Appendix II - Comparison of Major Hillside and
Non-Hillside Residential Development Policies and Standards
Topic
Non-Hillside Areas
Hillside Residential
Additional Considerations
Relationship to General Plan
• Focus is on density and land use compatibility
• Preservation of natural slopes, scenic views, and other environmental resources.
Site Topography, environmental considerations, hazard sensitivity, viewsheds, intensity of development.
Standards
• No unique standards
• Standards apply regardless of topography
•Focus on density and lot size
• Standards only apply on properties over 25% average slope • Standards more tailored to unique hillside conditions Landform
Drainage
Access
Building Design/ Height
Retaining Walls
Landscaping
Hazard Avoidance
• Development of property in a way that substantially addresses natural site character and environmental and aesthetic values Site Suitability & Buildable Area
• Most of parcel typically buildable
• Constraints usually limited to setbacks
• No topography-based limits on grading
• Partial lot development is common
• Remaining undeveloped areas often most constrained
Topographic constraints and buildable area limitations
Grading
• Use of grading thresholds that apply citywide
•No requirement to consider natural land features.
• Impacts typically contained onsite
• No practical grading limit.
• Natural landform considerations in plan design (minimal contour, and landform grading techniques) • No grading on steep slopes
• Maximum slope heights
• Minimal Grading
• Grading scars tend to be more visible for an extended period.
Landform preservation, slope disturbance limits, grading visibility, lasting visual impact.
Retaining Wall Function
• Walls are typically accessory and limited in scale
• Primarily address minor grade changes on a site
• Walls often essential for slope stability
• Used to create usable and safe building areas and access • Can be used to reduce grading and/ or expand developable areas • Aesthetic considerations due to height and location
Slope stabilization, buildable pad area creation, grading reduction potential, access feasibility Retaining Wall Height & Terracing
• Height generally limited by setbacks
• Fewer walls needed
• Flexibility for wall heights
• Multiple or terraced walls more common up to six feet high • Step-backs used to reduce visual dominance
• Crib wall option allows walls higher than six feet
Potential visual impacts due to vertical scale issues, terracing configuration, step-back spacing Retaining Wall Design & Materials
• Standard materials typically acceptable such as grey precision block • Limited design sensitivity required
• Design integration emphasized with grading and structures • Materials, finishes, and textures matter more
• Landscaping required to reduce the visual impact of walls Material and color compatibility (earthtones) with surrounding terrain, landscape screening Biological & Resource Avoidance (MSHCP, USFW, CDFG)
• Constraints can be present but often avoidable
• Greater flexibility in site layout
• Constraints more prevalent
• Avoidance of steep or other undevelopable areas
General Plan conservation objectives for sloped areas and ridges Fire Hazard & Life-Safety Context
• Fire standards apply citywide
• Typical compliance achievable
• Fire risk is elevated
• Access and defensible space is more constrained
• Fuel modification applies
• Slope conditions, fuel loading, access and response constraints Visual Context & Community Character
• Limited regional visibility
• Visual effects localized
• Ridgelines and slopes highly visible
• Development alters public-facing viewsheds • Hillsides are a significant element of community character • Changes are long-lasting and highly noticeable
Ridgeline prominence, viewshed exposure, aesthetic continuity of hillside areas, long-term visual change. 2