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk -Mat.
DATE: April 29, 1986
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 187 (DOA 86-01) - Second Reading
Resolution Adapting General Plan Amendment 86-01
Adoption of Official City Map of Major Topographical Features
Repeal of Resolution No. 85-019
BFCRGROM
On April 15, 1986, the City Council introduced and had the first reading on
Ordinance No. 187 - "An Ordinance of the City of Poway, California, Amending
Chapter 17.04, and Section 17.08.180 of Title 17 (Zoning Development Code) of
the Panay Municipal endo. " The word "residential" has been removed from all
sections of the Ordinance; the words "and permitted agricultural uses" have been
added to Section 17.08.180, Item 3; and references to "Ridgeline/Hillside Map"
have been changed to "Major Topographical Features Map."
With the adoption of Ordinance No. 187, Resolution No. 85-019, requiring auto-
matic review of ridgeline/hillside property minor development review by City
Council, may be repealed. Between the date of repeal and the effective date of
Ordinance No. 187, staff will apply the substance of the Ordinance to minor
development review, subject to the developer's right to appeal to Council. The
City Attorney advises that Resolution No. 85-019 may be repealed as a part of
this action without a separate public hearing.
FINDINGS
It is in order to do the following:
1. hold second reading and adopt this ordinance;
2. adopt the attached resolution amending the text and graphics of the
General Plan of the City of Poway Comprehensive Plan (GPA 86-01), and
issue a Negative Declaration;
3. adopt the Official City Map of Major Topographical Features; and
4. adopt resolution repealing Resolution No. 85-019. /
I ``
ACTION: Referred Ord. 187 and GPA 86-01 back to staff for discussion
at workshop meeting.
ist
Jo . eibert , Deputy City Clerk
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
‘, 1 of 22
S 411
Agenda Report
Second Reading Ordinance No. 187
April 29, 1986
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
DATION
It is recommended that the City Council: 1) read title and waive further
reading of the ordinance by unanimous vote, pass motion closing public hearing
and adopting Ordinance No. 187 (roll call vote); 2) adopt resolution amending
the General Plan and issue a Negative Declaration; 3) adopt the Official
City Map of Major Topographical Features; and 4) repeal Resolution No. 85-019.
JLB:MKW:ml
Attachments:
1) Ordinance
2) Proposed Resolution Mending General Plan
3) Proposed Resolution Rescinding Resolution 85-019
4) Proposed' Resolution Adopting Official City Map of Major Topographical
Features
5) Correspondence: Victoria Laaowski, Karen Smits, Laurie Staude
2 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
ORDINANCE NO. 187
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING CHAPTER 17 . 04 , AND SECTION 17 .08 .180
OF TITLE 17 ( ZONING DEVELOPMENT CODE)
OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council periodically finds it necessary to
amend Title 17 ( Zoning Development Code) of its Municipal Code in
response to amendments made to the City' s General Plan; and
WHEREAS , the City Council , as a result of the City prepared
Ridgeline/Hillside Study, adopted Planning Resolution No. on
April 1986 thereby amending the text and graphics of the
General Plan (GPA 86-01 ) related to the development of land within
the ridgeline/hillside areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Zoning
Development Code in order to bring it into a state of consistency
with the General Plan , as prescribed by Section 65860 of the
Government Code , and pursuant to Section 17 .46 .020B of the Poway
Municipal Code , and that amendments to Chapter 17 . 04 ( Definitions )
and Section 17 .08 .180 (Property Development Standards: Special
Requirements ) are necessary to meet the said consistency require-
ment; and
WHEREAS , the City Council finds it in the public interest to
preserve the rural character of the City through the protection of
the major topographical features found within the community , which
consist of knolls , hilltops , mountaintops , hillsides , and ridge-
lines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted under Resolution No.
the official City of Poway Major Topographical Features Map which
depicts the areas of the City in which the said major topographical
features are found; and
WHEREAS , the City Council recognizes the scenic quality and
community-wide value of these features , and finds that they shall
not be developed without regard to the visual impact of such deve-
lopment on directly adjoining residential properties , public pla-
ces , City designated scenic highways , and major streets ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the creation and
development of lots and structures located within the subject areas
of the City shall not cause adverse environmental and visual
impacts to the subject topographical features ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council , in order to preserve and protect the
environmental and visual quality of the major topographical
features , finds it necessary to amend the Zoning Development Code
by adding new property development standards which are applicable
to the development of parcels of land within the subject areas; and
ATT Ac(-ImGNT 1
j\3 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
Ordinance No. 187
Page 2
WHEREAS , the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing
on March 18 , 1986 to provide interested parties the opportunity to
address the proposed amendments to the Zoning Development Code.
The said public hearing was continued by the City Council to the
regular meeting of April 15 , 1986 for first reading and continued
to April 29 , 1986 for second reading of the subject ordinance .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ordained that the City Council hereby
adopts the following amendments as part of Title 17 ( Zoning
Development Code ) of the Poway Municipal Code:
SECTION 1 :
Chapter 17 .04
Definitions
The following sections of Chapter 17 . 04 are added or amended to
read as follows :
1 . Section 17 .04 . 280 Development "Development" means the total
number of dwelling units permitted on a net acre of land exclu-
sive of all existing public or private streets and rights-of-
way: "Development" also means the grading and excavation of
earth for the purpose of creating a building pad, private
driveway or private access road, and any cut or fill slopes
associated therewith.
2 . Section 17 . 04 . 391 Hillside "Hillside" for the purpose of this
ordinance means those areas as designated as major topographi-
cal features on the "Major Topographical Features Map" that are
neither hilltops nor ridgelines .
3 . Section 17 .04 . 392 Hilltop "Hilltop" means the highest point of
elevation of a knoll , hill , or mountain .
4 . Section 17 .04 . 419 Landform "Landform" means a feature of the
earth ' s surface attributable to natural causes .
5 . Section 17 . 04/511 Major Topographical Features Map "Major
Topographical Features Map" means the Major Topographical
Features Map as adopted or amended by the Poway City Council .
6 . Section 17 . 04 .631 Ridgeline "Ridgeline" for the purpose of this
ordinance means the physical and visual demarcation between the
sky and the highest elevation of the earth ' s surface along or
between a range of knolls , hills or mountains , or along a
linear series of crests designated as major topographical
features an the "Major Topographical Features Map. "
4 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
• •
Ordinance No. 187
Page 3
Section 2 :
Chapter 17 .08
Residential Zones
Section 17 . 08 .180 Special Requirements The following subsection
under Section 17 .08 .180 is added to read :
S . The subdivision and development of a parcel of land located
within the areas of "Major Topographical Features , " as shown on
the official City of Poway Major Topographical Features Map on
file in the office of the Department of Planning Services ,
shall be subject to the following development standards appli-
cable to the creation and development of a subject parcel . The
development standards listed within this subsection shall also
apply when the "density of development" is determined through
the tentative subdivision map review process .
The land developer or property owner , prior to the preparation
and filing of a formal application required for Development
Review/Minor Development Review, or a Tentative Subdivision
Map, shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a con-
ceptual grading and site development plan for the involved pro-
perty, for preliminary review and recommendation prior to
formal application submittal . Where all or any part of a par-
cel is contained within the boundaries of the areas identified
on the official map, the applicable development standards
herein shall apply to the specific area of a parcel on which
development is proposed .
The applicability of the following standards to the subdivision
and development of a parcel of land shall be formally deter-
mined during the processing of Development Review (Chapter
17 .52 ) and Tentative Map (Chapter 16 . 10 ) applications .
1 . The design, configuration , orientation , and development of lots
shall adhere to the City' s requirements for Excavation and
Grading (Chapters 16 . 40-16 .52 )
2 . Access roads or driveways serving structures shall follow the
existing natural contour of the landform and shall be
constructed in accordance with the City' s Construction
Standards for Streets (Chapter 12 . 20 ) and driveways in residen-
tial zones (Section 17 .08 .180 ) .
3 . Grading of a lot shall be limited to that necessary for a
required access road or driveway, the development of a single
family residence, approved accessory structures , and permitted
agricultural uses .
s of 2z APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
Ordinance No. 187
Page 4
4 . Existing rock outcrops and native or indigenous trees shall be
maintained .
5 . Ridgelines , hilltops , and hillsides visually impacted by
grading activity , including that for the construction of access
roads and driveways , shall be accompanied by and supplemented
with landscaping so that the visual impact is mitigated to a
level of insignificance . Landscaping materials shall include
ground cover , shrubs , and fifteen (15 ) gallon minimum size
trees . Irrigation of landscaping shall be provided on a per-
manent or temporary basis as necessary to maintain its healthy
condition .
6 . Exterior colors and materials of structures shall be earth
tones or other colors harmonious in both tone and texture with
the natural biological and geological conditions located on or
in the vicinity of the building site. For example , white
exteriors and red tile roofs shall be prohibited .
7 . The dominant roof slope( s ) of a structure shall follow the
slope of the natural grade . Flat roofs or other roof designs
not following the slope of the natural grade shall be
prohibited.
8 . Where a structure is situated on a hilltop, or a ridgeline, the
structure shall be limited to one story not to exceed twenty
( 20 ) feet in height as measured from the lowest portion of the
foundation wall or pier on the down-slope side to the highest
point of the structure ' s roof .
•
9 . For those structures not located on hilltops or ridgelines , the
maximum height shall be thirty-five ( 35 ) feet as measured from
the lowest portion of the foundation wall or pier on the down-
slope side to the highest point of the structure ' s roof .
However , in no case shall the highest point of the structure' s
roof exceed by twenty ( 20 ) feet, the height of the hilltop or
ridgeline .
10 . A single-level structure shall be oriented such that its
greatest horizontal dimension is parallel with , and not perpen-
dicular to, the natural contour of the land .
11 . Multi-level foundations (floor levels separated by a minimum of
five feet in height) shall be required where natural grades
exceed twenty-five ( 25 ) percent slope.
6 of 22
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
Ordinance No. 187
Page 5
12 . Where a two-story structure is proposed on a grade that exceeds
25 percent slope , the second-story down-slope exterior wall
shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15 ) feet from the down-
slope exterior wall of the structure' s first story.
13 . where the cantilever or stilt portion of a structure' s foun-
dation projects over the slope , the projection at its furthest
point, shall not exceed ten feet in height above the grade,
directly below that projection .
SECTION 3 : The City Council of the City of Poway hereby finds that
these amendments are consistent with the General Plan and the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Development Code .
SECTION 4 : The City Council of the City of Poway hereby finds that
these amendments will not cause any significant adverse impacts on
the environment and issues a Negative Declaration.
EFFECTIVE DATE : This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty ( 30 ) days after the date of its passage; and before the
expiration of fifteen (15 ) days after its passage, it shall be
published once with the names and members voting for and against
the same in the Poway News Chieftain , a newspaper of general cir-
culation published in the City of Poway.
Introduced and first read at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Poway held the 15th day of April , and
thereafter PASSES AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
Council held the day of , 1986 by the following roll
call vote :
AYES : COUNCILMEMBERS :
NOES : COUNCILMEMBERS :
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS :
Carl R. Kruse , Mayor
Marjorie K. Wahlsten , City Clerk
7 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING THE TEXT AND GRAPHICS OF THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF POWAY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (GPA 86-01)
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Poway recognizes that
the need may arise to amend the City ' s General Plan; and
WHEREAS , Section 65350 , et. seq . of the California Government
Code , and the California Environmental Quality Act, describe the
procedures for amending the General Plan; and
WHEREAS , Policy 2 .e of the Land Conservation Element of the
General Plan of the Poway Comprehensive Plan states , "The City
shall perform a study to determine the prominent ridgelines and
hillsides including an analysis of their characteristics and value
to the community" ; and
WHEREAS , the City performed the subject "Ridgeline/Hillside
Study, " and as a result the City Council determined that the text
and graphics of the General Plan should be amended in accordance
with the recommendations contained in the said study; and
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Poway held a properly
noticed public hearing on March 18 , 1986 in accordance with the
California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality
Act to consider the subject General Plan Amendment and continued
the said public hearing to April 1986 ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Poway has determined
that the subject General Plan Amendment will not have any signifi-
cant adverse environmental effects and therefore issues a Negative
Declaration .
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council does
hereby amend the text and graphics of the General Plan of the City
of Poway Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Exhibit A attached
hereto .
•
PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
State of California, this day of April , 1986 . '
Carl R. Kruse, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten , City Clerk
8 of 22 ATI pcNfv\Et3-- APR 291986 ITEM 5
• •
EXHIBIT A
General Plan Amendment 86-01 - Amendment to the text and graphics
of the General Plan of the City of Poway Comprehensive Plan
In accordance with Planning Resolution No. , adopted by the
City Council of the City of Poway on April ___, . 1986 , the following
text and graphics shall be hereby added to and ncorporated in the
appropriate elements of the General Plan section of the City of
Poway Comprehensive Plan .
A. General Plan Text Amendments
The following amendments either modify existing "Objectives , "
which would apply to each policy statement listed under the
"Objective , " or add new policy statements and supportive graphics
under existing "Objectives . "
1 . Delete existing Policy 2 .e of the Land Resource Conservation
Element which makes reference to the "Ridgeline/Hillside
Study . "
2 . Add 'new Policy 2 .e under the heading of "Ridgelines and
Hillsides" (Land Resource Conservation Element) :
Where property development, subdivision of property, or
adjustment of lot lines are proposed on parcels of land
located in the areas of "major topographical features" (as
shown on the official map in the Department of Planning
Services ) , the applicable policies of the Community Design
Element shall apply to such development.
3 . Modify Policy 15 .e of the Land Use Element as follows :
Existing Policy - Prominent hilltops and ridgelines as defined
in the Community Design Element should not be built upon .
Proposed Policy - Where existing parcels of land are located on
top or near the top of knolls , hilltops , mountains , or ridge-
lines , or on hillsides within areas of major topographical
features (as shown of the official map in the Department of
Planning Services ) , the applicable policies found in the
Community Design Element shall apply.
New policies and graphics proposed for Community Design Element:
4 . Modify heading of Objective 16 from "Hillside Residential
Design" to "Hillside/Ridgeline Residential Design . "
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
9 of 22
Exhibit A
Page 2
5 . Modify Objective 16 as follows :
Existing Objective - Lots and structures in hillside areas
should follow and not significantly alter the natural contour
of the land.
Proposed Objective - Existing and proposed lots and structures
located on hillsides within areas of "major topographical
features" (as shown on the official map in the Department of
Planning Services ) should not significantly alter the natural
contour of the land and should be designed in accordance with
the following policies .
6 . New Policy 16 .f - The Director of Planning Services shall
ultimately determine if an individual existing or proposed lot
or structure is subject to the hillside/ridgeline policies ,
since portions of some properties identified on the official
map may not be affected by the policies herein . If a positive
determination is made , the applicable policies below shall
apply to the specific area of the property on which develop-
ment is proposed .
7 . New Policy 16 g. - Residential structures should be ade-
quately set back from adjoining downhill slopes so that the
structures ' visual impact on the surrounding area is minimized
to the extent feasible ( see Attachment 5 ) .
8 . New Policy 16 .h - Where physical conditions or environmental
considerations of a lot prevent the above-preferred setback,
the structure shall maintain a low profile appearance and also
be adequately screened with trees , shrubs and ground cover
plant materials ( see Attachment 6 ) .
9 . New Policy 16 . i - In the preliminary siting of structures ,
view corridors from lower elevations should be determined and
considered , especially those from public places , directly
adjoining residential properties , and City designated scenic
roadways , and other major roadways .
10 . New Policy 16 . j - Architectural designs for structures in
areas of major topographical features shall incorporate
building line offsets and building level transitions which
conform the structure to the natural terrain and enhance the .
visual quality of the site and surrounding area . Blocky,
rigid , extremely angular , or otherwise nonconforming geometric
building designs , which are not in scale or proportion with
the surrounding land form, shall be discouraged ( see
Attachment 7 ) .
10 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
Exhibit A
Page 3
11 . New Policy 16 .k - Access roads or driveways serving proposed lots
and residential structures in areas of major topographical
features should not alter the physical character of the landform
by the creation of "notches" in the ridgeline, but rather should
follow the natural contour of the land form. Landscaping shall
accompany the construction of access roadways so that visual
impacts are adequately mitigated ( see Attachment 8 ) .
12 . New Policy 16 .1 - Exterior colors and materials used in the
construction of residential structures proposed in areas of major
topographical features , shall be harmonious in both tone and tex-
ture with the natural biological and geological resources located
on and in the vicinity of the building site . Earth tones , rather
than bright or obtrusive exterior colors , are required, and
synthetic exterior materials , if used , should closely simulate
the appearance of natural material .
13 . New Policy 16 .m - Where residential structures are proposed in
hillside areas , and in areas of major topographical features , the
structure' s dominant roof slope( s ) shall follow the slope of the
natural grade . Flat roofs or other roof designs not conforming
with the natural grade shall be avoided ( see Attachment 9 ) .
14 . New Policy 16 .n - Where residential structures are proposed on
parcels of land situated on or near the extreme top of knolls ,
hilltops , mountaintops , and ridgelines , and no other feasible or
practical structural siting can be achieved within the property
lines of the subject parcel , the proposed structure shall be
designed and sited in accordance with the following criteria ( see
Attachment 10 ) :
o The structure shall maintain a low profile appearance
and the natural physical character of the ridgeline,
knoll , hilltop, or mountaintop, shall be substantially
maintained . In order to achieve this , the height of the
proposed strucshould be limited to one story.
o Ridgelines , knolls , hilltops , and mountaintops shall be
supplemented with a sufficient amount of trees , shrubs ,
and ground cover if the particular natural topographic
feature is graded .
o All other applicable policies within the Community
Design Element shall apply .
11 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
Exhibit A
Page 4
15 . New Policy 16 .o - Single-level residential structures proposed in
areas of major topographical features should be oriented such
that their greatest horizontal dimension is parallel with , and
not perpendicular to, the natural contour of the land . Extreme
cantilever and extreme stilt (pole house) structural designs
should not be permitted . The use of multi-level foundations or
limited cantilever/stilt foundations which fit the structure to
the natural contour and grade shall be the preferred structural
designs (see Attachment 11 ) .
16 . New Policy 16 .p - Second-story levels of proposed two-story
structures should be set back from the lower building line, at
the down-slope side of the structure, so that emphasis on height is
avoided , and a low profile appearance is achieved ( see
Attachment 12 ) .
17 . New Policy 16 .q - Where hillside parcels of land are solely or
substantially comprised of rock-outcrops or other surficial rocky
material , the use of cantilever or pole-type foundations should
be considered as an alternative in lieu of multi-level foun-
dations ( see Attachment 12 ) .
18 . New Policy 16 .r - Where an existing parcel of land is directly
impacted by the presence of major topographical features , the
proposed residential structure should be located on the least-
impacted portion of the parcel , so that the maximum protection of
the features is ensured . Other physical and environmental
constraints which affect the development potential of the parcel
shall also be taken into consideration when structures are sited .
19 . New Policy 16 . s - Earth-sheltered residential structures may be
used if they foster the preservation of the environmental and
visual quality of the site' s natural land form and surrounding
features ( see Attachment 14 ) .
20 . Proposed "Cross-Reference" Amendments :
a) New Policy 2 .e - Under "Criteria for Protection" heading of
the Scenic Highway Element - Residential development proposed
on parcels of land located within the view sheds of
designated scenic roadways shall be subject to the applicable
policies of the Community Design Element.
b) New Policy 2 .d - Under "Mountainous Areas" heading of the
Open Space Element - Where residential structures are pro-
posed for development within the mountainous areas of the
City , the applicable policies of the Community Design Element
shall apply.
12 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
Exhibit A
Page 5
c) New Policy 15 .n - Under "Hillside Development" heading of the
Land Use Element - When calculating the density of parcels
located in the areas of "major topographical features" , the
applicable policies within the Community Design Element shall
be considered herewith.
d) New Policy 50 .e - Under heading of "Colors and Materials" -
Exterior colors and materials used for single family residen-
tial structures shall be in accordance with Policy 16 .1
(Hillside/Ridgeline Residential Design) .
e) New Policy 52 .d - Under heading of "Roofs and Rooflines" -
The slope of a roofline shall conform to that required
under Policy 16 .m (Hillside/Ridgeline Residential Design) ,
where applicable .
B . General Plan Graphics Amendments
1 . Figure 9 , Community Design Resources , of the General Plan section
of the Poway Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended in accordance
with Attachment 2 of this resolution and in regard to the areas
of "major topographical features . "
2 . The graphic illustrations contained in Attachments 5 through 14
of this resolution shall be incorporated in the appropriate ele-
ments of the General Plan .
C. Official Map of Major Topographical Features
1 . The 1 ,000 foot scale City base map that identifies the areas of
major topographical features , which was considered and approved
by the City Council at the public hearing on April 1986 , is
hereby adopted as the "official" City of Poway Major
Topographical Features Map.
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
13 of 22
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-019
REQUIRING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS , a ridgeline study has been completed by the Planning
Services Department identifying prominent ridgelines , hilltops ,
and hillsides ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council adopted an ordinance and map dealing
with the development of ridgeline , hilltops , and hillsides on April
29 , 1986 .
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that
Resolution No. 85-019 is hereby rescinded and all Minor Development
Review applications for properties lying within the areas described
as major topographical features on the map adopted on April 29 ,
1986 shall be reviewed by the Planning Services Department .
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway
State of California, this 29th day of April , 1986 .
Carl R. Kruse , Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten , City Clerk
•
I.\ iY\ K T 3 APR 2 9 1986 ITEM 5
14 .of. .22
RESOLUTION NO. P-86-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PCWAY, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING MAJOR TOPCGRAPICAL FEATURES MAP
SEAS, on April 29, 1986, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 187
amending the Zoning Development Code establishing standards for development of
land within the ridgeline/hillside areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 187 refers to the "Official City of Poway Major
Topographical Features Map" which depicts the areas of the City in which major
topographical features are found.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Panay,
California that the Map on file in the City Clerk's Office dated this date and
titled, "Official City of Poway Major Topograpical Features Map" is hereby
adopted.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED, by the City Council of the City of Poway,
California, at a regular meeting thereof this 29th day of April, 1986.
Carl R. Kruse, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
R/M4p1/CP36
15 of 22
I
STT MF PT 4
Ac N
Page 1
RECEIVED
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of••the City .Cou it
From: Victoria Lazowski, a Poway Resident APK aL I9bb
•
Date : April 21 , 1986 CiTYOFPO�ti'-�Y
•
Subject : General Plan Amendment 86-01 and Zoning Ordi arta?. CLERK'S OFFICE
Amendment 86-06 as presented to Council on April.
15th, 1986 .
To Whom it May Concern:
We have lived in our home at 14440 Golden Sunset Ln. for 10 years
now. The reason for moving here was to get away .from the tract develop-
ments and high density population that had begun to plague the area
we lived in. The beauty of .the hills , the open spaces and the oportunity
to enjoy a rural lifestyle is what attracted us to Poway.
Over the years, I have explored many of Poway's• ridges, valleys and
creeks on horseback. I would give anything to preserve everything mother
nature has so generously given our beautiful "City .in the Country" .
Each time I see grading started for a new developement I know another
little patch of the green valley's that are spotted with homes and large
trees (that are in ay view corridor) will soon be. a sea of roofs and
houses that all look alike. I find this very depressing but I realize
there is nothing I can do about it, after. all if someone. owns a large
parcel of land that is zoned for a sub division, he has every right to
develope it as such. I am very .pleased. to see new trees , plants and
• open spaces being included in these developements- though, and I know that
alot of this would not be done if it were n_ot • for the ordinances the '
City has developed. I truly feel there is a need to have a more defined
• ordinance for the ridgeline/hillside areas as soon 'as possible before .
they are carelessly destroyed. I do however, have some reservations. about .
some of the modified or added policies as shown .in the copy of the
General •Plan Admendment 86-01 as writen for the April 15th hearing.
• Before I begin, I want to point out that I am not a developer. We simply
• have. a four acre parcel on the side of a hill that we plan to split into . •
. two parcels someday. At that time we plan to build a house on the vacant
parcel that would be less demanding, maintenance wise, and sell the house
we presently live in. The new ordinance would personally affect our plans
for the future.
I have a copy of the amendment and have reviewed it carefully. My concerns
and opinions are for the ordinance policies relating to custom homes _
being built for individuals. I am not familiar with 'problems develop`��
of sub-divisions have but I Am concerned about the affect this type of
development has on our natural resources.
On April 15th, I spent a good portion of my lunch hour talking to Jim
Nessel at the planning office reguarding some of my concerns and objections
to several of theproposed policies . Mr. Nessel was very helpful in
. explaining what they meant. The problem I found is that the written
ordinance says one thing and he said they mean something else. Most of
his explainations of what the actual requirements would be seemed quite
reasonable to me, and would not adversely affect my future plans. I would •
feel confident if I could be assured that EVERYONE in planning, now and
-in years to come, would have the same concept of what these policies
actually .mean.
16 of 22 Air ACI-I me NT 5 APR 29 1986 ITEM . ,° 5
page 2 '
I feel that several o4.the policies are so genera that they leave
the builder at the mercy of the personal concept of whom ever happens
. to be in charge at the time.
I have listed below, the policies I am concerned about, along with my ,
reasons.
NEW POLICY 16 g.- Residential structures should be adequately set back
from adjoining downhill slopes so that the structures ' visual impact
on the surrounding area is minimized to the extent feasible. •
MY CONCERN: How far back is adequate, from where would the "visual
impact" be determined, in who' s opinion would this be determined and
would there be a fee to the builder for having this "determination" made.
NEW POLICY 16-h.- Where physical conditions or environmental considerations
of a lot prevent the above preferred setback, the structure shall maintain
a low profile appearance and also be adequately screened with trees, shrubs
and ground cover plant materials.
MY CONCERN: Who will determine or what will determine what the structure
should be screened from and what would determine how much screening is
adequate (in who's opinion?) . Personally, I love plants and trees and will
probibly plant far more than required, but would this policy allow "them"
to tell me what and where I have to plant? I feel that if this policy is
accepted as is , it gives a handful of people I don 't even know, the right
to tell me how to landscape my property, there is far too much flexability
for those who will be doing the "determining" of what will be adequate.
.. NEW POLICY 16 . i- In the preliminary siting of structures, view corridors
from lower elevations should be determined and considered, especially those
from public places, directly adjoining residential properties, and City
-designated scenic roadways, and other major roadways .
MY CONCERN: Who would the view corridors from lower elevations be con-
. sidered by and what would they be condidered for? This policy leaves the
builder very vulnerable to .the.whims of whom ever is doing the considering.
• As far as I can tell, almost every piece of property that falls in the
hillside/ridgeline boundries would be affected by this policy in one way
or another. Where would the considerations be made from? If you look at
my property from Espola Rd; You cannot see it for the trees, if you are
in certain areas any where from one acre to four miles away you can see •
my property. The "considering" seems like it would take alot of man hours •
(and most likely alot of discussion between property owner and planning)
Will there be a fee to the builder for having their property "consdidered"?
On a personal note reguarding this policy: I wish you would have done
some considering on the effects the soccer field on Twin Peaks Rd. would-
have on its neighbors and "view corridor" from higher elevations. 'I live
over a mile away from the field but can hear every announcement on the
PA, the yelling everytime something happens (the crowd) . On any given
night we choose to sit on our deck and enjoy some peace and quite, we
have a view of glaring field lights coupled with continuous cheers, yelling
and announcements comming from the soccer field until late in the night. .
This also goes on all day Saturday and Sunday. This has become extremely
annoying and I protest the fact that City Planning OK 'd a special use
permit for this kind of activity in our area. I truly feel sorry for the
people who live on Ezra Ln.
This is a good example of how the planning department uses there own
personal opinion on what is . acceptable. Six months before the Soccer Club
Was given the special use permit to "set up shop" we had approched the •
planning department about using the building on that sight for an office
for Buck Electric, an Engineering firm and an Air Conditioning firms office.
17 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
page 3
Staff recommended a'nst a special use permit ®r this, claiming
that they were affr that in daily use of our office ' s it was
possible that one or all of the firms may use part of our building
as a "shop" to do work that might disturb the residents near by.
•
They did however say they would consider the special use permit if
we would build a block "sound wall" ' along the entire length of the
•
property facing Ezra Ln. so as to guarantee the residents peace and
quite and to block the view of any of our trucks from there houses.
To make a long story short, the cost of installing a wall like that
. ' cost more than the property and we simply could not afford it.
I find it hard to understand how we could have been required to build
such a wall to. have an office complex and the soccer club has not
built any such wall even though they produce more noise daily than we
could have ever even tried to. The traffic and parking problem is
far beyond anything our office operation could have ever caused. Why
then was this approved? Because a hand full of people thought it was
acceptable! I would like to know how many of those people who made
that decision live within the area the soccer clubs activities affect.
Now back to the present problem. . .
' NEW POLICY 16.j- Architectural designs for structures in areas of major
• topographical features shall incorporate building line offsets and
building level transitions which conform the structure to the natural
terrain and enhance the visual quality of the site and surrounding area.
Blocky, rigid, extremely angular, or otherwise nonconforming geometric
building designs, which are not in scale or proportion with the
surrounding land form, shall be discouraged.
MY CONCERN: This item is very general . I feel it gives them (planning
department?) too much athority on how a person can design and build there
'own home. Short of putting each house design before the residents of
the city for a vote of wether it is in good taste or not, how can this
be determined. As anyone that works with house plans knows, there are_
thousands of ways to design houses. I am sure this came about because
not everyone likes the same design or has the same tastes. Remember, •
beauty is in the eye of the beholder! From what angle, distance or
point of view would a house design be considered for being conforming? •
With this type of policy, a builder could design a house with every-
. thing to code and to what they consider conformance to 16-j . and still .
have it rejected because it is not in conformance (in the opinion of
the present staff at planning) to the ordinance. How will• this be controlled?
NEW POLICY 16. 1- Exterior colors and materials used in the construction
of structures proposed in areas of major topographical features, shall
be harmonious in both tone and texture with the natural biological
and geological resources located on and in the vicinity of the building
• site. Earth tones, rather than bright or obtrusive exterior colors, are
required, and synthetic exterior materials, if used, should closely
simulate the appearance of natural material.
MY CONCERN: We know our hillsides are basically brown for approximately
7 or more months of the year. So. . it is assumed that preferred earthtones
mean brown, beige or natural wood type exterior colors. If so, how would
this affect policy 16 .h? Most trees and shrubs are green and about 80%
of the ground covers used on banks produce every brilliant color of flower
imaginable. These flowers are "bright & obtrusive" colors which surely
would not be acceptable if bright & obtrusive exterior colors on structures
are not acceptable (or would they be?) Green banks and trees would not
blend into the "natural" terrain 's color either. It seems very contradictive
to require earth tone structures and then require planting of shrubs,
trees and groundcover which for the most part come in every color under
18 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
{ page 4
' Will the color of till trees, shrubs and grounders be regulated
by the planning department also? Who or what would determine what
type of foliage would be acceptable? I am all for requiring plants
and trees, the hillsides should not be cut into and left bare or
scarred, I agree that structures on hillsides/ridgelines should be of •
colors that enhance rather than distract from the natural beauty.
I just feel that this policy is too general and leaves the builder
subject to the personal opinion of a handful of people of what is
the "right" exterior color for the structure.
POLICY 16 .o- Single level structures proposed in areas of major •
topographical features should be orientated such that their greatest
• horizontal dimension is parallel with, and not perpendicular to, the •
natural contour of the land. Extreme cantilever and extreme stilt (pole
house) structureal designs should not be permitted. The use of multi-
level foundations or limited catilever/stilt foundations which fit the
structure to the natural contour and grade shall be the preferred
structural designs.
MY CONCERN: I realize this policy says "preferred" but if I wanted
to build my home with an A frame type smoke glass front facing the
down hill side of my property, what would it take to get it approved?
This could be like the incident we had involving the property the soccer
club now occupies. We could have our plans turned down for such a
structure and a year later someone else' at planning could approve
the same type of structure on the lot next to us because their opinion
of what would look acceptable and the persons opinion that we delt with coal.
be. completely opposite. I really do not like the idea of my "dream house"
being subject to the opinion of people I don ' t even know!
I ask you to please re-consider the language in the policies I have
mentioned and not approve the ordinance as it is writen. I know it
' was stated at the April 15th hearing that you plan to form a committee
to study the ordinance and refine it. If you truly plan to do this, why •
not delete some of the policies that are not refined enough and approve
what is in order now. After un-clear policies have been studied and
brought into better prospective, they can be added at .a later date.
If this amendment is approved as it stands, it could adversely affect
persons who would be approching planning in the next few months to
start a project. It would be un-fair .to put some people through trial
and error while a committee is trying to iron out the problems of some
of these items.
• Sincerely,
Victoria Lazowski
14440 Golden Sunset Ln. •
•
Poway, Calif. 92064 •
•
•
19 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
10813 Richland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90064
RECEIVED
Nr'K 2 3 i98G
April 22, 1986 Cil1 HAP- av r----
Mr. James Bowersock
City Manager
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Dear Mr. Bowersock:
This letter is a recap of the statements I made at the Tuesday, April 15th Council
Meeting regarding the new ridge/hillside ordinance under consideration. There seems to
have been a mistake made concerning my property being included in this ordinance. It
would be unfair not to correct the mistake. The error is including my land in this
ridge/hillside ordinance. I am the owner and have been for 30 years of parcel 275-240-
12. I believe the said my property is commonly referred to as the Bowl.
The simple fact is I am surrounded by land which is higher than my property. Land to the
North, East and South of my property rises up from my bottom land. To the NORTH is a
ridge (Stoney Acres Drive). This ridge looks down on me as do the people in the homes.
To the WEST is a slope, to the SOUTH is a high mountain, while the home owners on the
EAST (Wild Holly Lane) look down on my property.
My bottom land (even though it is just over 15% slope) SHOULD NOT be part of this
ordinance. The land all around me is steeper than my property and looks down on me
(which makes my property a valley to the surrounding area). For your reference, I have
enclosed a recently taken aerial photo (and a copy). The relationship of my property to
the surrounding hills is shown.
As Mary Shepardson suggested at the April 15th Council Meeting, each property would be
taken into consideration of NOT being included in the ridge/hillside ordinance. I
appreciate your time in considering my point of view. I trust there won't be any problem
in correcting the oversite of having my property included in this ordinance.
Sincerely,
4 lUV gv
Karen Smits
20 of 22 APR 29 1986 ITEM 59
.... -
* I . r• - , • , ..,. . ,
til ik
- ° . '
•1-1% ''' 1' 1 . '. •
'•, i•'I:, ' 4r ' i • ', ' ir,
' • sil.f. p '' 1 i.. . 0 -4' ' . '-- AS,..,,• .
* .
. . 1 , ' 4 •• y ':a . - "..ia,,,ig/lbw!
•i..'...
•• .1 *% . . •- A.4, •0 t t
.. ler!, •.,,-. 4jii
1 1 ' . .I., . , i I . r• ..-. - ' . ‘ . i .
1 : . .,1,1. ' 111•1:', " i .) ::
iht , ' if . . 4 04.
. . .
•
i.
. e 1 r.
I •
- •lei .1
0 ,
* i•
••, I I.,.A'1 1 .
i 4 IA '
iti. .1 , . :4 •. . ft, 7„1.-.7,
s
t.4, . :.4., , 1:v; 14 : . ‘ 4 ,,1.
li
. a iiii . t
4 i t :t I.''. .t'.. t ori,.. . •7. ..01 • . / • '
4 4
9,4144' 1 Ir. .? •• . it
• .
• •' )
2 1% !St . ,. •e. . •-: p.'..,r a ' PP i 9 i4 4:: 4.'4. .
:::4"..‘ ;•
11.,,,, , , ill, ..
. .
p; , '' 4 ii---
, .
,
, . , .. -,.
4i1 '
ei
i .:. f.,: •-,. ,V 1 . ii.4 ,
, ' 1'44'4 , . .. p , ' • •
1 ill
, j t, ,i'te. ' • - i 1 r. . • '
-,.- •.0 ,
. 4* 0 ,
r 47'
* 't; • tl• '. ..•I/
i+ */* r/'4 • 4k.; ' b - . ri
1.; • , • II • .i, 04.,4, , •. 1, . , W. g . . • 4, si , Pr
. •lif• , .
IP. :........-
'I i,.. ‘ r.14 V.T..."." . 1 . , r . it 4p. • . abill7, . . . %...0 -,1r •
..
• +.I ., ' 7 :1. '
‘.:. .1 . i ;1 ''.0: : J
1 .• Cii • -
Co+ r 40,7 ki#4 4i.
"tar ..,
,•.1 -.•
.Z.. .:
. ... •
,.' 0 t i t /9 . • • .
,
Ash •4 i.- 1; r 4 1 f 1 'S. •t•
•
, 'i .- 4 V '11' '
• 1 • i). ii
4
- ', I r 7A- '•, •
r . • ''• • i?St
' ' i- ' ., , , .;k•1/4 •''..set, 14:9‘
. • r. . ,
I.1.
- • • v. t.., .ii , i A *
A i, i ti ' . Ufc di
0
“ I t ' t ,
. .
• ..1L° :••4•-
r,• AI _ - .'°•• , 4
,,,a i t.... 0fit ; I
4 r. ,.
. ',-' ki k .. lk. 4'. ,l .:. ., Ati . .• . • A
!I ; 4 pp 4 ...: .4 y_..
: -...;* tpi l'' ! ,' i• . . , 113...!.. ' ' t --k. . 11. AIL tit Ii.k --•
1 141 • • ,, r, , •,,,. p •.
31•• 1 t.. .„• , •,
. '
. ' /
. ' if .... •
• , , ,. , . - ..
. .., .
. o , - 'qv • . ..) ..
. -
trii10. II 'fer '.'. • V 4. ,
. . . .,1. lir p' h‘•4.,..416 !P. • ii/ II 9. 'V., :nt . .., . Oil
'°II i,,;*, ,... t, .4 - •
. • 1 . k
•
•
,, :,;1 . , t, i NI j g .., 40 1 P. •- '1'. : -.4 " .
4., VI,. ' -4
.......t
'' l'.. 7 i ' • - ''‘ *:, ' '4
1
• i 146,igiot- 4 . i
• • A
1,4 •f-Jg• . . :bop,. , • _.A, . - . . . ,.. .,..„,,..
, . -t• • c't , .- r; -,0i--,-tr. 0. . I,
_. •„.. . .
iii„.,.....4 . . ,, .. , te...4... ,, t . ., 4,., , ; .
. 4. -4i• • ••• • ,e•ii.b•ilott f: . -...., t-.... •
.
• '• k •) L'e 4 .- ° ? . •1•40 .......V ' i' lir*: ••
4 :!.:,, . !, - 1.". ' , .I• .: ' r
. 4 . . ,.: . . 0%,..'- :. . i • ....... ..
!it
1 ' . . Ad 1 r: 1 3:4P . 4 4144.14:Ifspair.?": ' 1 I.'4.- •-.. 11' ' -. * ., . - -.-4.
7 • • 14.: , .,t.: : , •i . . 4' 0- • .
•.
At . 1 4,e It.-.
i„
1 . . .- . .1 .4?-'*
.1 \ . a `. ;
P a iir s.,....,.... .1 t '• • . ••• • 4 •••'", %It
'.., ' ••• A. y - • *0,
1.1 .i . .! ti, •.' • i'1.' A . • .-4 • - 'la _
.. ,....ake . %,..x .
1 •• ,- . • i ... 1,
4. ., V. .
.-.iik
' 3'' • ' ; ' ..* ' • .4.'Z'll
, 1 I. nit.•,N. ' ki , . •
,vi 1
. . -
1 ' ftl 1". ) ...r1.#1.# .1! A'4
••1114.% •_kik , . .
.. - '• .4. r , . - ' FIF 1 4 - -
•,.1 I Ite,• • -, , 4 . - .°1/4". 7. ' • d' 1. ". ' ' -
1 ..,
.4
i• . li • li • # b. ''' • . ,•
VP f Ail . ."
1 " • ( 6 11- t 14' j s ' .. '
• I , .., • vit • f P• , 4
,
j ' . *; ,, . . : : t 'd ' .1.` ' ",w
I . /t .
Y . .
i ., •, .
'
4 . „
1. i ,
• I •
46 4 . •ti 44 VI
IA4I '
, 1
ii_41401, ...• if
ipzi. P.' 4"
%.
,
• .•
• r
, : ;1,1611. it. • . , .‘. e '-. . . ‘. •
liti
• .tt. - _ . 4A ;.40 •
• .
. •
•- IP*
'• I Alt. •-
• ® 91-14
it Q(71
•
/986
1555 Country Club Drive ti;:,
Riverside , California 92506 r.
April
April 17 , 1986
Dr . Bruce Tarzy
12630 MonteVistaRoad
Poway , California 92064
Dear Dr . Tarzy :
Please will you help me?
I own nine acres on Glen Circle Road near you in Poway , in
the Green Valley area . I am the lady who spoke out at the City
Council meeting on Tuesday night . I appreciate your concern
in keeping the hills of Poway scenic and beautiful for all
of us . I appreciate also your. sympathy that some of the parcels
that have been earmarked as hilltop and ridge sites may , indeed ,
not be hilltop properties .
We are neighbors in Poway . My property lies in a bowl
area to the west of what I believes your home . My land is
surrounded on three sides by steep hills ; only to the west
do I have a view . The lots are visible from no road in
Poway until one enters the bowl area from Stone Canyon
Road . Because I have planted many olive and eucalyptus trees
and have maintained them , my lots are really not visible even
within the bowl area . I feel my property should not be subject
to the new ordinance .
Can you help me in getting my property removed from that
area designated as hilltop and ridge?
Since you are a doctor , I realize that your home telephone
is unlisted . I have called twice at• your office , but I know
that you are a busy man and I know that I myself am also not
always easy to reach . Since we are neighbors in Poway , I am hoping
you will help me . I would be glad to come to Poway any time the
weekend of April 25 , or to"tneet you there after work some time
next week and to walk over my property with you . I am not very
good at going through government ' s red tape . If you could help
me in having my property removed from the ordinance , I would be
most appreciative .
Would you please call me to tell me when I might meet
with you? If I am not home , I have an answering box , but I am
usually home after 9 : 30 p .m .
Thank you very much for your help .
Sincerely `y2ours ,
cal. �..t. L APR 29 1985 ITEM
( 22 of 22 Laurie Staude
( 714 ) 683-6182
111
a-.‘
it SET BACK It.
! I, ,
,J, a 1
poi c 1 tai 11W SIU
1,(�j,T F4,v
yNF = 51 TI 1C./ C^ r
•
Rt. -w'r1x.L. STRUCTURES
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPil4 /zg4 86 - 0/
PRAFT
0
TITLE : A' �'y1�s/
inY
SCALE : ' r° cE ATTACHMENT : 5
APR 2 9 1986 IT E M 5 APR 15 1986 11 t ivy �+ 2/
0 O
-1 {SICAL .-
GOr iSTZAi r.1T i k
-, 4 P
. a,
AO` -_= OS Aillik „./A.,)
XII -7P'alfi• Hil11
i ��
I � � iIts iIi II U i1yir
� lil
.1? ' tl Lc F DFtLE £ SCREEKA5C)
• �� w41lI14'�
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6 / E4 -0 /
. p,A--
TITLE :0 hoc �.cE/y1c4s✓Z
SrUDr
SCALE : 'SOT '� • GALE" ATTACHMENT : 6
1
APR 2 9 1986 I I t 1.1 D APR 1 5 1986 1 1 t ivl 4
:4;11I 11
40.V.
forN4 • In ry. 9"' 7;14.--.• yl .
BLDGK� c :=XTR`M`L( Ar.16ULAr -
DES1G►.iS DISCDURe►C,E-p
f
(‘‘
If
o �
I IIIII► IIrP 1.
•.;1 �1 jig II � II I ��
?M J
STRUCTUr E Firs QA.Tu t LANIflFM
•
.0111
CITY OF PCWAY ITEM : 6PA /ZO1(4 e-C/
DRAFT
TITLE : Rioc6e.../44-:/yrt-e_s✓
5Tl1Dr
SCALE : ,vor rt) st�c-s- ATT u'iz'uT . 7
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
i •
ACCESS RoADs / cR►vE\/k-5
+h' •t!'• `'/• 94
• r A
� r
r •
.• .r r'1 ( h I
y� i
Yu I' 4111
LAN) SCA F SCR NI 1 LIC,
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA7/zOA -o/
PI .4P7-
TITLE : PiDo cvE.Aliz-z-SiLL
STUDY
SCALE : 'SOT rn stolca- ATTACHMENT : 8
_
APRi b t
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
11 1 ________ _____ii,_ - .
a")1
_ /
........-
Es
. rlll 1
"e0 IIIIUIulu1►1111uluu11111111111►u11u1
!J 1
1f
/ IIII
/ I 1,}ATUL_ GZAt
. II I I I ROOFLj W E N oT Foi_L orc/r►Jv 5 LoPI<
...-
...-
.00,-
/11t. /1
7;1.4= 1j1 W11U1u111111110Iwll
// ,M. -I Wil
• •"11111'
- / 1 r
, I uAruRAL 07-ALE
• / I
RoOFL I J Fo u_ovi S S L_o PF
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : Gr'A/Z44 86-0f
pRAFT
TITLE : ??7o66'-415/yi41-5
i
STUD`-
SCALE : ' 7-0 ScALE" ATTACHMENT : 9
0
11p APR 15 1986 ITEM 4 __ ,.._/1
0 • 0
\1
70 P46 KA 4 IC FEATL1 fT f?E?R I r•1r;U
% ' -
•
, IIIII ,I
NI II s 1T
'IIIIIII I
i II' •1
I 1111g1►►U 4y l�' . v y ,, .
IIS `1'v
•
-"rC {Y_P.Af IC FewruR E N
5urftcPA Titff. 1flU
• '
r ' X
� Alt it
Iii
t+ '111114 1I° •^
IUI u I _ 7+
1I,
'41
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6134/ZDV S6—D/
. p AFr
TITLE :0RiD6v /yr� ✓
STl1Dr
SCALE : '`l� TV 1 ATTACHMENT : 10
APR 2 ;i 1986 ITEM 5 APR 15 1966 ITEM 4 �f
a-
5'K16 LE - LEVEL STRUCTURES
....N......................„,:c•-;,,e,„517
1
i. ,..,,:„..........„._,......_____:: ,_ 7jipm...000:y.1
PA?ZALL�—L WIT1I Co1JTCuiZ FERt�.r►.IDICuLll,R -ro co►.ITouK.
_. ;
�. ../ '
•� r
- rr -"1414I/
Ir
IS XTKEM*: STILT 1 CA►JTIIV-1-
DESIGI.IS NOT PRMITCE:D
NATUQAL GP.AL 5 E XLEEDI kJ L5 f fzCE it Sc.r
•
• _ -. I I lIW U 1 1111
mosSl -- 11111114
N al yU 11 i if mil iii irwl��(11' I al n,.,,l '
J r
*-",,r'`i '.'I ' y1ULTI— LEVEL
'j111� 511JGLF-LEVEL J ,,r�/ 1;+11 Four1DATICA-1
-.1\s" •I)di FOU DAT 1OI4 �6. -1 /• �1J' R1=1�UIFC��D
Pil NOT PERMITTED �ol1N
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : ' / '1 6-o/
. pRAF7—
TITLE : R'oC cia/E/f/'L-Z- J.
STY
SCALE : Ajar r-° SCALE- ATTACHMENT : 11
J
APR 15 1966 (TEM 4
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
11, di 4 - . •
1„
,„,„
u'I,�J)IN U I,I IU(,11N 11111111 I lllluu 41YY+YN,IN��
EMP)-1A515 OIv HEIGHT. CR=ATES VISUAL IMFPICT
11
•
•
L1�:-mss
'I
i4 br IIi s 41'i JIJ lulu4�Lit1Y;�11tu111
r
rli,
J• •O.
� V 5 LL) s�-cz-r S�Ac K •
�. w,1arJ,P► t�DU vISW.L IM T"
CITY OP P0 SVA Y ITEM : GPS/ 4 e�- o
pRAF —
TITLE : 'moo:'=--' =/Hr11--S✓
STl1'J
. SCALE : ' L-= ATTACHMENT : 1a
APR 2 9 1986 I tE M 5 LPI 1
• * 0 0
\\
FL
Al
lailiN
''i iiiiii,„1,,t 1 ,, 6 Ft
nl1Q
, ,
F
(I ►Il� ,li _ �� - . y,r,
WIIlil I Illjl�lll � �
1 +_�
iaas
II
ROCKY HlLLS 1DE' AARCEL, 140 1111411k
t
474k
Milk
11
NI
.0
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6P/14� — o'
• DR19FT-
TITLE : R/Q' LicJE/i`1/lL ./.C '-
5rc/aY
SCALE : 'tT T° - -'41E ATTACHMENT : 13
0
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4 -
t •
•
Itakie
lift
RE.cpss),JG srRuc7uRE /scREENI NG
REDUCES VISUAL_ I MF3>CT Na-TUBAL .
CITY OP PUWAY ITEM : G'/ °'4 86- 0/
DR/Fr
TITLE :
5T71&7-
• SCALE : "°T Ta - 44-5. E
J