The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 4 - Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment 86-01 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 86-01 0- AGENDA REPOR /�cc •war • CITY OF POWAY '1 • 0+ {' \ • A Tie C°- TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council • FROM: ‘.James L. Bowersox, City Mana .• `� INITIATED BY: John E. Bridges , Acting Direcor of Planning Services 7"" James R. Nessel , Associate Planner DATE: March 18 , 1986 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment 86-01 , and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 86-01 : Recommended new policies and standards resulting from the City-initiated Ridgeline/Hillside Study . ABSTRACT Following the City Council ' s review of the Draft Ridgeline/Hillside Study report at the November 14 , 1985 and January 9 , 1986 workshop meetings , the City Council accepted the subject report and the recommendations contained therein , and set a public hearing for the consideration of said study and report, and consideration of the proposed General Plan policies and property development standards . The final adoption of the proposed General Plan policies would constitute an amendment to the text and graphics of the General Plan section of the Poway Comprehensive Plan . The adoption of the proposed general plan amendment would also require a companion amendment to the Poway Zoning Development Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) in order to bring the code into a state of con- sistency with the General Plan , as required by State law. The proposed general plan amendment (GPA 86-01 ) is the first of four such plan amendments during calendar year 1986 , which the City Council may consider pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code . 14: ACTION: Changes requested by Council. First reading continued to April 15 , 1986 . 'MTh AV Jc M. Wahlsten, City Clerk MAR 1 G 1986 ITEM 4 /A 1OF57 • Agenda Report • March 18 , 1986 Page 2 The following Draft Ridgeline/Hillside Study report discusses the pur- pose and methodology of the study; the areas of the City affected by the study; and the existing policies which currently guide and regu- late the development of land located within the study area . The report concludes by recommending a number of new General Plan policy statements and corresponding property development standards . The proposed amendments are designed to further implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and to expand the development review of properties where prominent hilltop, ridgeline , and hillside areas of the City are concerned. BACKGROUND In the past , prior to the City ' s incorporation , many of the community' s prominent knolls , hilltops , ridgelines and hillsides have been indiscriminately developed with residential structures . Unfortunately , many of the structures were designed and sited without regard for Poway' s visual quality and the preservation of this community ' s rural character and unique natural features . Policy 2 .e of the Land Conservation Element 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 . " This General Plan policy statement is one of many policies which were originally adopted by the City Council as part of the Poway Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of enhancing the City ' s image and preserving its rural character . On April 2 , 1985 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85-019 requiring Minor Development Review application and approval for properties lying within the "major topographical features" areas depicted on Figure 9 , Community Design Resources , of the Comprehensive Plan . While this measure has provided interim pro- tection to the resources in question , the proposed recommendations , if adopted by Council , would be added to the Comprehensive Plan as new policy statements and development standards . The City Attorney has recommended that requirements which the City Council chooses to adopt as a result of the ridgeline/hillside study also be adopted in ordinance form. ANALYSIS A. Purpose of Study The purpose of the ridgeline/hillside study is threefold : o To identify the prominent knolls , hilltops , mountain tops , ridges , ridgelines , and associated hillsides within the community; 2oF57 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 3 o To determine the characteristics and value of these topographical features to the community; and o To recommend specific language in the form of new General Plan policy statements and property development standards which would add to or complement existing policies and standards found in the General Plan and Zoning Development Code sections of the City of Poway Comprehensive Plan. B. Study Methodology The areas comprising the "major topographical features" were deter- mined through an analysis of the community' s unique terrain and its physical , visual , and functional relationship to surrounding prop- erties and other natural resources , and to the community-at-large. In general terms , these areas are comprised of the following topographical features : 1 . Slopes generally greater than 15 percent; 2 . Natural terrain which is elevated significantly higher than the valley floor and adjacent lower foothills; 3 . Hilltops or knolls which are situated at elevations signi- ficantly greater than adjacent properties ; 4 . Ridges or ridgelines which are visually demarcated by an elongated ridge or a series of ridges common to a longitu- dinal axis ; 5 . Major hillsides associated with significant hilltops and prominent ridgelines; and 6 . Mountainous terrain which is within the viewshed of Poway proper , designated scenic highways , and public places within the City and adjacent communities . C. Area Affected by Ridgeline/Hillside Study As mentioned above , the areas of "major topographical features" are depicted on Figure 9 (Community Design Resources ) of the Community Design Element of the General Plan ( see Attachment 1) . During the course of the study, these areas were superimposed upon a 1 ,000 foot scale City base map which depicts the parcelization of the City. gnF,51 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 .,,, • • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 4 For the purpose of determining the actual geographic location of the features in question, and to more accurately depict the peripheral boundaries of the areas of major topographical features , Staff utilized a slope category map along with the U.S.G.S contour line maps which comprise the City. The results of this closer examination of slope categories and contour lines indicated that the areas of major topographical features cover a larger geographic area than that depicted on Attachment 1 . The larger or expanded study area, which is depicted on Attachment 2 , was sanctioned by the City Council at their January 9 , 1986 workshop meeting . This revised study area is also highlighted on a 1 ,000 foot scale base map which will be provided as a wall map exhibit at the public hearing . The subject area was then measured with a planimeter from the 1 ,000 foot scale base map and calculated to have an overall area of approximately 10 ,732 gross acres . While these gross acres comprise the approximate total areas of the major topographical features of the City, they also contain specific areas or enclaves which would not be subject to future development , or are not otherwise affected by this study. The following table provides an explanation for this and further describes the specific areas not affected by this study. TABLE 1 Areas of Major Topographical Features Area Description Gross Acreage 1 . Total area of major topographical features 10 ,732 ac . 2 . Portions of total area not affected by study: - BLM/Open Space Zone 520 - Wilderness/Open Space Zone 150 - Rancho Arbolitos 106 - South Poway Planned Community Development Plan o Light Industrial/Industrial Park 644 o Commercial 28 o Open Space 481 - Existing Dedicated Open Space Easements 210 SUBTOTAL 2 ,139 -2 ,139 ac . 3 . Total area minus areas not affected 8 , 593 gross acres Note: As indicated in Table 1 above , the areas of the South Poway Planned Community designated for light industrial/indus- trial park , commercial , and open space use have been excluded from the study area . The several areas within the Rancho Arbolitos development have also been excluded . These exclusions were made because the City Council has already approved the development plans in both areas . MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 4 �� • • • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 5 Similarly, the portions of the total area presently zoned Open Space (BLM land and Wilderness Area) , and all existing dedicated open space easements have also been excluded . The resultant approximately 8 , 593 gross acres of major topographical features are the focus of this study . This acreage is equivalent to about 13 square miles of territory , which is close to 35 percent of the City' s present incorporated area of 37 square miles . 4 . It should be noted that the peripheral boundaries of the "major topographical features" areas , as depicted on Attachment 2 , are not specifically defined by a contour line, point in elevation , or demarcated by a property line . This is because the City' s land form is very diverse, and therefore, the peripheral boundaries are general and should not be considered as precisely definitive. A site-specific topographic examination and field investigation would be, in many cases , necessary to determine whether a parcel of land is wholly or partially situated within the subject boun- daries . For the purpose of implementing the proposed policies and stan- dards at the staff level , Staff is recommending that the City Council consider the adoption of the 1 ,000 foot scale base map, which depicts the subject areas , as the "official" ridgeline/hillside map of the City . In addition , Staff would recommend that Figure 9 of the Comprehensive Plan be revised to conform to Attachment 2 as part of the General Plan amendment process . D. Parcel Inventory In order to identify the assessor parcels which are located within the study area, the parcelization map was again utilized . Once the parcel inventory was established , the development status of each affected parcel was determined . From the 1982 Housing Needs Assessment Study, a housing location map was prepared and updated for housing units constructed between 1982 and February 28 , 1986 . The parcel inventory and associated development status is sum- marized in the following table . TABLE 2 NUMBER PERCENT OF TOTAL Developed Parcels 140 18 Undeveloped Parcels 636 82 Total Affected Parcels 776* 100% * Approximate total since study area boundary is not considered precisely definitive. 50F57 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 • 0 Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 6 The parcels which are presently developed are generally concentrated in five areas of the City . The areas of concentration are shown on Attachment 3 . E. Highly Significant Topographical Features At the November 14 , 1985 workshop, Council expressed a concern regarding highly significant topographical features upon which any development should be strongly discouraged or prohibited . These features consist of steep hillsides generally in excess of 15 percent slope ; the extreme tops of knolls , hills , and mountains; and , ridges or ridgelines . For the purpose of better identifying these highly significant features , Staff again utilized a 1 ,000 foot scale slope category map and the U.S .G.S . contour line maps which comprise the City of Poway. An analysis of the slope categories and contour lines indicated that nearly one hundred significant hilltops exist within the study area. The analysis further showed that almost all of the involved parcels of land are impacted by hillsides of over 15 percent slope. However , when looking only at hilltops and ridges , approximately one third of the affected parcels are directly impacted by the presence of these features . It should be noted that the majority of these parcels are larger than 20 acres in size and are zoned RR-A. In order to protect these highly significant features , residential structures proposed on directly impacted lots should be located on the least impacted portion of the lot . This would afford the features the highest degree of protection from potential visual impacts , but in some cases may not be feasible due to physical limitations or other environmental constraints . Staff is of the opinion that policies which guide and regulate development in these sensitive areas should be somewhat flexible and not too rigid . If rigorous policies which contain prohibitive language are employed in all cases , it may be difficult or undesirable to administer such policies . The following problems could arise : o Future subdivision of existing large lots could require "lot averaging" as the only alternative for development . This would necessitate lot clustering. o The buildable , or least impacted portion of the lot , may be land locked from access . • 6oF57 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 7 o The buildable portion of the lot may be otherwise impacted by environmental or physical constraints . o Eminent domain powers may be necessary to ultimately protect the features in question . Staff has prepared a policy which addresses the "location of devel- opment" to the least-impacted portion of the lot, but recommends that it be used as a flexible standard , and in conjunction with the other recommended policies and standards . Attachment 4 illustrates a "worst case" situation which presently exists , and where flexibility in development review would be necessary . As shown on the attachment , the 40 acre parcel is directly impacted by highly significant features . While the parcel is located over 1 ,000 feet from a major hilltop (elevation 1 , 420 ) , it is impacted by a prominent ridge which crosses the full width of the property . Physical constraints , like the canyon north of the property and the drainage feature adjacent on the south , could cause problems with access to the property. If City water were available , the 40 acre parcel could possibly be divided into two 20 acre parcels and could accommodate a maximum of two dwelling units . In order to protect the most highly visible features of the site , the structures would have to be located on the least-impacted portions of the property. However , that may not be feasible due to the presence of physical or environmental constraints which are unknown at this time . Staff recommends that where proposed residential structures on existing lots , subdivisions of land , or adjustments of lot lines affect a highly significant feature(s) , said feature( s) should be avoided and protected through their dedication as permanent open space . Staff believes that these types of situations can be adequately addressed by utilizing all existing and new policies and development standards . The full utilization of these guidelines and standards will ensure the highest degree of protection possible to the features in question . F. Development Potential of the Study Area At the January 9 , 1986 workshop, Council expressed a concern regarding the number of potential residential lots which ultimately could be developed within the boundaries of the study area. As mentioned above , the portion of the study area which would be affected by this study is comprised of approximately 8 ,593 gross acres . At the present time , approximately 776 parcels of land exist within the affected por- tions of the study area , and only 140 parcels or 18 percent of the total , are currently developed. The existing affect parcels are situated on terrain in excess of 15 percent slope and are currently zoned RR-A, RR-B, or RR-C. 7oF57 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 • • • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 8 In order to calculate the ultimate development potential of the affected portions of the study area , Staff utilized the existing land use and zoning designations and "rural area parcel sizes" prescribed in the General Plan . The following table summarizes the results of this potential lot calculation. TABLE 3 Calculation of Potential Residential Lots Number of Potential Lots Existing Average Gross With City Without City Zone Slope Acres Water Water RR-A 15-25% 1 ,960 245 98 25-45% 5,749 287 143 RR-B 15-25% 628 254 - 25-45% 16 2 - RR-C 15-25% 20 10 - 25-45% 220 55 - Totals 8 , 593 853 241 As indicated in Table 3 above, the "worst case" potential number of lots which could ultimately be created and developed under current zoning and slope criteria, if City water were available, equals approximate 853 lots . When this figure is compared to the number of existing parcels (approximately 776 ) , the difference between existing and potential lots equals about 77 additional lots over what exists today. This number may be somewhat less because the lot calculations are based on gross rather than net acreage. G. Characteristics and Community Value The major topographical features found within the City of Poway are considered a significant element of Poway' s rural character . The knolls , hilltops , ridgelines , and associated hillsides are physical components which combine to make up the City' s unique physiography or land form. As defined , "land form" is a feature of the earth ' s surface attributable to natural causes . The characteristics or quali- ties which coexist in the community include , but are not limited to the following : o physical relief or inequalities of the land surface; o undulating contours ; o moderate to steep slopes; o dramatic and vivid sky line , silhouetted ridgelines; 8oF57 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 9 o natural seasonal colors and shadows ; o diversified vegetation and wildlife communities; o terminal views/focal points; o majestic mountains and rock outcroppings; o visual diversion and scenic quality; o distinctive form and appearance; and o interface with low passing cloud formations . One of the main goals of the City and its residents is the enhance- ment of the City ' s rural image and character , and the preservation of the country-like atmosphere and environment which now prevails in the community. A high intrinsic and physical value is placed upon the City ' s natural resources and scenic quality by both its residents and those who travel along its scenic corridors . The value of the natural features to the community-at-large can be described in terms of the following functions : o provision of open space and associated benefits ; o resource protection/conservation; o preservation of unique cultural sites; o promotion of human health and well-being; o preservation of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat; o prevention of urban sprawl through the maintenance of a natural greenbelt and hinterland ; o protection of the community' s watershed and major drainage basins; o provision of psychological relief from the stress and strain of urban life; o promotion of the town and country dichotomy; o maintenance of a limited population threshold; o provision of a healthy environment for generations to come; o enhancement of the visual quality of the City; o provision of opportunities for large-lot ownership and estate dwellings ; and o promotion of air and water quality. Based on the above-mentioned characteristics and community value of the resources in question , it is of paramount importance that their continued protection is insured through close adherence to related municipal policy and standards . H . Existing Policy Staff has reviewed the text and graphics of the Comprehensive Plan and has determined that existing policy regarding development in hillside and ridgeline areas should be supplemented to provide ade- quate planning policy to guide development in the areas of major topographical features . This determination was made after a number of issues relating to design , access , and visual aesthetics sur- faced during the course of the study . MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 9OF57 Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 10 It was also determined that existing policies regarding development in hillside and ridgeline areas are found within three individual elements of the General Plan--the Land Use Element, Community Design Element, and Land Resource Conservation Element. This dispersal of related policies is preferable to achieve adequate cross-referencing and internal document consistency, but is not advantageous to the efficient administration and implementation of the General Plan . If Council chooses to adopt the proposed new policies , their adoption would constitute an amendment to the General Plan . It is suggested that as part of the amendment process the existing policies and new policies be consolidated in the Community Design Element , and that other elements be amended to include cross references as deemed appropriate by Council . Internal consistency would be maintained . The proposed policies should also be added to the residential section of the Zoning Development Code as property development standards for development within the areas of major topographical features . For Council ' s information , the existing policies include the following: 1 . Land Use Element - Policies 3 .c, 7 .c, 7 .h , and 15a-15 .m 2 . Community Design Element - Policies 12 . b, and 16 .a-16 .e 3 . Land Resource Conservation Element - Policies 2 .a-2 .e The study also revealed that a significant number of the affected parcels may, in fact, be presently situated on the extreme top of or close to existing hilltops and ridgelines . Existing policy , as written , would tend to preclude any development on these signifi- cant features . For example , Policy 15 .e of the Land Use Element states , "Prominent ridgelines and hilltops as defined in the Community Design Element should not be built upon . " Objective 2 of the Land Resource Conservation Element states , "Ridgelines and pro- minent hillside areas should be retained in open space . " In regard to these policies which could be interpreted as being too restric- tive or exclusionary, Staff has prepared new policies which would address the special circumstances of parcels which are situated on , or partially on , prominent hilltops and ridgelines . I . Relationship to the General Plan The areas of major topographical features and the affected parcels which are located within those areas are designated either Rural Residential A, B, C, or Open Space (BLM leased parcels and Wilderness Area) on the Land Use and Zoning plans . • MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 1O OF 57 • • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 11 J. Environmental Review Staff has considered the environmental significance of the proposed amendments to the text and graphics of the General Plan and Zoning Development Code and has concluded that the proposed amendments would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment. The resultant impacts would , in fact , be considered positive in nature, in Staff ' s opinion . With that , Staff would recommend that the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate when action is taken on both the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment. K. Notification Notice of the public hearing for the consideration of the subject city-initiated amendments was provided in accordance with Section 65091 ( 3 ) ( 1) of the Government Code . This code section provides that an agency, in lieu of mailed or delivered notice , may provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency in which the proceeding is conducted at least ten days prior to the hearing . This noticing requirement was provided accordingly in the Poway News Chieftain . If the City Council desires , Staff could prepare an informational pamphlet (counter handout) which would contain all related General Plan policies , zoning development standards , and graphics for development in the ridgeline/hillside areas of the community. The pamphlet could be prepared following the adoption of the proposed policy and stand- ards , and be made available to the general public at the Planning Services counter , and could be explained in detail to individuals when necessary. It is also recommended that local professional groups who need to have an awareness of these policies and standards be made aware of their existence by written correspondence so that they are familiar with Poway requirements when dealing with potential Poway property owners . These groups include realtors , architects , and designers . L. Proposed Amendments The following proposed amendments are designed to address development of land which is located within the general boundaries of the "major topographical features" areas , as depicted on Attachment 2 . Staff believes that these amendments would sufficiently guide and promote good planning and sensitive development within the subject areas of the community. MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 11oF57' • • • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 12 1 . Delete existing Policy 2 .e of the Land Resource Conservation Element which makes reference to the "Ridgeline Study. " 2 . Add new Policy 2 .e under the heading of "Ridgelines and Hillsides" (Land Resource Conservation Element) : Where development is proposed on parcels of land located in the areas of "major topographical features" (as shown on the official map on file in the office of 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 - Prominent hilltops and ridgelines located within the areas of major topographical features (as shown on the official map on file in the office of the Department of Planning Services ) should not be built upon or otherwise physically altered . When special circumstances occur where existing parcels of land are located on top or near the top of prominent hilltops or ridgelines , 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 . " 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 - Lots and structures in hillside areas and areas of "major topographical features" (as shown on the official map on file in the office of Planning Services ) should not significantly alter the natural contour of the land and should be designed in accor- dance with the following policies . MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 12OF57 • • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 13 6 . New Policy 16 . f - The land developer or property owner of an existing lot , prior to the preparation and filing of official plans required for a Development Review/Minor Development Review Application , shall concurrently submit to the Department of Planning Services a conceptual grading and site development plan, for preliminary review and recommendation upon the official plan submittal . This review shall consider the proposed development' s potential impact upon the physical character and visual quality of the site' s natural features . The design, configuration , orientation , and development of proposed residential lots and the development of existing residential lots shall adhere to the maximum slope height criteria for cut/fill slopes as prescribed in the Grading Ordinance of the City of Poway. 7 . New Policy 16 .g - Residential structures proposed for develop- ment in "major topographical features" areas shall be ade- quately set back from adjoining downhill slopes so that the structures ' visual impact on the surrounding area is precluded or substantially reduced ( see Attachment 5 ) . 8 . New Policy 16 .h - Where physical constraints or other limitations preclude the above-preferred setback of a structure, the struc- ture shall maintain a low profile and also be adequately screened with trees or other substantial vertical plant materials . 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 designated scenic roadways ( see Attachment 6 ) . 9 . New Policy 16 . i - Access roads or driveways servicing residen- tial structures in areas of major topographical features should not alter the area ' s physical character by the creation of "notches" in the ridgeline, but rather should follow the natural contour of the land form. Sufficient berming and landscaping/erosion control shall accompany the construction of access roadways so that visual impacts are adequately mitigated ( see Attachment 7 ) . 10 . New Policy 16 . j - 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 cantilevered or stilt (pole house) structural designs shall not be permitted . The use of multi-level foundations which fit the structure to the natural contour shall be the preferred struc- tural design ( see Attachment 8 ) . The maximum height of the structure measured from grade shall be that prescribed in Policy 16 .o below. 13 015 7 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 ® s Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 14 11 . New Policy 16 .k - Architectural designs for residential structures in areas of major topographical features shall incor- porate building line offsets and building level transitions which fit the structure to the natural land form and enhance the character of the site' s terrain . Blocky, rigid , extremely angu- lar, or otherwise obtrusive geometric building designs , which are not in scale or proportion with the surrounding land form, shall be discouraged ( see Attachment 9 ) . 12 . New Policy 16 . 1 - Residential structures proposed in areas of major topographical features should be sensitive to the character of the land form, as well as responsive to the community ' s visual quality. Second-story levels should be set back from the lower building line , at the downhill side of the structure , so that vertical mass and emphasis on height is avoided, and scale and proportion with the surrounding areas is achieved ( see Attachment 10 ) . 13 . New Policy 16 .m - Where residential structures are proposed on parcels of land situated on or near the top of prominent hilltops and ridgelines , and no other feasible or practical structural siting can be achieved within the property lines of the subject parcel , as determined by the Director of Planning Services , the proposed structure shall be designed and sited in accordance with the following criteria ( see Attachment 11) : o The building pad shall be excavated or sufficiently bermed so that the structure maintains a low profile appearance and the character of the ridgeline or hilltop is not substantially altered . In order to achieve this appearance , the height of the structure , in some cases , may be limited to one story. o Ridgelines should be supplemented with sufficient ver- tical landscape plant material if the ridgeline is graded . o All other applicable policies within the Community Design Element shall apply. 14 . New Policy 16 .n - Where existing parcels of land are directly impacted by the presence of major topographical features , as defined herein , proposed residential structure(s) shall be located on the least-impacted portion(s) of the parcel , as deter- mined by the Director of Planning Services , 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 struc- tures are sited . In some cases , the ultimate protection of the features in question may require their dedication as permanent open space. MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 14 OF 57 • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 15 15 . New Policy 16 .o - 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 may be considered in lieu of multi-level foundations . Where these types of structural designs are determined as a necessary alternative , the maximum height of the structure measured from grade shall be determined by the combined building height provisions of the Zoning Development Code and Uniform Building Code of the City of Poway (see Attachment 12 ) . 16 . New Policy 16 .p - The use of earth-sheltered or earth-bermed residential structures may be considered if they are appropriately designed in conjunction with all applicable policies herein, and foster the preservation and visual quality of the natural land form and surrounding features ( see Attachment 13 ) . 17 . Under heading of "Colors and Materials" - New Policy 50 .e - Exterior colors and materials used in the construction of residential structures proposed in areas of major topographi- cal features shall be harmonious in both tone and texture with the natural biological and geological resources in the vici- nity of the building site . Earth tones , rather than bright or abrasive colors , are required , and synthetic exterior materials , if used , should closely simulate the appearance of natural material . 18 . Under heading of "Roofs and Rooflines" - New Policy 52 .d - Where residential structures are proposed in major ridgeline , hilltop, and hillside areas , 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 14 ) . 19 . Proposed "Cross-Reference" Amendments : a ) Under "Criteria for Protection" heading of the Scenic Highway Element - New Policy 2 .e - 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) Under "Mountainous Areas" heading of the Open Space Element - New Policy 2 .d - Where residential structures are proposed for development within the mountainous areas of the City the applicable policies of the Community Design Element shall apply. MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 150 57 ® • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 16 c) Under "Hillside Development" heading of the Land Use Element - New Policy 15 .n - 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 . M. Proposed New Definitions and Property Development Standards The following proposed definitions are recommended to be added to the Zoning Development Code in conjunction with the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Chapter 17 . 04 Definitions The following sections of Chapter 17 .04 are added to read : 1 . Section 17 . 04 . 391 Hillside "Hillside" means a part of a hill between the summit and the foot . 2 . Section 17 .04 . 392 Hilltop "Hilltop" means the highest part of a hill . 3 . Section 17 .04 . 416 Knoll "Knoll" means a small round hill or mound . 4 . Section 17 .04 . 419 Landform "Landform" means a feature of the earth ' s surface attributable to natural causes . 5 . Section 17 . 04 .536 Mountaintop "Mountaintop" means the summit of a of mountain. 6 . Section 17 .04 . 631 Ridge "Ridge" means a range of hills or moun- tains . A ridge can also be defined as an elongate crest or a linear series of crests . The following proposed property development standards are a refine- ment of the above recommended general plan policy statements . It is recommended that these standards be adopted in ordinance form as an amendment to the Zoning Development Code section (Title 19 of Municipal Code ) of the Comprehensive Plan . The new standards , in their entirety, would constitute the following sub-group of require- ments and would compliment the existing Special Requirements listed under Section 17 .08 . 180 Property Development Standards : Special Requirements . 16 OF 5 7 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 17 • 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 creation and development of parcels of land located within the areas of "major topographical features , " as shown on the official map identifying said features on file in the office of the Department of Planning Services , and as determined by the Director of Planning Services , shall be subject to the develop- ment standards listed under this subsection. The development of residential structures upon or near existing prominent knolls , hilltops , mountaintops , hillsides , ridges , and ridgelines , shall be in accordance with the applicable policies found within the Community Design Element of the Poway General Plan . The Director of Planning Services and the land developer shall exhaust all available development solutions in attempting to preserve and protect the visual quality of these natural topographic features . 1 . Residential lots created by parcel map, subdivision map, or those lots proposed for alteration by official boundary adjustment , shall not cause by their location , design , configuration, or orientation , the significant alteration of the natural contour of the land form and its prominent topographical features . The con- figuration or design of individual residential lots shall con- sider the potential impact of grading, building pad location , and building envelop upon the site' s natural features . 2 . The land developer or property owner of an existing lot , prior to the preparation and filing of official plans required for a Development Review/Minor Development Review Application, shall concurrently submit to the Department of Planning Services a con- ceptual grading and site development plan for preliminary review and recommendation . This review shall consider the proposed development' s potential impact upon the physical character and visual quality of the site' s natural features . 3 . The design, configuration , orientation , and development of pro- posed residential lots and the development of existing individual residential lots shall adhere to the maximum slope height cri- teria for cut/fill slopes as prescribed in the Grading Ordinance of the City of Poway. 17 of 5 7 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 ® • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 18 4 . Single-level residential structures should be oriented such that the greatest horizonal dimension of the structure is parallel with, and not perpendicular to, the natural contour of the land. The structure' s maximum height measured from grade shall be that prescribed in standard No. 10 below. 5 . The use of multi-level foundations ( floor levels separated by a minimum of five feet in height) shall be considered the stan- dard design for residential structures . Where a residential structure is proposed to be located on a natural hillside with a slope of 25 percent or greater , the structure' s foundation and vertical elevation shall be designed to conform substan- tially to the natural grade of the hillside . Other structural designs such as stilt or cantilevered foundations , and earth- sheltered or earth-bermed buildings , which otherwise fit the structures to the natural contour and grade of the landform, may be determined as acceptable design alterations . 6 . In the preliminary siting of residential structures , view corridors , especially those emanating from lower elevated public places , directly adjoining residential properties , and designated scenic highways , should be determined and con- sidered . 7 . Access roads or driveways servicing residential structures shall generally follow the existing natural contour of the landform and shall conform to applicable City road/access stan- dards . 8 . The construction of access roadways or driveways shall be accompanied by sufficient berming and landscaping/erosion control so that visual impacts associated with said construc- tion are promptly mitigated . Landscaping materials shall include ground covers , shrubbery, and trees . Irrigation of landscape materials shall be provided on a permanent or tem- porary basis where feasible , as determined by the Director of Planning Services . 9 . Residential structures should be adequately set back, where feasible , from adjoining downhill slopes , so that the struc- ture' s visual impact on the surrounding area is precluded or substantially reduced . 10 . Where multi-level foundation , cantilevered, or stilt (pole house) structural designs are proposed on hillside parcels , the maximum height of the structure measured from grade shall be determined by the combined building height provisions of the Zoning Development Code and the Uniform Building Code of the City of Poway. In all cases , the proposed structure shall maintain structural integrity , architectural quality, and shall be visually aesthetic . 18 of 5 7 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 ® r Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 19 11 . Where physical constraints or environmental considerations preclude the structural setback preferred in ( 9 ) above, the structure shall maintain a low profile through the utilization of the visual impact reduction methods stated herein . 12 . In order to substantially reduce the structure' s visual impact on surrounding areas , landscaped berming and/or trees/shrubs of suf- ficient height shall be installed as a screening technique . 13 . Architectural designs shall incorporate building line offsets and building level transitions which conform the structure to the natural land form and enhance the character of the site ' s terrain. 14 . The dominant roof slope( s) of residential structures shall substantially follow the slope of the natural grade. 15 . Second-story levels of residential structures shall be set back, from the lower building line , at the downhill side of the struc- ture, so that vertical mass and emphasis on height is avoided, and scale and proportion with the natural terrain is achieved . 16 . Where residential structures are proposed on parcels of land situated on or near the top of prominent hilltops and ridgelines , and no other feasible or practical structural siting can be achieved within the property lines of the subject parcel , as determined by the Director of Planning Services , the proposed structure shall be designed and sited in accordance with the following criteria: a . The building pad shall be excavated or sufficiently bermed so that the structure maintains a low profile appearance and the character of the ridgeline or hilltop is not substantially altered . In order to achieve this appearance , the height of the structure , in some cases , may be limited to one story. b. Ridgelines shall be supplemented with vertical landscape plant material if the ridgeline is graded . c . All other applicable standards within this section shall apply. 17 . Where parcels of land are directly impacted by the presence of major topographical features , as determined by the Director of Planning Services , proposed residential structure(s) shall be sited on the least-impacted portion( s ) of the property so that visual impacts to the features are avoided . 19oF57 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 • • Agenda Report March 18 , 1986 Page 20 18 . When siting residential structures , they shall be located in con- sideration of all physical and environmental constraints which exist on-site, and those which could be impacted off-site as a result of the proposed development. 19 . The preservation and continued protection of major topographical features located within the City of Poway may, in some cases, require their dedication as permanent open space. 20 . Exterior colors and materials used in the construction of residen- tial structures shall be harmonious in both tone and texture with the surrounding natural biological and geological elements . 21. The above development standards shall also apply when the "density of development" is calculated. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing and take public input and continue the public hearing to April 1, 1986 . At that meeting, recommendation will include adoption of General Plan Amendment 86-01 by resolution, second reading of the ordinance adopting Zoning Ordinance Amendment 86-01, and adoption of the official City Ridgeline/ Hillside Map. JLB:JEB:JRN: is Attachments: 1. Attachments 1 through 14 (Graphics) 2 . Proposed Resolution for General Plan Amendment 86-01 3 . Proposed Ordinance for Companion Zoning Ordinance Amendment 86-01 • 20 of 57 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 0 /a COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES emss /1 ....?„%..,..:., 1 • t 1 . ('1i I { I / I 11 ) , 1 • JITT2 _÷:...,,J.„. � � 1 • r; ...‘ '! I VI.,.. : . 7"-11 . it r ikg oi . II : ii, 1 '..!. ni 4n.:45-mkg3:. •,. -, 0 . "c ..:: - i � • ;.,„,:::::A::::: 5"&.,;.� � --N / 1c1 \` / -, _r L- Jii Y 1 �� .�-r, _ LEGEND '1s'.4 MAJOR TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES 0 FOCAL POINTS •`'` • --1 SCENIC ROADWAYS • �N ��. pc—$.1 HISTORICAL STRUCTURES AREA • 4$, C MAJOR CREEKS AND CHANNELS E• • CITY OF POWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA /zoA66-01 TITLE : PAGcELW/Efr'44 Sice • �uoY SCALE : ,Jor To Soars- ATTACHMENT : 1 41 . J 210F210F57 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 • • COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES , •";"514iit!:a'1:: - 4p, . .... i:rjEei 1 aggi - 1 . 1 / It . ' / / ! -24 itaqitiCi.7;agie(r •.... . : ! /(...g!'.:VG:.17:1W44:1 \ ',. "__ . ,i. , - • ' .::::*;;:::al ) . • ..rilW.t.;?.W.*: int4s — t: . i ; . / '' ' ../ I '' . 1—• !: I ;.U.-it• . . -; '`I "• , ! -..eb,WW1 '.1 \i- it ; --'' I i': '1'---- • . 4 Mark?' ..;;;.;--.... • 1 r N .4,19,±::#54'-a?l,..` 4. •• ;i.v.1 : , - 1 ..y , 0:.--:.r.v.+•:-: •.%.i i-4::::: . .....," i .: i -- : .-.. is::: :4:Act ,)e.p•-• -- .- esr:!. fraarige 1 1 '' l'.. / :rg,•! !: :::-..,: . ::,-t.,:;#7.7?*:1::51:; , 0 • 4 c FW,.: IMPC“'"- F. f .4': Th% .7.7.• '.. . ;I 'Aleab„, ‘ 1"•• : . • i 701.t.134.0144,„ ._mi-Lt4 I • . t .,. nx .i , \ • % .\ ;1.:?:: • . .1.,:,,, 7.:,-(::St.:t-„---' • ' % • LUELIP • • .7 \ \ . & #4 MAJOR TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES (REVISED) • • • an FOCAL POINTS ...S. •-•!" ' '..-Pir—. SCENIC ROADWAYS . .r..k -... k•cata HISTORICAL STRUCTURES AREA 4 MAJOR CREEKS AND CHANNELS ' 0 C ILIOURE 9 CITY OF POWAY. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . • CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 61n/zal 8 -6C1 PRATT PiDGEZA/Efria•C/P6" • TITLE : s--LADT- SCALE : 'k .- r° SCALE ATTACHMENT : 2 • MAR 18 1996 IT EM 4 22 OF 5 7 • • • COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES ) - 1 4.a- .:1!,.:jswRa, 4.'9::- c ..n•Pi fit; ' ,,••(4;:i . -,-:;L4,•:_krfl. , 4( . • . _...., . .,, • -...., s ,. mimv„,,g, I ‘ ) i-- . • - • - • ••••-•,:,:at-,..f5m. - ; . .--- - • _.- -,4:•;:z.,..-:,-gA •, - • , ..i.„:“:=7:...ci.;.vci, -. , j 1 : - - .•• is.. ils'::-,, gd 'Nil- ,-, :•-• _4.47.i.,;: tc:ti /. i 1 ,;: -••41 ..I , 1 0: i _ 1 j ..zf: ,!.,f , • - I . r;I•;:-:1;a-1..0 I :1 I •• ' 31;‘.1%1;i 5r:: / 044051$ I 1 ;Z: 2:: i 11 ..-'• -i 17:07:11 i / ... •+!.0,.. ;30 ,.• rn" 'cl:44.11.4:r-141•:.- r “. • iKtinWrfl ::1a2 i / , t ......- ....... . - . , ....,2,is-f-. „,;.z.. ...cog:-: i . . -. ,.'.;<enAvirlzFr , . I ....Nt • ,;:::, t •--- .:-.---e- - t LEGEND 6474:41 MAJOR TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES . \ - • a FOCAL POINTS • 6.---1 SCENIC ROADWAYS - ...... tO , tlars HISTORICAL STRUCTURES AREA 4 ist C MAJOR CREEKS AND CHANNELS 5 IMRE 111 CITY OF POWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • - AREAS chc DeveteneA-7e-tir- cat/can-RA/7oz] • • . CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6171 jzoA 86-o i . • DRAFT— R/OGE L A CA/Z.LS/LE TITLE : SCALE : Ntr- r° -cc-44-E ATTACHMENT : i a 7- • © 3 • MAR 1R 1986 ITEM At 2 3 OF • } agesil, 140. A L \N A{fr .'.> L 11••f L r, i\ A{ mgL1y} M 1 .. a r r rKL•1 L .11: 'L•l1 � irl y1 1t41 ! 1 1~N.•. li -l•f- •.V A :7 l;1 •V fr (:: • I I' Ai Igin II • ..{e. r 'tr:•J Xf,4 rk v r J\y / • rt 3,}• Jr iJ rJ/J • d`^1yAr s .. I �� f"+! 3 r�r 1r i �fH iir•� �� `,.r.F O®9®•. .0 !•i •r� A ::::.5.:::":-.•,,:.:,,r• ' 1 /{�1i.Qiil1 000 • ilI_ - • - • 11• r ;#!bjj 1:0;: •Ce..Lti L 1f Ft1s 4 r 1r 1, I� J/• ,® 1 4 .vx oN {1' �/ \ \A•7 i• _ 1 r V+R 1vNV r1J{y A: !•sti xv 4 pI. . v ." a•_.. J i r r 1/i t rte. 1y._•1+, ti. P(► M %)%-...', 1, lipprWi •\• /r\1`!/!Il!/f I �! P^•,L.1!\-ere •'.,• - Loa 01 Y �. • i ! f ��F.,•:::::•:•.:):!.L/ +W�/� '. '� P la ,- 4! • • ! ^. k • .'%;;1�/ +�j...:;:::41146.49 J'JA/Y JJJJVVVV Sr . fi. _ p � <5::::::::::::::::.. 'ff JY SLOPE CATEGORY EXISTING "WORST CASE" CONDITION `. PARCEL SIZE: 40 ACRES ` 0 - 15% ZONING: RR-A AVERAGE SLOPE: ABOVE 25% 15 - 30% . PRESENT ACCESS : NONE I MAX. DENSITY: 2 LOTS (WITH WATER) 1.•.w•.< ;.. ..•��ry?�•"rlry ABOVE 30% _oo__ __ ®a®® PROMINENT RIDGE. CITY OF POWAY ITEM _: GP/4 �zoA 86 -0 / 8447' TITLE : A3' 2/NE/AoLLS/D • •sricoy- SCALE : NOT To scA(.E ATTACHMENT : 4 isig L.,H ).10A 1 R iac s I• -F-M ,. 24 0E57 • ® • • • t ft 4 • p VI rI a� • a SFTBAcK if r II ._:-1 A a l� ,Inutwitti 1411 !full PU U U 111 II 111 v'Ew • 1'4;1 et PREFbtc<s SiTout, cF �lijy I Y. • R=5i rrit.L.. Si iuc uI r • • • CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA /z0A 8s - 0/ DRAF7- TITLE : R/oGEucE/IHiLtsize- STUD7r • 0 SCALE : QUO' ' ATTACHMENT : 5 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 25 OF 5 i 49- PAY S I CA L- Goms-rRAr NT 1 4011L. , IV . 7 At Sail 41 ' s •=• I •I 111 I 19i p 'r A / '.r it III I. IIf ebrells 1c dvi r„i v1 Low PROFILE 4_ scREEt1E.. eD` ,1\ i II I 0 CITY OF POWAY. ITEM : Gam/ -o` • . DRAFT TITLE : RID&Eedvaj JLS/Z • 0 STL/DY SCALE iUOT � ATTACHMENT : 6 MAR 18 1986 ITEM A. —I 26OF57 111 • • r 2ERM $ LAN.'nSc. a SCRECtU'LIG • II CITY OF POWAY ITEM Gia/Za.4 86-0/ TITLE : ?�/AG5U.c/E/f1lli-s/zfaiimr STUDY SCALE : w°r ScatC ATTACHMENT : 7 2 7 of 5 7 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 . c_ -fig Y C�uj� 17Tc'•4,L tia LIZ PARALLEL. WITH CarrOUR, PERF.1JDICULAR TO CONT0UIC ilS l ,Y r-. casv Ex-r R EME STILT 4 CAUTILaver< IDES IGUS NOT PER MITIED • ,m„ b% Ufl_ I I I f-i ill q I will l a ) , / 1 1 I I lig ti A U • I WILTl- LEVEL SIMGLE LEVEL , FOUNDATIO/.l • -14 i FOUMJDATIOI� J�� , 11 Reo>ulv�D iIf NOT FtRMITTBD p • CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA/zoA 86-0/ DRAFT- . TITLE : ,-Qio uwaVaLS/2C STUDY SCALE : MOT rQ SCALE- ATTACHMENT : 8 MAR 1 8 MR ITEM 4 A 28OF57 . .---, ?Trit--\---\. • - N Ill - :',./ 0, i ilk .AtA:ii„gettW :--,- I I 4V_ BLOCKY 4 ""XTKEMEI---r ANIGULAR_ ' % DESIG'IS DlsCouRtGEp • 41 II` :�: % I {rj „ I Ilt I I II `� mi 1 . • „ 1 �los � .. q STRUCTURE FITS taTURAL_ LA& R02N% r 1 :III " I • CITY OF POWAY . ITEM : 6P.9 /ZO11 a6-o/ ',RAFT— • TITLE : 14i966414/E/aLS✓zr STUDY SCALE : LVOT m . 4C.0 ATTACHMENT : 9 3 MAR i n 21Cfl 1T144 l • .. � •��,uuluuu'I lllllllluluuaIUllllll llllllll III WYWIII " VISUAL IMPACT or VERTICAL MASS 11 l.r Oaf li 11 • • 4011. jleli#11. • • I unuulVID lu Mil II n I n 1' I SECoi JD-STORY SETBACK ul Ill ' REDUCES VISUAL IM�Gr 'fa •CITY OF P0WAY ITEM : GPA�zOA e�- O/ PRAFT • TITLE : Awasuu�-/wcz-S Lc • Srutr r . - -SCALE : Mar sc4LC ATTACHMENT : 1 0 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 l 30OF577 J • • ft „\� t Prjill•11llli11!111 u'd I � 44,4 III I F UIIIpU ril.1j1I 101 HILLTOP/RtocETop III II III •. S11IPUC; 4 DESIGN I RtDGEL11JE REETAWED IIS+ A ft `4 I I IVI 'it 014 I I p I I tea. leie II � FE RIOGELtuE �y -• • - II I /5UPPLEMEn1TED 1 L. • • .111 II : N. 4 . l Ql , ` i 1 _. il al 1 CITY OF. POWAY • . ITEM : GRA/ZOA 86-D/ • DRAFT- TITLE : R2o6s4.4vE/h9L1-SiZE STUDY ISCALE : NOT TD SCALE- ATTACHMENT : 1 1 31 of 5 MAR 1 $ 1986 I T F M / ® • Fe • airAL Assail' . Ill II 1411 j , `moi. • a, • I III I '� \n•mnmwi II �lOiap��k I ROCKY HILLSIDE PARCEL-6 I I i • t. • CITY OF POWAY . ITEM : GRA 2ra4 86 -0/ . DRAFT TITLE : RiG66-414/6-PwasiGE- 577./2Dr -0 SCALE : 114 TO ATTACHMENT : 12 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 .2or57 ( • -4t,. Ai% EAerH RR sD lib- - MAW-MADE I • I ELRM • / Ail ' NATURAL • EARN - SHELTR ING/L AK3DFDRM $asrei 1& FRESE'RvsS VISUAL _ Gliat..tr-i- or F--perumr • • • . CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GAA/z°14 86- o/ DRAFT TITLE : MrogziuE/ ,91-1--ME .• srao - 0 ` SCALE : 'VOr77) �-� ATTAIi8 1986 I1 EM 13 3oE57 \ J • -- ��• . 11110 kV II 1111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111 / I NomcceurbgMIn1G RCOFLINE / II • / 6JATURAL GRADE • 1/5 I III ill I 1111111 u1 �] Q Illi 'l pull " COUR:R/4Na rCcFLJn1E ,tPlt11• 1'I r I Wecru RAI_ G • • CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA/zeA 86-0/ DRAFT— TITLE RAFTTITLE : R/D6E Ava- HrLts✓a • STUDY SCALE : mar rte scAtC ATTACHMENT : 14 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 )/3 OF 57 • • ORDINANCE NO. 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 adopted Planning Resolution No. on March 18 , 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 pur- suant to Section 17 . 46 .0208 of the Poway Municipal Code ; and WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that amendments to Chapter 17 .04 (Definitions ) and Section 17 .08 .180 (Property Development Standards : Special Requirements ) are necessary to meet the said consistency requirement; and WHEREAS , the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on March 18 , 1986 to provide interested parties the oppor- tunity to address the proposed amendments . 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: The amendments to Chapter 17 .04 (Definitions ) of the Municipal Code are hereby established and shall read as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION 2 : The amendments to Section 17 .08 .180 shall constitute of new sub-group of requirements which are supplemental to the existing Special Requirements listed under Section 17 . 08 . 180 Property Development Standards : Special Requirements . The amendments to Section 17 .08 . 180 of the Municipal Code are hereby established and shall read as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and shall include the attached graphic representations (Attachments 2 and 5-14 ) . 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 significant adverse impacts on the environment and issues a Negative Declaration . 3 5 of 5 7 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 • • Ordinance No. Page 2 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty ( 30 ) days after the date of its passage; and the City Clerk of the City of Poway is hereby authorized to use summary publication procedures pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 utilizing the Poway New Chieftain, a newspaper of general circulation 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 18th day of March , and thereafter PASSED 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 360F57 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 • • EXHIBIT A The following amendments to the City of Poway Municipal Code are hereby established pursuant to Ordinance No. passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Poway on the day of , 1986 . I . Chapter 17 .04 Definitions The following sections of Chapter 17 .04 are added to read: 1 . Section 17 .04 . 391 Hillside "Hillside" means a part of a hill between the summit and the foot . 2 . Section 17 .04 . 392 Hilltop "Hilltop" means the highest part of a hill . 3 . Section 17 .04 . 416 Knoll "Knoll" means a small round hill or mound . 4 . Section 17 .04 . 419 Landform "Landform" means a feature of the earth ' s surface attributable to natural causes . 5 . Section 17 .04 . 536 Mountaintop "Mountaintop" means the summit of a of mountain. 6 . Section 17 .04 .631 Ridge "Ridge" means a range of hills or moun- tains . A ridge can also be defined as an elongate crest or a linear series of crests . ZI . 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 creation and development of parcels of land located within the areas of "major topographical features , " as shown on the official map identifying said features on file in the office of the Department of Planning Services , and as determined by the Director of Planning Services , shall be subject to the develop- ment standards listed under this subsection . The development of residential structures upon or near existing prominent knolls , hilltops , mountaintops , hillsides , ridges , and ridgelines , shall be in accordance with the applicable policies found within the Community Design Element of the Poway General Plan . The Director of Planning Services and the land developer shall exhaust all available development solutions in attempting to preserve and protect the visual quality of these natural topographic features . 37 of 57 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 Exhibit 1 Page 2 1 . Residential lots created by parcel map, subdivision map, or those lots proposed for alteration by official boundary adjustment , shall not cause by their location , design , configuration , or orientation , the significant alteration of the natural contour of the land form and its prominent topographical features . The con- figuration or design of individual residential lots shall con- sider the potential impact of grading , building pad location, and building envelop upon the site' s natural features . 2 . The land developer or property owner of an existing lot , prior to the preparation and filing of official plans required for a Development Review/Minor Development Review Application , shall concurrently submit to the Department of Planning Services a conceptual grading and site development plan for preliminary review and recommendation . This review shall consider the pro- posed development' s potential impact upon the physical character and visual quality of the site' s natural features . 3 . The design, configuration , orientation , and development of pro- posed residential lots and the development of existing individual residential lots shall adhere to the maximum slope height cri- teria for cut/fill slopes as prescribed in the Grading Ordinance of the City of Poway . 4 . Single-level residential structures should be oriented such that the greatest horizonal dimension of the structure is parallel with , and not perpendicular to, the natural contour of the land . The structure' s maximum height measured from grade shall be that prescribed in standard No. 10 below. 5 . The use of multi-level foundations (floor levels separated by a minimum of five feet in height) shall be considered the standard design for residential structures . Where a residential struc- ture is proposed to be located on a natural hillside with a • slope of 25 percent or greater , the structure' s foundation and vertical elevation shall be designed to conform substantially to the natural grade of the hillside . Other structural designs such as stilt or cantilevered foundations , and earth-sheltered or earth-bermed buildings , which otherwise fit the structures to the natural contour and grade of the landform, may be determined as acceptable design alterations . 6 . In the preliminary siting of residential structures , view corri- dors , especially those emanating from lower elevated public places , directly adjoining residential properties , and designated scenic highways , should be determined and considered . 38OF57 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 ® • Exhibit 1 Page 3 7 . Access roads or driveways servicing residential structures shall generally follow the existing natural contour of the landform and shall conform to applicable City road/access standards . 8 . The construction of access roadways or driveways shall be accom- panied by sufficient berming and landscaping/erosion control so that visual impacts associated with said construction are promptly mitigated. Landscaping materials shall include ground covers , shrubbery, and trees . Irrigation of landscape materials shall be provided on a permanent or temporary basis where feasible , as determined by the Director of Planning Services . 9 . Residential structures should be adequately set back, where feasible , from adjoining downhill slopes , so that the struc- ture ' s visual impact on the surrounding area is precluded or substantially reduced . 10 . where multi-level foundation , cantilevered, or stilt (pole house) structural designs are proposed on hillside parcels , the maximum height of the structure measured from grade shall be determined by the combined building height provisions of the Zoning Development Code and the Uniform Building Code of the City of Poway. In all cases , the proposed structure shall main- tain structural integrity , architectural quality , and shall be visually aesthetic . 11 . Where physical constraints or environmental considerations preclude the structural setback preferred in ( 9 ) above, the structure shall maintain a low profile through the utilization of the visual impact reduction methods stated herein . 12 . In order to substantially reduce the structure' s visual impact on surrounding areas , landscaped berming and/or trees/shrubs of sufficient height shall be installed as a screening technique . 13 . Architectural designs shall incorporate building line offsets and building level transitions which conform the structure to the natural land form and enhance the character of the site' s terrain . 14 . The dominant roof slope( s ) of residential structures shall substantially follow the slope of the natural grade. 15 . Second-story levels of residential structures shall be set back, from the lower building line , at the downhill side of the struc- ture , so that vertical mass and emphasis on height is avoided , and scale and proportion with the natural terrain is achieved . 390F57 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 Exhibit 1 Page 4 16 . Where residential structures are proposed on parcels of land situated on or near the top of prominent hilltops and ridgelines , and no other feasible or practical structural siting can be achieved within the property lines of the subject parcel , as determined by the Director of Planning Services , the proposed structure shall be designed and sited in accordance with the following criteria : a . The building pad shall be excavated or sufficiently bermed so that the structure maintains a low profile appearance and the character of the ridgeline or hilltop is not substantially altered . In order to achieve this appearance , the height of the structure , in some cases , may be limited to one story. b. Ridgelines shall be supplemented with vertical landscape plant material if the ridgeline is graded . c . All other applicable standards within this section shall apply . 17 . Where parcels of land are directly impacted by the presence of major topographical features , as determined by the Director of Planning Services , proposed residential structure(s) shall be sited on the least-impacted portion( s) of the property so that visual impacts to the features are avoided . 18 . When siting residential structures , they shall be located in con- sideration of all physical and environmental constraints which exist on-site , and those which could be impacted off-site as a result of the proposed development . 19 . The preservation and continued protection of major topographical features located within the City of Poway may, in some cases , require their dedication as permanent open space . 20 . Exterior colors and materials used in the construction of resi- dential structures shall be harmonious in both tone and texture with the surrounding natural biological and geological elements . 21 . The above development standards shall also apply when the "density of development" is calculated . 4 0 of 5 7 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 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 hillside 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 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 of Poway held a properly noticed public hearing in accordance with the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act to consider the subject General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City of Poway has determined that the subject General Plan Amendment will not have any significant adverse environmental effects and therefore issues a Negative Declaration . NOW, THEREFORE, be is resolved that the City Council does hereby amend that 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 18th day of March , 1986 . Carl R. Kruse , Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K. Wahlsten , City Clerk 41 DE 5 7 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 • • 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 March 18 , 1986 , the following text and graphics shall be hereby added to and incorporated 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 Study . " 2 . Add new Policy 2 .e under the heading of "Ridgelines and Hillsides" (Land Resource Conservation Element) : Where development is proposed on parcels of land located in the areas of "major topographical features" (as shown on the official map on file in the office of 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 - Prominent hilltops and ridgelines located within the areas of major topographical features (as shown on the official map on file in the office of the Department of Planning Services ) should not be built upon or otherwise physically altered . When special circumstances occur where existing parcels of land are located on top or near the top of prominent hilltops or ridgelines , 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. " MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 42oF57 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 - Lots and structures in hillside areas and areas of "major topographical features" ( as shown on the official map on file in the office of Planning Services) should not significantly alter the natural con- tour of the land and should be designed in accordance with the following policies . 6 . New Policy 16 .f - The land developer or property owner of an existing lot , prior to the preparation and filing of official plans required for a Development Review/Minor Development Review Application , shall concurrently submit to the Department of Planning Services a conceptual grading and site development plan, for preliminary review and recommendation upon the official plan submittal . This review shall consider the proposed development' s potential impact upon the physical character and visual quality of the site ' s natural features . The design , configuration , orientation, and development of proposed residential lots and the development of existing residential lots shall adhere to the maximum slope height cri- teria for cut/fill slopes as prescribed in the Grading Ordinance of the City of Poway. 7 . New Policy 16 .g - Residential structures proposed for develop- ment in "major topographical features" areas shall be ade- quately set back from adjoining downhill slopes so that the structures ' visual impact on the surrounding area is precluded or substantially reduced ( see Attachment 5 ) . 8 . New Policy 16 .h - Where physical constraints or other limitations preclude the above-preferred setback of a structure, the struc- ture shall maintain a low profile and also be adequately screened with trees or other substantial vertical plant materials . 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 designated scenic roadways ( see Attachment 6 ) . 9 . New Policy 16 . i - Access roads or driveways servicing residen- tial structures in areas of major topographical features should not alter the area ' s physical character by the creation of "notches" in the ridgeline, but rather should follow the natural contour of the land form. Sufficient berming and landscaping/erosion control shall accompany the construction of access roadways so that visual impacts are adequately mitigated (see Attachment 7 ) . MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 43OF57 . • 0 Exhibit A Page 3 10 . New Policy 16 . j - 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 cantilevered or stilt (pole house) structural designs shall not be permitted. The use of multi-level foundations which fit the structure to the natural contour shall be the preferred struc- tural design ( see Attachment 8 ) . The maximum height of the structure measured from grade shall be that prescribed in Policy 16 .o below. 11 . New Policy 16 .k - Architectural designs for residential structures in areas of major topographical features shall incor- porate building line offsets and building level transitions which fit the structure to the natural land form and enhance the character of the site' s terrain . Blocky , rigid , extremely angu- lar , or otherwise obtrusive geometric building designs , which are not in scale or proportion with the surrounding land form, shall be discouraged ( see Attachment 9 ) . 12 . New Policy 16 . 1 - Residential structures proposed in areas of major topographical features should be sensitive to the character of the land form, as well as responsive to the community' s visual quality. Second-story levels should be set back from the lower building line, at the downhill side of the structure , so that vertical mass and emphasis on height is avoided , and scale and proportion with the surrounding areas is achieved ( see Attachment 10 ) . 13 . New Policy 16 .m - Where residential structures are proposed on parcels of land situated on or near the top of prominent hilltops and ridgelines , and no other feasible or practical structural siting can be achieved within the property lines of the subject parcel , as determined by the Director of Planning Services , the proposed structure shall be designed and sited in accordance with the following criteria ( see Attachment 11) : o The building pad shall be excavated or sufficiently bermed so that the structure maintains a low profile appearance and the character of the ridgeline or hilltop is not substantially altered . In order to achieve this appearance, the height of the structure , in some cases , may be limited to one story . o Ridgelines should be supplemented with sufficient ver- tical landscape plant material if the ridgeline is graded. o All other applicable policies within the Community Design Element shall apply. MAR 18 1986 ITE M 4 44 OF 57 Exhibit A Page 4 14 . New Policy 16 .n - Where existing parcels of land are directly impacted by the presence of major topographical features , as defined herein, proposed residential structure( s) shall be located on the least-impacted portion( s) of the parcel , as deter- mined by the Director of Planning Services , 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 struc- tures are sited . In some cases , the ultimate protection of the features in question may require their dedication as permanent open space. 15 . New Policy 16 .o - 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 may be considered in lieu of multi-level foundations . Where these types of structural designs are determined as a necessary alternative , the maximum height of the structure measured from grade shall be determined by the combined building height provisions of the Zoning Development Code and Uniform Building Code of the City of Poway ( see Attachment 12 ) . 16 . New Policy 16 .p - The use of earth-sheltered or earth-bermed residential structures may be considered if they are appropriately designed in conjunction with all applicable policies herein , and foster the preservation and visual quality of the natural land form and surrounding features ( see Attachment 13 ) . 17 . Under heading of "Colors and Materials" - New Policy 50 .e - Exterior colors and materials used in the construction of residential structures proposed in areas of major topographi- cal features shall be harmonious in both tone and texture with the natural biological and geological resources in the vici- nity of the building site . Earth tones , rather than bright or abrasive colors , are required, and synthetic exterior materials , if used , should closely simulate the appearance of natural material . 18 . Under heading of "Roofs and Rooflines" - New Policy 52 .d - Where residential structures are proposed in major ridgeline, hilltop, and hillside areas , 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 14 ) . MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 45OF57 Exhibit At Page 5 19 . Proposed "Cross-Reference" Amendments : a) Under "Criteria for Protection" heading of the Scenic Highway Element - New Policy 2 .e - 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) Under "Mountainous Areas" heading of the Open Space Element - New Policy 2 .d - Where residential structures are proposed for development within the mountainous areas of the City, the applicable policies of the Community Design Element shall apply . c) Under "Hillside Development" heading of the Land Use Element - New Policy 15 .n - 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 . 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 graphics contained in Attachments 5 through 14 of this reso- lution shall be incorporated in the appropriate elements of the General Plan . C. Official Map of Ridgeline/Hillside Areas 1 . The 1 ,000 foot scale City base map that depicts the areas of major topographical features , and which was considered and approved by the City Council at the public hearing on March 18 , 1986 , is hereby adopted as the "official" City of Poway Ridgeline/Hillside Map. MAR 1819 460F57 86 ITEM 4 0 ! - i COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES • ,= /. I.r., -:� - • • ..:P.4'0i .. /1--.N . r . / r t i 1N :. i f / : . ...--*------ '4.21 Treti::::.7.:#2:::, .i: . ) ... ., } _:.11, � j .... : `'�, 1 �r ode w�;, • I kr 1 , I rl � ' - Yom. ;i <v. � itcJ n F . \ �! ' EmsfageiALSI / y . t :i / a . ._�1 Imp • • `% :d'4 4 MAJOR TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES (REVISED) N. r • I FOCAL POINTS ... I. --•I SCENIC ROADWAYS • ir, %.4: ti.<=s..>.I HISTORICAL STRUCTURES AREA ' . 44 toI!� MAJOR CREEKS AND CHANNELS roc IP CITY OF POWAY COMPREHENSIVt PLAN • CITY - OF POWAY ITEM• 6PA�z 86 - 0/ n2AF'T- • T I T L E : p' /'1/�sine s--tinY SCALE : AlOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT : 2 MAR 18 1986 ITEM • 4 47oF57 ( • CI f1IIIU/1 • ►!f I AIB CI SETSYcr< I fr . Ilii 111111�I�l \,�IIIIIUtIII Io pawil li!III IIIIS irk al k . FRar D R^ SITI►1F� C� ISI 1Z5I0=1.11-I4aL. 5I r<UCTIJR • • • CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA /zioA 86 - O/ f DRAFT- TITLE RAFTTITLE : Racc'EL sAixLshEE Src�Y • 0 - SCALE 'UOr 4-� ATTACHMENT : 5 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 48OF5 , • is . // C,-- . pl_lYSI CA L i . GONSTRAI nit i - f. 7,411 ill Oar;Pr IV 4 •' 1 sya , I HI grip it ra I I e ral `,d : ii I ,C\ 1 r.1I Low FILE 4. SCREEkUE0 # 1 CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6P /uA 56 -0 / . PRAFI- TITLE : MDC'Et-AE/SS/ Sraw-1 SCALE : iUOTre � ATTACHMENT : 6 49 OF 5 "4M""rr2I 1 frT-fr r>— si . fi k ••IIMI � � •• Y �1 f I a 1r I r; ice. '�� ecRM 4 LAN°scAFSGREEP1n.1G • CITY OF POWAY ITEM : Gni/Z(24 B6 D/ PRAFT TITLE : R7o6EtAuE/61/41-S'2 Starry SCALE : iUOT ro SCALE ATTACHMENT : 7 50 OF 5'7 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 • • • \ kigaradrr • .c up enmiiiiiiinsii‘ AA�� IAa a�t' PARALLEL. WITH .Co11TOUP. PaRP=NDICULAR TO COLITOurz J^^ v .7--)cWrcea,_‘ EXTREME STILT- 4. "CA Ur%L vs'J DESIGW15 NOT P`E'RMI'TED • �� I ' I uuI r vi , •��• In �11111t1IIi 'll rt ��i : Gy I 1 Wart-L LTL-L EVE L 6 I I 5INGLE-LEVEL ' IFounIDAToN.1 JFOUNDATI014 PEcinitiz.e.0 r d NOT PERMITTED �‘ I N • • CITY OF POWAY ITEM �'4/ZOA e6-O/ TITLE : R2D6 u /59t•Lsi STUDr SCALE : 4107- Tn SAL-E- ATTACHMENT : 8 OF57 MAR 181986 ITEM 4 S — ; �� t �S.S, � �®A• �r ill r 11 ts, tl 11 BLOCKY c EXTREMEL'( AtJGULA ._ . DESIGUS DISCOURA n ' • /�� al \ If /� rr 1 fl I t • 3 an 1 . ✓ ,r 1�v ST2t1CTURE FITS ►.IATURr1_ L*^IOF zM • I .I . ,IIIA • CITY OF POWAY - ITEM : GP19/ZOA a6-O/ • DRAFT" . TITLE : Rz96ffeiv.E./5942-Si STUDY , • 0 SCALE : DUCT � ATTACHMENT : 9 52AF5 MAR 181986 ITEM I, • a • (-- C— • :, .;_ t.Il u- • • :. ��. r 1s �� ll uuuuwuunuuunuqunlul Luquillo, 11 • pi `l�cw VISUAL IMPACT Or VERTICAL MASS lad I1 or 1 • • • • �y,/\ C1Olibt el 1 .....w 'J Q! . I I '^ I I UIfIUIl,II11IIIIIUIILJ 11, 1 M0 .tett... ,.... d//I' 1 SECOsJD-STORY S TBACK ' REDUCES VISUAL INC'iac- • /511 .! /Wil • CITY OF POWAY ITEM ; GPA/ZOA e6- O/ DRAFT • TITLE : RIcs ivEAiLISAr STUDY . • -SCALE : iUOT rasc4c ATTACHMENT : 1 1 0 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 53 of 5 ® ® . ft 1 en; lL ea. c°1.14 IjV. 1111111110110/1 I -4C7(4) 1. 1.1 Ally � �� iv j1.11Jya1 HILLTOP/RIDcr-rop 1U SITINI[a 4 Dc51CoN I RIDGELUJE RETAINED I I . .. ...‘.,0,, �4 1 I in III I `� Lj� w • IN R RIDGELIUE �}+ ` - ' - I . 1 415UPPLEMFJJTED ft. — 1 Ii'i' a 411_.6 I Litt. _- I I `I 1 I] I CITY OF. POWAY ITEM : 6��/�� 86-o/ pRAF7— TITLE : aoeaw/H'tt£'Z � • Srt�Y C) • SCALE : NOT rip ILC ATTACHMENT : 11 MAR 18 1986 ITEM li 54 of 5 11111 rFt amiti I d ern_ b 4 IIIIIt I . _� I .:+•nm.rrrrni Alittatlk ROCKY HILLSIDE' PARCEL_ la lrI . lifilitmatAkilk •• I , • . ITEM CITY OF POWAY GPA �� -�� DRAFT TITLE : Rirr'et a-/AtiLLsiL1- STUDY r� SCALE : '�`�T Tc) ��9LE ATTACHMENT : 12 $5 0F5� MAR 1 $ MR !TEPA r, 1 ( • 1 134k ,_ EART}{ �.' RET•y =p 6 77. I g MAKI-MADE V • / LLRM / y et. 441 h1ATURAL ; GRADE • • EARTH - SAa—r MI5/l1wDFpRM 8ERr'tnJ FRESEsz.J s vtsu4L UL tr-r or cecrure= CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GP.y/zoA 86- 0/ DRAFT TITLE : R'tagL IE/H/tLS/QC • SCALE : NOT M x4 s ATTACHME 6ITEM �,0 1 3 560E57 \ R • i dllI 4%.' IIIIIIIIIItllllltllllllllll II III Muffin I NONCONiFbgtot ki ] ROOF LINE / I I NATURAL GrZALC I 11 • / "sr I mot � II III II IlUt O / ti 19 S7.. WuI coUFtRMNth "KCt^FGnIE 1 �/ / I I IJATURAL GKAir • • CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA/ZoA 86-of PR-AFT— TITLE RAFTTITLE : RiorEvus/als✓ STUDY SCALE : Nor no s�ter ATTACHMENT : 14 7oF57` MAR 18 i986 IT Fly a RECEIVED CHARLES E. LITTLE 5975 Fairmount Avenue MAR 1 8 1986 San Diego, California 92120 1141;,,Fr-Q r---- March 14, 1986 Poway City Council City of Poway P.O. Box 785 Poway, California 92064 Dear City Council: RE: Ridgeline Building Policy In the absence of a written notice from the City, I have nonetheless learned of the pending adoption of the above captioned standard. I am the owner of Assessor's Parcel No. 321-271-24, which is an 18+ acre parcel of the Millards Valley area of East Poway. My parcel is listed as being subject to this new policy even though only a small portion (maybe 10%) of the parcel is within the Ridgeline boundary. My concerns with the new restrictions are these: 1. I think it is wrong that the City of Poway elected not to notify in writing the property owners of the pending loss of use of their property. I think the ownership of property in this country includes some inherent civil rights for the use of that property. These rights of mine may well be violated by this ordinance and it could have been done without my knowledge. 2. My property is not on a ridge. The fact that I am included in the Ridgeline area demonstrates that the map does not actually reflect the prominent ridgelines in Poway. 3. Not only is my property not on a ridge, it is not visible from any of the major streets or "scenic highways" of Poway. The Millards Valley is screened from the view of the City of Poway and is not even serviced by a public road. A building on my lot will have no visual impact except to adjacent property owners who would already be notified of any proposed construction through the existing Development Review procedures. Protecting the ridges is one thing -- imposing these restrictions on property such as mine is something else altogether. • MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 • RECEIVED • MAR 18 1986 To : Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk, City of P. ay CITY OF POWAY From : Henry and Pat Johnson (Mr . and Mrs . Wm. H . J.hnnciCLERK'SOFFICE Re : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-01 , AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 86-01 We would like to see the above General Plan Amendments defeated . Henry Johnson has owned property on the Green Valley Truck Trail since 1948 . He has lived on this property and worked in Poway since that time . The Johnsons feel it is time, long time Poway residents , were heard . The Johnsons have invested time and money in developing their acreage as a ranch . However, there comes a time when the investment of land must support the owners . In the.fcase of the Johnsons , that time has come . We feel the Ridgeline/Hillside Study recommending new policies and standards intended to guide residential development within the study area (The Johnson ranch is in this area ) , "in an orderly, aesthetic, and environmentally sensitive fashion, " are too restrictive and subject to judgements • by elected and appointed city officials who ' s aesthetic values seem questionable . To illustrate this objection I point to three developments that, in the Johnsons aesthetic opinion, are not in the best interests of the City of Poway or its ' citizenry. 1 . The Daddy Long Legs like, housing project directional signs located on all major arterys in the city. 2 . The peeled , post , trail structors , that are scattered around the city and lead from nowhere to nowhear . 3 . The Twin Peaks road extension from Midland Road to Community Road . As tax paying citizens our money has been spent on the above eyesores . Frankly, we would much rather see a house off on a distant ridgeline than have to confront daily the aesthetic and dangerous , ( in the case of the Twin Peaks road extension) developments listed above . If the City of Poway does pass General Plan Amendment 86-01 and private property owners are restricted from developing their properties , we feel the City should have to purchase this land . If the City and a majority of its citizens wants to view building free ridgelines , then they should buy the property for that restricted purpose . Pat /2"4"4" - • MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 March 11 . 1986 Mayor Kruse and Members of the City Council RECEIVED .a City of Poway i . Hand Carried MAR 14 1986 Poway. CA CITY OF POWAY '_f CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: THE RIDGELIKE BUILDING POLICY Dear Mayor Kruse and Council Members: Don Mechling and I have reviewed the proposed Ridgeline Building Policy and have listed below what we consider to be some ambiguities_, potential sources of misinterpretation and some suggestions and requests to facilitate the implementation of these standards without, in our opinion, reducing their effectiveness. We have separated these items into general items of concern and then specific suggestions as to actual language alterations. GENERAL: A cursory comparison of the map depicting the "major topographical features" as contained in the General Plan and the Assessor' s parcel number list of properties subject to this proposed Ordinance reveals that the Ridgeline Policy will be imposed on many parcels that are in fact not on any ridgelines. The inaccuracies of the map cause the inclusion of parcels that are in fact located in lowland mesas and lowland valleys. There are parcels that will be covered by this Ordinance that are not even visible from any public streets at all . There is also uncertainty regarding the application of this Policy to parcels that are only partially within the Ridgeline boundaries. Will the Policy be applied to, say, a 20 acre parcel if only 1 acre is within the Ridgeline boundary? Or will the Ridgeline review not be necessary if the proposed structure is not within the boundary even if a portion of the lot is? We believe that a superior means of application of this Ordinance would be to specifically list covered parcels by parcel number to clarify the inaccuracies of the map. This list of parcels has already been tabulated by the Planning Department and would require little additional effort to insert into the Ordinance. This would relieve the confusion regarding which properties are covered and provide for a more specific and accurate review of the parcels to be included. SPECIFIC: Referring to the March 18 Agenda Report, page 17. "Residential Zones" Section 17. 08. 180, Special Requirements, we submit the MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 following alterat*s of the language propose or the purpose of additional clarity. 1 . Paragraph 2: The last sentence of this paragraph makes reference to a review of a project' s impact on the "visual character and visual quality of the site' s natural features. " We are talking about an impact on a ridgeline that may be visible from miles away. We believe the ordinance ought to be more specific regarding the review process, and the submittals required of the builder to help quantify the cost of complying with this requirement. 2. Paragraph Several provisions of this Ordinance call for the installation of berms as a mitigation measure which we believe are likely to violate the Grading Ordinance. This Ordinance should stipulate which Ordinance will prevail in the event of a conflict, such as whichever is the more restrictive (requires the least grading. ) 3. Paragraph 5 stipulates that multi-level foundations are to be considered the standard. There are, based upon our initial review of the' F:idgeline Map, several level lots covered by this Ordinance. Purusant to this Paragraph 5, these lots will still be required to split level . A remedy of this contradiction would be to simply delete this first sentence of Paragraph 5. 4. Paragraph 6 makes reference to the consideration of "view corridors" . On a clear day the "view corridor " could extend from the top of Poway Grade to the Pacific Ocean. We think the concept of a "view corridor" should be narrowed to the view from below the site and propose rewording this Paragraph as follows: " In the preliminary siting of residential structures, view corridors emanating from lower elevated public places, lower elevated directly adjoining residential properties, and lower elevated designated scenic highway, should be determined and considered. " 5. Paragraphs 8 and 12 stipulate the installation of berms as a visual screen for roads, driveways, and structures. Berms present significant engineering complications, will require considerably more grading, will likely render a project so conditioned to be undesireabale and unmarketable and, in our opinion. are of little or no value as a visual mitigation measure. An emphasis on landscaping is appropriate and sufficient. The requirement for earthen berms should be deleted or at least used only as a last resort in extreme circumstances. 6. Paragraph 17 stipulates that in some cases the Director of Planning Services can site the dwelling on the "least-impacted" portion of the lot. This also may render the dwelling undesireable and unmarketable and deserves further clarification and definition. 7. Paragraph 18 makes very little sense at all . It needs to be either deleted or clarified. MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 B. Paragraph 19 *ears to stipulate that a Siication of permanent open space can be required as a condition of issuance of a Building Perncit - not a subdivision map, not a variance or a conditional use permit. but a Building Permit on an existing lot. This may be a lot that the Cit•; of Poway already approved the subdivision or parcel map , possibly even already required a dedication of open space, and already approved the grading plans, and already approved the improvement plans. and already inspected the installation of the improvements and grading and then require an additional dedication of open space as a condition of Building Permits. This is wrong. If the City wants an open space dedication, then the time -is as a condition of a map - not as a condition of building. This stipulation should be deleted. 9. Paragraph 21 offers no definition of "density of development" . Further clarification and/or definitions need to be provided . We believe that each of the above items is worthy of staff attention. We do not believe any of our proposed clarifications constitute a significant change in the Ordinance and could be implemented after the completion of the public hearing but before formal adoption of the Ordinance. By way of summary, let me reiterate the more serious of our concerns. They are: 1 . The potential requirement to dedicate open space as a condition of a Building Permit, 2. The installation of earthen berms as a visual mitigation measure, and 3 . The stipulation of a "split-level " slab as the standard slab configuration within the Ridgeline Area. Please understand that , even though it would be our preference, we are not asking that these standards not be adopted. We understand the desires of the Council and are trying to work within those objectives. We do, however , feel very strongly that the inclusion of suggestions contained will not detract from the ojbectives of the Ordinance, but will facilitate the implementation of the Ordinance and lessen somewhat the burden of the Ridgline property owners. Sincerely, a John R. Mullin MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 nI ® ® Residential �1 I� and Commercial M & M DEVELOPERS, INC. Construction 14021 MIDLAND ROAD LIC. No. 343245 P3034Z 2Oct axitblE6eE2fr POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064 • (619)278-7140 • (619)486-0771 RECEIVED , March 13, 1986 MAR 14 1986 . CITY OF POWAY Mr. Carl Kruse, Mayor CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Poway P.O. Box 785 Poway, California 92064 RE: Proposed Ridgeline Building Policy Dear Carl: Since I will not be able to attend the Council Meeting on March 18, I wish to present by this letter my request for clarifi- cation regarding the effective date of the proposed Ridgeline Building Policy and its application to already submitted projects. Projects that are considered to be "in the pipeline" are typically exempted from changes in the development standards. I propose that, regarding the application of the proposed Ridgeline Building Policy, "in the pipeline" be defined as "having been submitted for Development Review." To submit a project for Development Review requires a considerable effort and the expenditure of considerable sums of money. M b M Developers is currently involved with two proposed custom homes (Mowen and Seipel residences) and one luxury spec home (Lot 4 of Monte Vista Highlands) in this stage of approval. In each case, the property has already been purchased; in two of the three, the building plans have been completed and ready to submit to plan check; and, construction financing is already in place on one of the three. All this was done pursuant to and with good faith reliance upon the building standards currently in effect. Projects this far along should not be subjected to rule changes and should be exempted from the new standards of the Ridgeline Building Policy -- preferably by the addition of specific language to this effect in the Ordinance MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 Mr. Carl Kruse, Mayor Page 2 March 13, 1986 Thank you for your time and attention. If I can provide any additional information or be of any further service, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, M & M DEVELOPERS, INC. John R. Mullin President JRM:km cc: City Clerk Members of the Council • MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 ® • :i. 12630 Monte Vista Road Suite 203 i®_ Poway, California 92064 ® URBAN ECONOMICS, INC. (619) 487-8181 13 March 1986 RECEIVED. Mr. Carl Kruse MAR 14 1986 Mayor, City of Poway t Y OF AY POW 13325 Civic Center Drive CITY CITYOFPO AY Poway. California 92064 Dear Mayor Kruse: I am writing you concerning the application of the proposed new zoning regulations concerning the construction of single family residences in ridgeline and hillside areas. One year ago. when the Poway City Council first began focusing on the issue of construction standards for ridgeline and hillside areas. I met with Mr. Barry Hogan, then the Director of Planning Services for the City of Poway, as to whether a lob which I wanted to purchase, was located in the area of Major Topographic Features as shown on page 145. Figure 9 of the Comprehensive Plan. He indicated to me that the property was outside of that designated area. Consequently, it would be reviewed by the staff pursuant to its standard Minor Development Review standards, and would not have to be submitted to the City Council. Enclosed is a copy of the letter from Mr . Hogan, dated 3 April 1985 . Based on this information from the planning department, I purchased the 4 acre parcel, APN 275-031-29. and commenced my plans for the construction of a single family house on that property in conformance with all zoning and building code requirements as they applied to that property. To date. the working drawings for the house have been prepared. An application for a Minor Development Review has been submitted to the City. Grading plans have been submitted and approved, and a grading permit has been issued for the lot. A bank loan for the acquisition and development of the lot has been obtained. I have spent more than $250 ,000 on this property since I obtained the opinion letter from Mr . Hogan. Quite accidentally two weeks ago, I discovered that my property was now considered to be within the ridgeline and hillside area, even tho there was no notice to me and no public hearing on the matter. I set up an appointment with Mr. James Bowersox and Mr. John Bridges to discuss my house building plans, which was held on Friday, March 7th. MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 • 1j9' Mr. Carl Kruse 13 March 1986 �e _. -- Page Two After reviewing my building plans with Mr. Bowersox, I had the impression that the plans conformed to most if not all of the proposed construction and siting standards. However, Mr. Bridges has requested me to prepare detailed horizontal topographic studies before the planning staff can complete its review and approval of my Minor Development Review application. In as much as I was informed by the City Planning Department that this lot was not included in the areas of major topographical features, before I purchased my property and began my plans, I do not think that the proposed regulations should be applied to my Minor Development Review application. This is especially true, since the house plans appear to conform to the proposed standards, as indicated in my meeting with Mr. Bowersox. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, 'i'1 ECOWO I S ASSOCIATES, INC. •h 1 • J. tzen Presi, -nt ' Enclo- ' re 2 AZAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 / tJTY OF PowAlY ,� .�q BOB EMERY, Mayor G j CARL KRUSE, Deputy Mayor BRUCE TARZY,Cnuncilmember /I LINDA ORAVEC.Councilmembcr ,• MARY SHEPARDSON,Councilmembn y`'w: (i� IN nil Coca° April 3, 1985 Mr. Phil Butzen 12630 Monte Vista Road, Suite 203 Poway, CA 92064 Dear Mr. Butzen: Pursuant to your discussion with the Planning Services Department staff regarding properties affected by the adoption of a resolution requiring Minor Development Review approval by the City Council, the official map indicates that your property (Parcel 3 of PM 13357) is rot located within a designated shaded area. Therefore, future Minor Development Review approval for' this parcel is subject to staff level approval. Should you have any further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, r' 17 ry K. gogan irector of Planning vices BKH: EG:is Enclosure MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 • \ City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive `Mailing Address: P.O. Boz 789, Poway, California 92064 (619) 748-6600, (619) 695-1400 11 � aIJEu *4lg t.1u ni • ii , �.•. *fH Amalt ,.....1,11 S- t N ..= mess Mil = A- 70;ter�� _Ir. L • /111% nri�li \ �� A- 70- 8 A- 7 C- 35 s----,; .� :ntz ra !i .; *i•.`/ A- 70- 2 ��i . ' • A- 70- 8 I f ,�ilfi�allj �s, s - $ atnnumreaii ® • r IIIMIIIII C 'nntta�U ' , maul : +. �� tnumhI.- „nnnl`�y .z. nvitipi-- .. altttsi .T:- S _ ILI� �t�. III I man 4e.. .`.n Ial ■ , . ..,.,,.,! s,. A- 4 it 11r. ft !� R_ _ ■a.■■■�t �`:�;,.�. . : _r�':; � 1111. :.rr�_�. sa ss . � i•-q...., ..- --�llt . .. Swi a •,. ill ••,71, . ;,•4;;ALL.;k;•,..:::-, limint na Ai * 1.: - - pm E z<•,, . A Thill<': fTT'� ce i _ 1 ;a los plumb WA F . n• el ale R W- r .1("N n�n� Er.l :tai+ q/ `I - - R- I I. - s- 4 Za 'fib, ` Er- i r \' po MI s.• �u - •h w ii= _� • / ^ , • ..ice L-1 IG ilI �s anima 'AD sitiWkw . ---- ri " Wali- 37Cc-1214 raI - IIN r �`aI f-:tt `e � ' .-u i i. �iiI' , l 7o. I it , =at ■SS, '1 I 1� .�� ,- ,A`t j� ,�• \ a\ =A �� Z tib;;\1 �. � . :r':, I j I I ri ILr 5 .':. Mk��® �� R` t • t. r, MAR 18 1986 ITEM ) 144 M� ! KI II I- ,. , - J.-rs -l - ... , -- . 11n1.:.. 1f-11 1 ,.-_: ®RECEIVED MAR 111986 f{� • CITY OF POWAY ,//4"" • • CITY CLERK'S•OFFICE • • Poway City Council Attn: City Clerk - • I oppose the. adoption of the General Plan Amend- ment 86-01 and the ordinance# of the .same numbers. The map accompanying the notice would make one half of my property in High Valley subject to the • new quirements (wh'atever they are) . The affected • ' half is the most desirable building sit4 It is . nearest Eastvale Road, best drained and has a modest , view of the other side (south side) of High Valley. It is not on a ridge line, the slope is less that 15%, the grading would be minimal and it • is not visible from down town Roway. I see no reason for the inclusion of the part of my land in the new •rest rictions. And /request the exclusio% of it. I also oppose the entire ordinance. It is an anti view site policy. As anyone knows the. only reason for builing a home on a non tract site in Poway if for somthing of .a view. In High Valley-, the prentt tiro acres zonggg will certainly protect theenviroment. So why don' t yomf4 stop • • - adding requiremtns that have to be policed by • more and more staff. • /�i EA 5T- AE o/!D • • P ak y 4, iy-: 1--ko61 ` j oin ; huN0 r' a , • `\fr. K` n 0' _ r ". :'• r1:°i; ' '�" .. • W 3 � zyy ` 3 � ti W i N 2 ' Cah am� ti �.' h o • f I_ Q ..i' I- h d ti \. • �_ \ N • • r (. WW is O ' CV • ='' II • • Mza • r w • . . .. .i: 1. "+r . . 'Od GNV101W . . 'i - Z crN • • F > u w f2 • "+ M.Z 4.B1.01.1� I • .. .. ca zva 1..ire i6 Oat h Ra YFi •. . . Qe •'-r . Q :• li Sh ry It a ft, . q a. <N :,' •a O O w • Q Soo 0 • ' it il . - .$. a • • :r� . • c • a R' ,..I ' . PON it 4 .00 • . a.c'vvc it" • . DEI. rn � ., l .,` �': o, o i LSEEI Nal . a r '• . . _ ,N a no cc u:. 10 ••-•-... . 6 .. Om a Ti r —. • .. . , < Nm '4 I' a a 5 .tet • Q nq±.et w • e a c "� a Q :,: � n $ o 0 0 ., LSEEIYvd �'-, i . : , •=r: . o O3 O„ Oo . Oo . eS-/rr �.....-.egw1• at ay ROW r".ts,,AV . 290911d • (4,1) 1 a n O Q • 56 69Z/ .~..,,r,Id.OA/ I* ' $ . . : • M 3 1 ' N ®D w ¢ 0o�o q a .a in n v J On V a a 3 OO 5. s 0 IN o ,© I • 1 06 vet/ M..6i.6F.ON 2 M o n' I o . . n < • ti ti a a N J – v O01 . I L9 ex!/ M.,O'/Off,ON • .. ^ VI Q a Cr u , • m c a a m h i- - � o y . o0 ° MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4 t '41 — ze09 IN n •896/ . N •77 • •/ _ M.6d.7Zv/A' 09YLSZ y • ♦— r\ r — sic • B