Item 7 - City Council Workshop on the Proposed Ridgeline/Hillside Ordinance GENDA REPORT /\ QF )-
// CITY OF POWAY
• THE
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manai0\ - •
INITIATED BY: Reba W. Touw, Director of Planning ervices N`
James R. Nessel , Associate Planner
DATE: July 10 , 1986
SUBJECT: City Council Workshop on the Proposed
Ridgeline/Hillside Ordinance
BACKGROUND
On April 29 , 1986 , the City Council held second reading on the
proposed Ridgeline/Hillside Ordinance (Ordinance No. 187/ZOA
86-01 ) . Following discussion of the proposed ordinance , the
Council voted unanimously to refer the proposed ordinance back to
staff and to have the item brought back at a future Council
workshop.
ANALYSIS
The proposed Ridgeline/Hillside Ordinance was prepared by Staff
subsequent to a comprehensive study which Staff conducted over a
period of several months during 1985 .
As Council is aware, the subject study generated three specific
documents : a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 86-01 )
amending the text and graphics of the General Plan related to the
development of land located within the ridgeline/hillside areas
of the City; a companion Zoning Ordinance Amendment ( ZOA 86-01 )
amending the Zoning Development Code (Title 17 of Poway Municipal
• Code) regarding new property development standards in residential
zones ; and, the proposed official City of Poway Major
Topographical Features Map which depicts the areas of the City in
which the said topographical features are found .
For additional background information and reference , the subject
study , proposed General Plan Amendment Resolution , and proposed
Ordinance are attached to this report as Attachments 1 , 2 , and 3 ,
respectively .
F
/ ACTION: 7-10-86_0ouncii concurred for staff to procccd._ Terrain sensitive grading
ordinance and review of hillside landscaping requirements are needed.
M. Jahls e , city Clerk IUL 10 1986 ITEM' 7 _dd.
1-of 62
•
Agenda Report
July 10 , 1986
Page 2
Specific Concerns/Objections to Proposed Ordinance
As Council recalls , the proposed ordinance was the subject of
several public hearings at which a substantial amount of public
testimony was taken . The major concerns/objections raised by the
public were in the following areas :
1 . The proposed ordinance is vague and confusing.
2 . The proposed ordinance is too restrictive .
3 . The requirement for specific colors and materials of struc-
tures is excessive and unnecessary.
4 . The requirement for one-story structures in some areas would
cause property devaluation .
5 . The proposed ordinance could be subject to legal challenge .
6 . The proposed "Major Topographical Features Map" was
questioned as to its accuracy , and that the map, as presently
drawn , includes properties which are surrounded by hillsides
and ridges , are not seen from lower elevations , or are other-
wise topographically screened from surrounding views .
At the April 29 public hearing , Council specifically directed
Staff to:
o Delete the restrictive color requirement language from the
body of the ordinance; and ,
o Refine the proposed "features map" to depict only those
areas of the City to which the ordinance standards would
precisely apply.
Staff is uncertain about the nature and extent of other changes
desired by Council .
Major Topographical Features Map
The subject map prepared by Staff for Council ' s prior con-
sideration is a 1 ,000 foot scale base map of the City . This map
depicts current property lines as well as dedicated streets and
roads .
2_8f ' 62 JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
Agenda Report
July 10 , 1986
Page 3
The peripheral boundary of the areas of "major features" was
established by utilizing a 1 ,000 foot scale slope category map and
the set of U.S.G.S. contour line maps which comprise the City of
Poway. The slope map used to plot the subject boundary consists of
three slope categories : 0-15 percent, 15-30 percent, and 30
percent and above.
The boundary line was drawn at a point where the natural grade
approaches 15 percent slope and above. The "major features" area
proposed by Staff comprised about 11, 000 acres consisting of
approximately 800 individual parcels of land. It was suggested
that exceptions could be made as necessary by variance procedures
as development was proposed .
Proposed Refinements to "Major Features" Map
Staff has obtained a preliminary draft set of slope category maps
prepared by VL Systems, the mapping firm that maintains the City ' s
base maps . These maps are provided as wall exhibits at today ' s
workshop.
These draft maps are of the Boulder Mountain/Twin Peaks Mountain
area located east of Pomerado Road. This area is representative of
many areas within the community which contain the topographic
features in question . The maps are at a scale of 200 feet per inch
and include property lines and street rights-of-way . The five
slope categories depicted on these maps are differentiated by boun-
dary lines and symbols , and consist of the following ranges of
slope:
0% - 10%
10% - 15%
15% - 20%
20% - 25%
25% and above
3 of 62 JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
•
Agenda Report
July 10, 1986
Page 4
Under a current contract with the City , VL Systems will prepare a
complete set of 200 foot scale slope category maps which encom-
pass the entire City area. The final map product will provide
Staff with a greater level of detail in the area of slope analy-
sis . The methodology used to determine the peripheral boundary
of each slope category was by combining a manual measurement of
topographic contour lines with a special computer software
package. The resultant category boundary represents an accurate
depiction of the relationship between an existing parcel of land
and the degree of slope on which it is situated. With this
detailed slope information, Staff would be able to accurately
identify, by existing property lines , which parcels fall within
each slope category. This information can also be used to deter-
mine the specific parcels, or portions of parcels , that would not
be subject to the proposed ordinance standards.
It should be noted that the completion date for the set of city-
wide slope maps is approximately 3-4 months away and therefore,
Staff would not be able to commence further analysis until then.
Also, the five slope categories shown on the draft maps will be
combined on the final product into three categories which conform
to the current General Plan categories . These consist of: 0-15%,
15-25% , and , 25% and above.
Terrain Sensitive Grading
Some time ago the City Council directed Staff to undertake a
study which would address terrain sensitive grading, and to for-
mulate new regulations which would amend the City ' s Grading
Ordinance. Many of the proposed General Plan policies and pro-
perty development standards which came from the original
"Ridgeline/Hillside Study" are directly related to grading and
the creation of man-made slopes .
These policies and standards address the following areas of
potential landform alteration and associated impacts .
o The design, configuration, orientation, and development
of lots .
o Access roads or driveways serving structures .
o The limitation of grading to that area necessary for the
development of a lot, including approved accessory
structures .
o Maintenance of rock outcrops and mature indigenous
trees .
4 of 62 JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
® •
Agenda Report
July 10 , 1986
Page 5
o Visual impacts associated with grading activity on
hillsides and ridgelines .
o The orientation of single-level structures parallel with
natural contours .
o Multi-level foundations for structures proposed on slopes
that exceed 25 percent .
o The minimum grading necessary to support a cantilever or
stilt-type structure.
o Structural setbacks from adjoining downhill slopes to
minimize the visual impact of the structure on surrounding
areas .
o Grading required for earth-sheltered structures .
o Geotechnical considerations which may limit the location
and extent of grading activity.
The above list illustrates that the scale and intensity of develop-
ment within the ridgeline/hillside areas of the community is
directly associated with grading activity. Therefore, Staff would
suggest that any modifications to the proposed hillside/ridgeline
ordinance be synthesized with the terrain sensitive grading study
and its recommendations . This approach would result in amendments
to the General Plan and Municipal Code which are consistent and
compatible.
Staff anticipates that preparation of a terrain sensitive grading
ordinance would take about 3 months .
Unresolved Issues
Staff requests Council ' s clarification and/or further direction on
the following issue areas . Many of these issues are contained in
the proposed ordinance as presently drafted .
1 . Should the Ridgeline Ordinance preceed the Terrain
Sensitive Grading Study, visa versa , or should these issues
be treated simultaneously?
2 . Should specific guidelines be prepared for grading
including quantification of the amount and extent of
grading?
5 of 62 JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
Agenda Report
July 10 , 1986 •
Page 6
3. Should the City regulate:
o Structure height and location on a topographic feature;
o Structural setback from adjoining downhill slopes;
o Architectural design, including multi-level foun-
dations , second-story setbacks, etc;
o Roof slope conformance with natural grade;
o Cantilever/stilt structure projection over natural
grade;
o Location and design of driveways and access roads;
o Landscape screening of a structure without diminishing
views from a structure;
o Orientation of structure on hillside lot?
4 . Are lot configuration, orientation, and design appropriate
considerations at the conceptual stage of development/land
subdivison?
5 . Are the 200 foot scale base/slope maps adequate for the
level of detail and accuracy desired?
6. Does Council wish Staff to conduct a "parcel-by-parcel"
analysis when determining the specific areas subject to the
proposed ordinance?
7 . What is the time frame desired by Council for Staff to
complete the Terrain Sensitive Grading Study and revised
Ridgeline/Hillside Ordinance?
8 . Are there additional areas of concern which the Council
wishes to address in the ordinance?
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Additional environmental assessment may be required for proposed
amendments to the General Plan , Zoning Development Code, and
Grading Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept and file this
report, and give Staff additional direction on how to proceed with
this matter .
JLB:RWT;JRN:pn
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
6 of 62
( AGENDA REPORT �'•
CITY OF POWAY )4
ti ,
cc r=.= c'<
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
lb
FROM: ‘. a
James L. Bowersox, City Mana...
INITIATED BY : John E. Bridges , Acting Director of Planning Services
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.
, /
ACTION: .
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
MAR 16 1986 ITEM 4 _.__t# •
7 of 62 Afltr uMet I r 4
••
<. • ( , ® •
•
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. 85-01T
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;
J 10 1986 I T E M 1Z
APR UL 15 1986 ITEM 4
8 of"'62 '
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.
•
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
_ MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
9 of 62
•
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 . Th'e 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 . APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
10 of 62 • JUL 10 1986 ITEM 11 _ MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
• c• c•
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 .
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4 •
11 of "62 JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7 610R 18 1986 ITEM 4
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 .
•
JM 1' •
APRUL 10 15 19861986 ITEM 4
12 of 62 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
C® 0
•
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. JUL 10 1986 ITEM 111 '
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4 •
13:. o f; 62 MAR 18 1985 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 rikEllig ffSt ITEM 7 -
,
•
APR 15 1985 ITEM 4
1:4'of - 62_ MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
40
• 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 . APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
15 of 62 JUL 10 1986 ITEM '1 . M1AR 18 1986 ITEM 4 •
•
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 tbpographical 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 .
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
'16tof 62 h1AR 18 1986 ITEM 4
•
S
•
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. Pr000sed 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.
JUL 10 19186 ITEM 7
• APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
17 of 62 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
• ® ®
•
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 .
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
APR 15 1985 ITEM 4
61AR 18 1986 ITEM 4
11 18 'of 62
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.
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 1.
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
1` 19 of 62 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
® • ®.
• 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 strdcture, 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 . JULR 110 1986 ITEM I -
MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
• 20 of 62
•
• • 110
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 .
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 'I •
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
21 of 62
• 0 ® O.
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 Ridae "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 .
JUL 10 1986 ITEM
APR 15 1986 IT t iN 4
22' of' 62 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
• S ® . •
Agenda Report
March 18 , 1986
Page 17
•
Chanter 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.
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 1 '
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
2'3 of 62 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 . APR 15 1986 I7tret 4
JUL 10
24 'of 62 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
e . .e
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.
JUL 10 1986 ITEM I
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4
25 of .62 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
•
0. ®®
•
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
•
•
JUL 10 1986 ITEM e
APR 15 1986 ITLM 4 •
-L26`of - 62
MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
e . ...
6-- --\\
. , COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES
. . .
......,•.- I -77-5. . .T.Y:.1
stfrz ,- =. I I
/ I . ,e7 .,t.z
.-‘// c :,
• ' —12I *i.::.7;1-7
4 i /el '; Tt---1::: ;:ii<1
--.
) . •- ;- 1 - 1 ,'
'
/
i • / j I
/ (i— !. 1,:
,; \ I
J)
0 /
/ . :I
>ii / i i / --• iy:f1:::5: . -1,
• ./
:k-i-•\— -- ;":"
;;:-' I P r-c).
i , , 0 1 ..
rif..-31-r-2_ 1 ,,
i
/ ;t7..:iii-:-..,---_i: •- , 0 .< .:: i
fr3
.. ...
1% /., ..1 .• .
0,st •mi.. ::: 3. . i
r ''f-'Ltlilizt;:•";=:: :s .--/
i • i _ 2.`. -,•->---
I
x t,f2EUP
7 % P77751 MAJOR TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES
. : '... /MCMi FOCAL POINTS
.....,
i SCENIC ROADWAYS
-
: riN r----,1 HISTORICAL STRUCTURES AREA
4 t" W MAJOR CREEKS AND CHANNELS
- Flea_lat I •
CITY OF POWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN •
66-0/
CITY OF POWAY • ITEM : GPA /zoA
neAP-r-
T IT L E : iala-iviLLE/4
•
_ /./.07---
JUL 1 0 1986 ITEM 7- ..i
SCALE • Alcr r° sole-a- ATTACHMENT : I
\... •• — APR 15 1986 II tIVI 4
L_ 27 of 62: MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
: ® ®•
COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES
.4.941
:-
i I
r '' a-,
► fY�
/_
i �. I - ,. ....._. . 1
�c .5 a1. ! 4 .. p •a
I �` 4`I
/ . l', 1 tc)-- " -
.....„,,, ,r. ...,.. •
p
( LEQENP
MAJOR TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES (REVISED)
\.` 0 FOCAL POINTS
`..": L--4 SCENIC ROADWAYS '
HISTORICAL STRUCTURES AREA
4 W MAJOR CREEKS AND CHANNELS MOST
CITY OF POWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : G, /ZOA 56 -OJ
/DRAFT
TITLE : PIDGE/� 5/N'LLsi�
APR 15 1986 - t IVI r 4
SCALE • ,i°r m Sc.(-E �LCHMENT : 2
JUL 10 1986 IT Em 1
28 of 62 1.1AR 19 j0°S- ITEM 1.
9
COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES
_! \ill--,
4 v Li i -.2.--..r:-...::::.i
I / F
/
tL1 • I `�
0 ff
I
1 Q'/' r---1,-..-- 1 , : . 1 — a )
ff
F- - 1 r r-- :O i'J
.% *
t LEGEND
. - 1. P-r:-.•l MAJOR TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES
�� O FOCAL POINTS
, L I SCENIC ROADWAYS
i _
� =3 HISTORICAL STRUCTURES AREA
4--{ MAJOR CRSS AND CHANNELS rgwe
Y CITY OF POWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
7* - AREAS 0P DEveLcPnaAJr Ccc/C, rRAr/ac./
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6/31 /z,,A 86 -01
. .A2.4,---7-
T I T L E
A2 rTITLE : R'o&etA/E/H/LSCC
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 1 ' m,7-
SCALE : morra sCLE- ATT& MLNTIJEM 4 3
1,198 1R 19A6 ITEM 4
L19 of 62'
0® .40
rLr _ \
•
f
Af
•
� F� a 4-e �p"� ce, SV. 0
r it ,r•rt'�• it k xi r (:.�UnAt 1t •nt
:-V A Yf : r fit..[Vr '4r 4•P' Atli
¢'e A "\' r.',/",:'• r-N..,S/i v t -t v
1 r. t'rJ -:-:.T+.x��i 7'tQ:.- .t ,}YL1,Nr;ma 'a
. , A Y Y••rrs4 ��
ir,
�•
tSA�'ti�u� .{tw tit ..w..-.
iSX-
w •A' a. �yv3.. o0 d
�,}A? A• l�J.r4 nw'r {f •auw t -. , �M.r ®o r�
8 144°
.:. -tact/446
�0•C• : it } .• AA!`Sx{,vr'1+'r v;,- Y 000 . ���Or
/4 �li :::•-�h ' •r.•'} '•Aid'" pA00®I. 0 >+.` .. .M
fdw.r tr re .w•..e.i-4:9 - ,p r.J-e.. 000® �•...
+yF�!4r r•,� fr:,p s r }tJ L
p•Jr�x wWf rf- a f3 .: Ftp I
•
t ff -•.•r W !f' �•j•
:{�.fa_. tr6 :` - `.! �yf{w}'.tt `r?kY3C2{VX f ?- :
rot+�-�.. :. A._ � y:. Y® ` .a :: . , ,
fP� •
:ccir
} Yf : �xa•✓^it r;4µ Q}4 'fa7tC a •� � ''' r'9s -
'.3�w' •h 10.0✓,fulrC+$7 !IOtJSy'''- r .,,A'— ' w.. j
-,.•• -•-•::•:,••
»}%,3y ..see_••rrA,....:. I�� --eriAt i ::.
,,w� 7 NrjM4t 0 lrK�� nom."t?� . ."-- v _
Y !r--a A'':5:::srr -` .1 w. 0. sF •y .
JA.y�.{- liY r ruaP+ l"4 a fC;a3-•:'• 9.
f/�:1.0.;,,'tri.rze;v e, a ;wdt3.�. _ -
t. !.
SLOPE CATEGORY EXISTING "WORST CASE" CONDITION
PARCEL SIZE: ' 40 ACRES
�. 0 - 15% ZONING: ' RR-A
AVERAGE SLOPE: ABOVE 25%
15 - 30% • PRESENT ACCESS: NONE
MAX. DENSITY: 2 LOTS (WITH WATER)
wita, ABOVE 30% •oeoemeeooeee PROMINENT RIDGE.
of
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA /1°A 86 -0 '
ZRAFT
TITLE :
T07986
N�///rcLvocJUI. �j M 7 -
SCALE : NOT uALE ATT APR 15 1986 ITEM
4
30 of 62
f •
•
. .
•
•
•
•
141,1, 5ETD1 cK
''��;1�� � 11x41
III°IU thIintAI,IL. lWLiQiii i CurtU 11111'U!tI}�uI . . w
lui�
I
Fr=rCR-DSitr�.IC� Cts �fl�rly�
FL51¢1.tTIt.L 5� KU-Cr-tilt=
•
r
•
5
CD•
CITY OF POWAY ITEM :. GPA /zOA $‘ - p/ co
PRAFr
TITLE : '4ioG=`i`r=�Hiczsiz� -�
J
APR 15 19t4'cVA 4
SCALE : 'v� � ATTACHMENT : 5
• 31 of 62 MAR 18 1986 ITEM 4
•
•
•
•
r�lYSICAL..
Gums-TRA1 nST i
•
/ \ 40-•= t S 1-I ( II Ipl 1( p11114'ldVlll6'A IJ11111
® ' 0111InIUJ I II
/
;� 1 pail/
II
I1�b�r ii1 ^ Low PROFILE E SCREEIUEO
J` +1.1191
.
•
•
• U=
CITY OF POWAY ITEM 91/zoA 66-ocr
TITLE : Pioc-.Ev.ce:/Hx-e-.siz6
STUDY-
• SCALE • Nor rt) SCALE-
ATTACHMENT : 6
MAR 1 : cm
32 of 62
APR 15 1986 1TEM &
•
•
49
•
•
/00
•
ft K
't • •
P YY 1.....,••••••1YI �t1
� iawu pyiu:t�l
•
lj!
1cRM L nit)Sc.AF. SCRcctdIUG
•
•
•
• CITY OF POWAY ITEM ; GPM/ZOA r36-o/
•
TITLE : RiDG.:U.t�/HiLtSi2Le
•
JUL i 0 7986 Ftr Y1 •
SCALE : .v°r rn `�LC ATTACHMENT : _ 7
APR 15 1986 ITEM 4 /
33 of "62 (MR 18 1966 ITEM 4
•
•
..17),. y.,,,
PARAr l --L WtTld .CouTOUR.. FERPaMDICULAR TO cnkrrouic
cC.. 41 / _ -.� .- } 2
•
_ ter/ ,
EX TEMr STILT 4. CA kITI L—aVTZ
DESIGu5 NOT ?ER MITrWD
•
NJ
IS
/_ � /
. � .
I» o _ • ['�// IVIIII11mil. liwyr
- r:• .i IIIIIIIIVpd
111
r IJIdUgIUYII/jiulllulglltlpurNul 0V� 7 t roto"
mu' •
Illl,ll�l/l /IOIIJ MULTI-LEVE L
• \• �rl !rlrll� SIIJGL LVcL .ruIP Four.lDA.TIoss
-11 iv" i FOUAIOAriokl � ;I� REl�UIi��D •
J�' NOT PERMITtED -.1`
An
• •
CITY OF P0WAY ITEM : �'4/ M 86-��
DRAFT
• TITLE : Rip 6-5445/#11-4.£'zL
•
JUL 10 1986 TrEir T -
SCALE : 'tier 77) scg4C ATTACHMENT : 8
\. ari.
-34 -of 62
APR 15 1986 ITEM b
• S •
1
I
•
-,--4* T-\
t,� - 4� '11111 ill16
a1,1' 1'11
r"R`i‘. ' ""� ��•.1',/&,:-.->^cam.. plllllldl wurrWlu mUl 11 , l
tit. ;,ems 1,1111,
lIIL
Ip is.
eLOGKI' F ►XTREM=L`" ANIGULAr _ Ill 9q
•
DESIG4S DISCOUR4r-E--n I' •
� , 1 La
q 1111111 iiiIIP Ze 'u1111111uullllu' I
m
II VIII
_„ kl pl in 1111111 11
•
V-1 1 STRUCTURE' Firs NIATUAAL- Iat' RoszM
.it pJ l'
:011110
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6/1'11 /Z°4 BC-O/
• ,77/2.4F7
—
TITLE : xvea/ca-/4911-Siz`e
JUL 101986 II •
SCALE : 'larmLC ATTACHMENT : 9 .
1 35' of ;62 . . : , n Tr�pL�' J
IVI 4
. •
•
i. _r____T__ _
1
Clic ranjeiscial— I lIIIIIV•
�\�� IUDs!
1 IIij111111uwt➢m11
unu1I1111uuullllwauuu
II VISUAL IMPACT Cc V=F2-riCAL MASS
1
lid
il111 It
l/ .
ll
•
•� II
.' 111 Jd
a illI I!1
d
_. 3•y ,
,., >JF y11111 141:16 9ninilli IIIp1 AIM us l
•
AI, 1111
4IWflht1
SoiJD-STORY �TSSAGK
•
r r RE-:Ducess USUAL IM�G'1-
•
II
•
II
•
•
CITY OF POWAY
ITEM : GPA/r(1484-- O/
DRAhT
TITLE : ace=
•
�I
flu:I hail T t e�.�'G I .
1 ,tlbllllluululli4i1111 , 1711 S
\F! i
Ypdr yu6.
11 11
r u pprllr 1 III, yllilu p
11! HIL!.ToP/Rioc_TpF /till
.1001 III SI" i JC4. s= IOESIGN 411
5tO6 LiUE
Thf f -TA1t•IcD
. 1111,1111111 Ip
1111% it
il
11111 1 . I
11,1 II I L Wy I
I't
X,11 1 11114luuuv 11. \--,e
• in.....`Ly
RIDGELIst= �y ICU
I /5UPPLEM�7TED 1 L
—z p. • I
1,IWI'Il t1 `�
1 ,
1 III •. s . \ I
III Inn IIIUI„1111111 II ” -
• ....
I1 %,.1 J A
I
, , .
• I Ifii'. N
• Ii.
}II .. M
Lu
I—
CITY OF. POWAY ITEM : 6E4/Z-0/1 86-0/ toco
• RAP7— �'
D
TITLE : AIDGECJ.uc/HJLLS' ti
APR 15 ligircf re M -7
•
SCALE : '`fOT 7a LE: ATTACHMENT : 1 1
37' of 62
MAR 18 1995 lTFM i� '
® ® . ®®
•
•
•
it ,
•
•
Allgtl
ulll lmuluu�l i
Il 1 1 Q .
I I IIIII1111111111jI111 1 �
II�
ROCKY HILLSIDE PARCEL- llll ,iull w
khi . lir
lik
,1U„
1
•
•
w
•
I-
CITY OF P0WAY ITEMco
GPA // c14/ c% -0/
p2AF-7— cn
TITLE : Ri 244/6- Nic[si2� o
3APR 15 19 6T I TDE M ��ttrrG��
38 of 62 SCALE : ,tt7rTO ��� ATTACH 8N198 : II EM 14
S•
•
•
ry
- 1 -
'caesx -. ■ . •
REta4& /; ` , r Mau-W'ADa
•
/
1 A_TURAL /
•
EARTH - S - ELr 2IM /LAND vrZM
FR=S=-ZJ=c. VISUAL
w�SF*L n -- OP f Pcnir-=
•
•
N
a
• • W
1-
•
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6P4/zoA B6- 0/
co•
DRAFT
TITLE ; R2�_<5uruc 1/42-1 4 ,
• �.,
APR 15 1W6-
ITEM
SCALE : NCT 777 -Z•41-5- ATTACHMENT :
39 of 62 R 18 1986 ITEM 4. J
®® o®
• . (
WII
.. � ••
I
•
Imu!
CrClrno,g11M1111n1G1UIRCC1101r111L1U4/
/ III IpNIIoII
/ / I
/ III
• / 111Ij1 WATugat_ ren>c
II IJ
•
•
.00
/.....ro I fll .
/� p,i4 ��� — Ir.
1
� ISI tl,llgI1UJJIg4III,IIIIII
IV410a
'� ono
i II final,. COi, mikiG '�FuhIE
• • / ter ill
/ J .
/ wool) IJfar.JIZAL 67•ACE.
• / I ill
I
ii
•
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : aPA/ZOA 86-0/
DRAFT
TITLE : 'T'i°G-`aur/Hrtt_szr
APR 15 1986 Tifr 4 ,q
SCALE UOr �� -1 ATTACHMENT : 1 �} •
MAR 1R 1986 ITEM if
L 40 of._62
•
. C ® • C ®
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 )
r
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Poway recognizes that
the need may arise to amend the City' s General Plan ; and
•
WHEREAS , Section 65350 , et. seq. of the California Government
Code , and the California Environmental Quality Act, describe the
procedures for amending the General Plan ; and
WHEREAS , Policy 2 .e of the Land Conservation Element of the
General Plan of the Poway Comprehensive Plan states , "The City
shall perform a study to determine the prominent ridgelines and
hillsides including an analysis of their characteristics and value
to the community" ; and
WHEREAS , the City performed the subject "Ridgeline/Hillside
Study, " and as a result the City Council determined that the text
and graphics of the General Plan should be amended in accordance
with the recommendations contained in the said study; and
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Poway held a properly •
noticed public hearing on March 18 , 1986 in accordance with the
California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality
Act to consider the subject General Plan Amendment and continued
the said public hearing to April 1986 ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Poway has determined
that the subject General Plan Amendment will not have any signifi-
cant adverse environmental effects and therefore issues a Negative
Declaration .
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council does
hereby amend' the text and graphics of the General Plan of the City
of Poway Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Exhibit A attached
hereto . •
PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway ,
. State of California, this day of April , 1986 .
Carl R. Kruse, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Marjorie K. Wahlsten , City Clerk
• JUL 10 1986 ITEM i
41'of' 62 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
•
ATTA04 P NT 2
•
•
EXHIBIT A
General Plan Amendment 86-01 - Amendment to the text and graphics
of the General Plan of the City of Poway Comprehensive Plan
In accordance with Planning Resolution No. , adopted by the
City Council of the City of Poway on April , 1986 , the following
text and graphics shall be hereby added to and 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/Hillside
Study . "
2 . Add new Policy 2 .e under the heading of "Ridgelines and
Hillsides" (Land Resource Conservation Element) :
Where property development , subdivision of property, or
adjustment of lot lines are proposed on parcels of land
located in the areas of "major topographical features" (as
shown on the official map in the Department of Planning
Services ) , the applicable policies of the Community Design
Element shall apply to such development.
3 . Modify Policy 15 .e of the Land Use Element as follows :
Existing Policy - Prominent hilltops and ridgelines as defined
in the Community Design Element should not be built upon .
Proposed Policy - Where existing parcels of land are located on
top or near the top of knolls , hilltops , mountains , or ridge-
lines , or on hillsides within areas of major topographical
features (as shown of the official map in the Department of
Planning Services ) , the applicable policies found in the
Community Design Element shall apply .
New policies and graphics proposed for Community Design Element :
4 . Modify heading of Objective 16 from "Hillside Residential
Design" to "Hillside/Ridgeline Residential Design. "
•
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 1 _
APR 20 1986 ITEM 5
42' ofL62 .
•
' Exhibit A
Page 2
5 . Modify Objective 16 as follows :
Existing Objective - Lots and structures in hillside areas
should follow and not significantly alter the natural contour
of the land .
Proposed Objective - Existing and proposed lots and structures
located on hillsides within areas of "major topographical
features" (as shown on the official map in the Department of
Planning Services ) should not significantly alter the natural
contour of the land and should be designed in accordance with
the following policies .
6 . New Policy 16 .f - The Director of Planning Services shall
ultimately determine if an individual existing or proposed lot
or structure is subject to the hillside/ridgeline policies ,
since portions of some properties identified on the official
map may not be affected by the policies herein . If a positive
• determination is made, the applicable policies below shall
apply to the specific area of the property on which develop-
ment is proposed .
•
7 . New Policy 16 g. - Residential structures should be ade-
quately set back from adjoining downhill slopes so that the
structures ' visual impact on the surrounding area is minimized
to the extent feasible ( see Attachment 5 ) .
8 . New Policy 16 .h - Where physical conditions or environmental
considerations of a lot prevent the above-preferred setback ,
the structure shall maintain a low profile appearance and also
be adequately screened with trees , shrubs and ground cover
plant materials . ( see Attachment 6 ) .
9 . New Policy 16 . i - In the preliminary siting of structures , •
view corridors from lower elevations should be determined and
considered , especially those from public places , directly'
adjoining residential properties , and City designated scenic
roadways , and other major roadways .
10 . New Policy 16 . j - Architectural designs for structures in
areas of major topographical features shall incorporate
building line offsets and building level transitions which
conform the structure to the natural terrain and enhance the
visual quality of the site and surrounding area . Blocky,
rigid , extremely angular , or otherwise nonconforming geometric
building designs , which are not in scale or proportion with
the surrounding land form, shall be discouraged ( see
Attachment 7 ) .
•
•
JUL 10 1986 ITEM l
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
43 of 62 •
•
Exhibit A
Page 3 '
11 . New Policy 16 .k - Access roads or driveways serving proposed lots
and residential structures in areas of major topographical
features should not alter the physical character of the landform
by the creation of "notches" in the ridgeline , but rather should
follow the natural contour of the land form. Landscaping shall
accompany the construction of access roadways so that visual
impacts are adequately mitigated ( see Attachment 8 ) .
12 . New Policy 16 .1 - Exterior colors and materials used in the
• construction of residential structures proposed in areas of major
topographical features , shall be harmonious in both tone and tex-
ture with the natural biological and geological resources located
on and in the vicinity of the building. site . Earth tones , rather
. than bright or obtrusive exterior colors , are required , and
synthetic exterior materials , if used , should closely simulate
the appearance of natural material .
13 . New Policy 16 .m - Where residential structures are proposed in
hillside areas , and in areas of major topographical features , the
structure ' s dominant roof slope( s ) shall follow the slope of the
hatural grade . Flat roofs or other roof designs not conforming
with the natural grade shall be avoided (see Attachment 9 ) .
14 . New Policy 16 . n - Where residential structures are proposed on
• parcels of land situated on or near the extreme top of knolls ,
hilltops , mountaintops , and ridgelines , and no other feasible or
practical structural siting can be achieved within the property
lines of the subject parcel , the proposed structure shall be
designed and sited in accordance with the following criteria ( see
Attachment 10 ) :
o The structure shall maintain a low profile appearance
and the natural physical character of the ridgeline ,
knoll , hilltop, or mountaintop, shall be substantially
'maintained . In order to achieve this , the height of the
proposed strucshould be limited to one story .
o Ridgelines , knolls , hilltops , and mountaintops shall be
supplemented with a sufficient amount of trees , shrubs ,
and ground cover if the particular natural topographic
feature is graded . .
o All other applicable policies within the Community
Design Element shall apply .
•
•
_ _ JUL 10 1986 ITEM -
"441'of';62 APR 29 1966 ITEM 5
•
010
•
•
' Exhibit A
Page 4
• 15 . New Policy 16 .o - Single-level residential structures proposed in
areas of major topographical features should be oriented such
that their greatest horizontal dimension is parallel with , and
not perpendicular to, the natural contour of the land . Extreme
cantilever and extreme stilt (pole house) ' structural designs
should not be permitted . The use of multi-level foundations or
limited cantilever/stilt foundations which fit the structure to
the natural contour and grade shall be the preferred structural
designs ( see Attachment 11) .
16 . New Policy 16 .p - Second-story levels of proposed two-story
structures should be set back from the lower building line, at
the down-slope side of the structure , so that emphasis on height is
avoided , and a low profile appearance is achieved ( see
Attachment 12 ) .
17 . New Policy 16 .q - Where hillside parcels of land are solely or
substantially comprised of rock-outcrops or other surficial rocky
material , the use of cantilever or pole-type foundations should
be considered as an alternative in lieu of multi-level foun •
-
dations ( see Attachment 12 ) .
18 . New Policy 16 . r - Where an existing parcel of land is directly
impacted by the presence of major topographical features , the
proposed residential structure should be located on the least-
impacted portion of the parcel , so that the maximum protection of
the features is ensured . Other physical and environmental
constraints which affect the development potential of the parcel
shall also be taken into consideration when structures are sited.
19 . New Policy 16 . s - Earth-sheltered residential structures may be
used if they foster the preservation of the environmental and
visual quality of the site ' s natural land form and surrounding
features (see Attachment 14 ) .
•
20 . Proposed "Cross-Reference" Amendments :
a) New Policy 2 .e - Under "Criteria for Protection" heading of
the Scenic Highway Element - Residential development proposed
on parcels of land located within the view sheds of
•
designated scenic roadways shall be subject to the applicable
policies of the Community Design Element .
b) New Policy 2 .d - Under "Mountainous Areas" heading of the
Open Space Element - Where residential structures are pro- •
posed for development within the mountainous areas of the
City , the applicable policies of the Community Design Element
shall apply.
JUL 10-1986 ITEM 7
APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
45-of' 62 • •
•
•
•
Exhibit A
Page 5
c) New Policy 15 .n - Under "Hillside Development" heading of the
Land Use Element - When calculating the density of parcels
located in the areas of "major topographical features" , the
applicable policies within the Community Design Element shall
be considered herewith.
d ) New Policy 50 .e - Under heading of "Colors and Materials" -
Exterior colors and materials used for single family residen-
• • tial structures shall be in accordance with Policy 16 . 1
(Hillside/Ridgeline Residential Design) .
e) New Policy 52 .d - Under heading of "Roofs and Rooflines" -
The slope of a roofline shall conform to that required
under Policy 16 .m (Hillside/Ridgeline Residential Design) ,
where applicable .
B . General Plan Graphics Amendments •
1 . Figure 9 , Community Design Resources , of the General Plan section
of the Poway Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended in accordance
with Attachment 2 of this resolution and in regard to the areas
of "major topographical features . "
2 . The graphic illustrations contained in Attachments 5 through 14
of this resolution shall be incorporated in the appropriate ele-
ments of the General Plan .
C. Official Map of Major Topographical Features
1 . The 1 ,000 foot scale City base map that identifies the areas of
major topographical features , which was considered and approved
by the City Council at the public hearing on April 1986 , is
hereby adopted as the "official" City of Poway Major
Topographical Features Map.
•
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 7
APR 29 1986 - ITEM 5
4'6 of 62.
r --
• " COMM TY DESIGN R_E OURCES
JJ
is
ti• J ,
rry} r\• l
/ mss. -
Ii• �_��.�` vvriv_I .
. ) • . .
n:.,
_, �.-- . . _i
Net,
d 1 e
/ r
_,.... • •
, •Ct* : .F'i i.rii1/2).1t77.: -.„5 r-zr2.1
- - " � �s • (- —.
r::,: -_ ,ter�1 / o,. - ^ ' 71:.
t :
j
L
-
J�
E
r
% ___ MAJORTOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES' (REVISED)
•
_ gy` O FOCAL POINTS
��' - t SCENIC ROADWAYS
ve. r
/�, �� =3E3 II1STOR3C =AL STRUCTURES AREA -
I= MAJOR CREEKSCHANNELS R
AND R
IP
• ® v CITY OF POWAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
•
• CITY OF POWAY ITEM G /zo4 86 - O/
• lea- r
TITLE : pig-z-�yrtLsiz-
SCALE : '`iOr 70 L--- ATTACHMENT : 2 •
vi JUL 10. 1966 ITEM 1
47 ortz _ J
I
•
C .
•
•
•
SET SACK
•
44141 •Of 11
•
� +Iif v,
,tom.•
may.
P�rE JrC D S;Tiu&e cF • lly
• FLTw-T',AL
•
•
•
•
•
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPAiza4 86_p/
• pRAFT
TITLE : MoGEL457Hi
sizer •
48of 1 62 • SCALE : '.�T ' 4 - ATTACHMENT : .5
`� JUL 101986 ITEM
—
•
•
I :
•
. - . fr. . .
. -1TJ1H
GA r
- % •;at ..--4141kor la
' oma . ! I/I11 �1
�g ' IIIUIYIIIuuu puuili l I unufll V i
IT►d
flu
,gill . Lc �r►t.r 4. Sri==a'1�D
6- : fid
7
CITY OF POWAY. ITEM : 6 /Za4 Bs-o° •
TITLE : 1vDc=424e/ffissi
Srurrr
. SCALE : iUOT rm soka- ATTACHMENT ,. 6
49 of '62 JUL 10 1986 ITEM . -_i
1
1
111,
•
•
n,1 r •
rr
41.01 r: ��~�;�.`:!„ II 1X114
- I b
•
51.DCK -Xr - j ANIGULAR, IrlS1J,IIJ •
-- DES IGLIS DtSCouR2_ —D t
•
•
r LI
Plijillill��rtliWilllfI0i
IisIIII
UUI! I IIIIIU J
0.1
INA .- MI r STRUCTUIZ= FITS )la.rU2AL 1.A1/411 Poi •
u
. r
•
•
CITY OF POWAY ITEM . GP4 /z0l es-O/
• PR
TITLE : R7D6-7744E- ./1/141-s/24-
STUDY-
SCALE : '�cr m 4Lc ATTACHMENT : 7
' •
JUL 10 1986 ITEM .TI
50 of 62—
•
•
•
•
_ ACCESS 'ROADS / DR►VaWA\r5
•
•
friot 1414
• •ulu" iWL.O�I
LANDSCAFP. 5CP-_ta:LIG it
•
•
•
• • CITY OF POWAY ITEM CIM /'ZoA e6-°'
• PRAT-- .
' TITLE..: .moo c4s/Hit.Ls✓
ce
SCALE : mar rt SCALE? ATT��C� S �TiV8
51 of°62-•
r �
=• ,, :- d
M 1 'J111ll 11
'�Iilll�llll llllllllllllllllllll)1111111I11LL UMW {�
.•
/ '1
1 I
fllilll
X11 (\ •
doe `114TLJYAL amaze
01#
1111RCCFL IJE Nor FoLLO CJI JG SLoPE
•
•
I .
.�
•
/—�
10 o
.0„,--ec y J.�. a 1Z
111 j.gWlJILUU1111UI111I11
n 111
11141111
// Ulan
1
• / 1 r
. /�� '1 uanrizAL �A�
!
TIT
• 1'
1r''3 • RoOFLnjE' FOLLOWS SLOPE _
•
•
CITY OF POWAY ITEM : 6/'4 86-0/
• PRs4FT_'_
TITLE : .17v6: /Hius e
STUDY
SCALE : A 4tc ATTACHMENT : 9
52 0`2 JUL 10 1986 ITEM 1 2
. (: . C . •
;loPCóRAfl4'C FArofC tz_-ru,46o
,''IIIII�dt1Ul1 III i .. �
(�
•
II'UIII I ..ti I
.
I • nullIJ R,t e..
,f I f ilitra illu, ens. \V«
II
is, \
ii
-foftx,>'Af111G FEATURE 4k1.
SufTLMvntTt=D ii
, • i %,I
• i .
m 'k .
. � • wuu s ', .
dr I!q
�n' LH mull ii UWI! 'i s.,,
. . , tel .
!h
I,t .• .
CITY OF.POWAY . ITEM GPA/ZOA BS-D/
2. -
TITLE : 10 tiv=/HitLS/ .
:
53 0> ``2 SCALE : 1ucrrtescAL r �'LTi0C9 ,86 gNT ITEN� 7IO 1
•
5UUGLE - LEve L STJ.'t.K.TU2ES
. --- ..----1 % ._._._.._....__N'-"--.._____Ts_____./______y
•- ... -ally *-"s.-1.----(:__:______Y
•
PARAl _ WITH COISVOUK P=RFEUDICULAR TO CO.ITOUi�
r� —;•ter mt r • i
_�� � - }
•tel
XTtaM= STILT 4 CA I.ITI Le-V--"R_
1
I D_SIGU5 NOT PERM1iT=D
•
NATURAL GRAD5 EXEr=Dikla L5 'fr...ttcstf SLOP---._ -
a / 1
BSc -; Is
res _ a •ma= wpyrwurolllUYl
nohow
1. rG
'�uu uuruiu4 u+wu u,ul rd U Fr Alia
,yJP MULTI-LEVE L
-/\ 1 •• tU 51UGL:-L=VEL :'l Fotna�.T+d.l
o FOuutAT1o►J ,y+' MILD
NOT PERMflt D `� d�
•
•
•
• CITY OF POWAY ITEM : GPA/zoA S-c/
pRAFre
TITLE : 11F2o6=vv=/ffi[Lsi
STUIJY
SCALE : "r ro scA` AJul_TT gii 1u 1985 NT 1 1 tm
54 o'f 62
•
•
•
•
poo
,,iful
UMW 111UU11111 U 11U 111wu Y{Y..52»Ia
v./.1f EMPHASIS 0,.1 HEIGHT' CP.EAT_5 VISUAL imatr
•
• yL
'. •
,r •
•
•
•
•
•
Siga '1-1.
- --- ,
AW
_
na f U, IIHWU1Uu1J;11,ISIUWJH WUu:UJI?I
•
•
" r 1L1 u1• Fa u=,✓S VISUAL ► -r
•
•
•
•
•
•
• CITY OF POWAY ' •
nalGPA�zOA es- D/
�2.+1rT
.. TITLE : '2ac=t_aF/f'1 cc
Sr rr,
ss of 62: • SCALE : 'ter - = ATTACHMENT 12.
• JUL 10 19A6 ITEM 1
•
.
Illoiluuul •
ROCKY HI LSIDE FARC_L llllJim ',
''I •. , .
. . 'It1;41r . - '
I 11411111
��
. �.
I ���
CITY OF POWAY. ITEM : GPA /zc�4 85-0/
rR. —
TITL E : Rinz.w -/x"-'CizE
•
57Z/Dy
56 oif 62 SCALE •: T TD - -Al.. ATTACHMENT • • 13
\� JUL 10 1985 IYtw� .L
. 1. :•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
„i- -
/i, -
I // -v-F
•
REC5SsilJG_ STRUCTugE.
REDUCES VISUAL IMFPGT— KATURAL i •
•
•
•
•
•
•
CITY OF POfAY • ITEM GPA/zoA 86- 0/
••
DRAFT"
TITLE : R1 UAE/H/[%s/cam
Sruor
57 of 62- 9CALE : Nor TD -ZgL- ATTACHMENT :. I4
UL10 95 IT M 7
•
\.
•
• ORDINANCE NO. 187
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING CHAPTER 17 .04 , AND SECTION 17 . 08 . 180
OF TITLE 17 ( ZONING DEVELOPMENT CODE)
OF THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS , the City Council periodically finds it necessary to
amend Title 17 ( Zoning Development Code ) of its Municipal Code in
response to amendments made to the City ' s General Plan; and
WHEREAS , the City Council , as a result of the City prepared
Ridgeline/Hillside Study , adopted Planning Resolution No. on
April 1986 thereby amending the text and graphics of the
General Plan (GPA 86-01 ) related to the development of land within
the ridgeline/hillside areas of the City; and
WHEREAS , the City Council desires to amend the Zoning
Development Code in order to bring it into a state of consistency
with the General Plan , as prescribed by Section 65860 of the
Government Code , and pursuant to Section 17 . 46 .020B of the Poway
Municipal Code , and that amendments to Chapter 17 . 04 (Definitions )
and Section 17 . 08 . 180 ( Property Development Standards : Special
Requirements ) are necessary to meet the said consistency require-
ment; and
WHEREAS , the City Council finds it in the public interest to
preserve the rural character of the City through the protection of
the major topographical features found within the community , which
consist of knolls ,• hilltops , mountaintops , hillsides , and ridge-
lines; and
•
WHEREAS , the City Council adopted under Resolution No .
• the official City of Poway. Major Topographical Features Map which
depicts the .areas of the City in which the said major topographical
features are found ; and
WHEREAS , _ the City Council recognizes the scenic quality and
community-wide value of these features , and finds that they shall
not be developed without regard to the visual impact of such deve-
lopment on directly adjoining residential properties , public pla-
ces., City designated scenic highways , and major streets ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the creation and .
development of lots and structures located within the subject areas
of the City shall not cause adverse environmental and visual
impacts to the subject topographical features; and
WHEREAS , the City Council , in order to preserve and protect the
environmental and visual quality of the major topographical
features , finds it necessary to amend the Zoning Development Code
by adding new property development standards which are applicable
to the development of parcels of land 'within the subject areas ; and
•
JUL 101986 ITEM
58 .of.;62 • APR 2 9 1986 ITEM 5
ATTACNMar" 3
•
• .•® C
•
Ordinance No . 187
Page 2
WHEREAS , the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing
on March 18 , 1986 to provide interested parties the opportunity to
address the proposed amendments to the Zoning Development Code .
The said public hearing was continued by the City Council to the
regular meeting of April 15 , 1986 for first reading and continued •
to April 29 , 1986 for second reading of the subject ordinance .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ordained that the City Council hereby
adopts the following amendments as part of Title 17 ( Zoning
Development Code ) of the Poway Municipal Code :
SECTION 1 :
Chapter 17 . 04
Definitions
•
The following sections of Chapter 17 .04 are added or amended to
read as follows :
1 . Section 17 .04 . 280 Development "Development" means the total
number of dwelling units permitted on a net acre of land exclu-
sive of all existing public or private streets and rights-of-
way : "Development" also means the grading and excavation of
earth 'for the purpose of creating a building pad , private
driveway or private access road , and any cut or fill slopes
associated therewith .
2 . Section 17 . 04 . 391 Hillside "Hillside" for the purpose of this
ordinance means those areas as designated as major topographi-
cal features on the "Major Topographical Features Map" that are
neither hilltops nor ridgelines .
3 . Section 17 . 04 . 392 Hilltop "Hilltop" means the highest point of
elevation of a knoll , hill , or mountain .
4 . Section 17 . 04 . 419 Landform "Landform" means a feature of the
earth ' s surface attributable to natural causes .
5 . Section 17 . 04/511 Major Topographical Features Map "Major
Topographical Features Map" means the Major Topographical
Features Map as adopted or amended by the Poway City Council .
6 . Section 17 . 04 . 631 Ridgeline "Ridgeline" for the purpose of this
ordinance means the physical and visual demarcation between the
sky and the highest elevation of the earth ' s surface along or
between a range of knolls , hills or mountains , or along a
linear series of crests designated as major topographical
features an the "Major Topographical Features Map. "
JUL 101986 ITEM 7 _
•59 of- 62 APR 29 1986 ITEM 5
•
•
C � C•• �
Ordinance No. 187
Page 3
Section 2 :
Chapter 17 . 08
Residential Zones
Section 17 . 08 . 180 Special Requirements The following subsection
under Section 17 . 08 . 180 is added to read :
S . The subdivision and development of a parcel of land located
within the areas of "Major Topographical Features , " as shown on
the official City of Poway Major Topographical Features Map on
file in the office of the Department of Planning Services ,
shall be subject to the following development standards appli-
cable to the creation and development of a subject parcel . The
development standards listed within this subsection shall also
apply when the "density of development" is determined through
the tentative subdivision map review process .
The land developer or property owner , prior to the preparation
and filing of a formal application required for Development
Review/Minor Development Review, or a Tentative Subdivision
Map, shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a con-
ceptual grading and site development plan for the involved pro-
perty, . for preliminary review and recommendation prior to
formal application submittal . Where all or any part of a par-
cel is contained within the boundaries of the areas identified
on the official map , the applicable development standards •
herein shall apply to the specific area of a parcel on which
development is proposed .
The applicability of the following standards to the subdivision
and development of a parcel of land shall be formally deter-
mined during the processing of Development Review (Chapter
17 . 52 ) and Tentative Map (Chapter 16 . 10 ) applications .
1 . The design , configuration , orientation , and development of lots
shall adhere to the City' s requirements for Excavation and •
Grading (Chapters 16 . 40-16 . 52 )
•
2 . Access roads or driveways serving structures shall follow the
existing natural contour of the landform and shall be • •
constructed in accordance with the City ' s Construction
Standards for Streets (Chapter 12 . 20 ) and driveways in residen-
tial zones ( Section 17 .08 .180 ) .
3 . Grading of a lot shall be limited to that necessary for a
required access road or driveway , the development of a single
family residence, approved accessory structures , and permitted
agricultural uses .
•
•
JUL 10 1986 ITEM --i
60 _of 62 APR 29 1986 ITEM. 5 •
•
Ordinance No . 187
Page 4
4 . Existing rock outcrops and native or indigenous trees shall be
maintained .
5 . Ridgelines , hilltops , and hillsides visually impacted by
grading activity , including that for the construction of access
roads and driveways , shall be accompanied by and supplemented
with landscaping so that the visual impact is mitigated to a
level of insignificance . Landscaping materials shall include
ground cover , shrubs , and fifteen ( 15 ) gallon minimum size
trees . Irrigation of landscaping shall be provided on a per-
manent or temporary basis as necessary to maintain its healthy
condition .
6 . Exterior colors and materials of structures shall be earth
tones or other colors harmonious in both tone and texture with
the natural biological and geological conditions located on or
in the vicinity of the building site . For example , white
exteriors and red tile roofs shall be prohibited .
7 . The dominant roof slope( s) of a structure shall follow the '
slope of the natural grade . Flat roofs or other roof designs
not following the slope of the natural grade shall be
prohibited.
8 . Where a structure is situated on a hilltop, or a ridgeline, the
structure shall be limited to one story not to exceed twenty
( 20 ) feet in height as measured from the lowest portion of the
foundation wall or pier on the down-slope side to the highest
point of the structure ' s roof .
•
9 . For those structures not located on hilltops or ridgelines , the
maximum height shall be thirty-five ( 35 ) feet as measured from
the lowest portion of the foundation wall or pier on the down-
slope side to the highest point of the structure' s roof .
However , in no case shall the highest point of the structure' s
roof exceed by twenty ( 20 ) feet , the height of the hilltop' or
ridgeline .
10 . A single-level structure shall be oriented such that its
greatest horizontal dimension is parallel with , and not perpen-
dicular to , the natural contour of the land .
11 . Multi-level foundations ( floor levels separated by a minimum of
five feet in height ) shall be required where natural grades •
exceed twenty-five ( 25 ) percent slope.
JUL 10 1986 ITEM 1
61 .of 62 APR 29 )986 . ITEM 5
1/4141
Ordinance No . 187
Page 5
12 . where a two-story structure is proposed on a grade that exceeds
25 percent slope , the second-story down-slope exterior wall
shall be set back a minimum of fifteen ( 15 ) feet from the down-
slope exterior wall of the structure' s first story .
13 . Where the cantilever or stilt portion of a structure' s foun-
dation projects over the slope , the projection at its furthest
point, shall not exceed ten feet in height above the grade,
directly below that projection.
SECTION 3 : The City Council of the City of Poway hereby finds that
these amendments are consistent with the General Plan and the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Development Code.
SECTION 4 : The City Council of the City of Poway hereby finds that
these amendments will not cause any significant adverse impacts on
the environment and issues a Negative Declaration .
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty ( 30 ) days after ' the date of its passage; and before the
expiration of fifteen (15 ) days after its passage , it shall be
published once with the names and members voting for and against
the same in the Poway News Chieftain , a newspaper of general cir-
culation published in the City of Poway .
Introduced and first read at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Poway held the 15th day of April , and
thereafter PASSES AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
Council held the _ day of , 1986 by the following roll
call vote: •
AYES : COONCILMEMBERS :
NOES : COUNCILMEMBERS: •
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS :
Carl R. Kruse , Mayor
Marjorie K. Wahlsten , City Clerk
•
•
JUL 10 1986 ITEM '7•
62;•of -62 . APR 29 1986 ITEM 5