December 2, 2025, Item #8
AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: December 2, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Julie Procopio, Director of Development Services q Don Neu, Interim City Planner CONTACT:
858-472-0252 or [email protected]
SUBJECT: Hillside Ridgeline Review Update
Summary:
Background and update on the Hillside Ridgeline Review Process in response to a Council initiated item to consider if it would be appropriate to return the approval authority for the hillside ridgeline review to the City Council.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended the City Council:
1) Receive the report;
2) Accept public testimony;
3) Discuss the item; and
4) Provide direction to staff.
Discussion:
Since incorporation, the City Council has taken an active interest in protecting prominent ridgelines.
Development in the hillside and ridgeline areas of the city is a subject that has a long history. The following is a chronology of various actions on the subject:
• April 2, 1985 -The City Council adopted Resolution No. 85-019 which required Minor Development Review Approval (MORA) by the City Council within the Hillside/Ridgeline Overlay Area (Attachment A). The resolution was adopted as a stop gap measure while a Ridgeline/Hillside study was under development.
• November 14, 1985 -The City Council considered the Draft Ridgeline/Hillside Study Report. 1 of 10
The report proposed recommendations for amendments to the General Plan to further implement the goals and objectives of the plan and to expand City Council discretion where prominent hilltops, ridgeline, and hillside areas are concerned. The item was referred back to staff for refinement of language and to bring the report back to City Council for a secondary workshop review. On January 9, 1986 the City Council approved the recommendations of the . . .
December 2, 2025, Item #8
"Ridgeline/Hillside
Study,"
and
set
a
public
hearing
for
the
consideration
of
the
study
and
adoption
of
the
proposed
policies
and
standards
. On
March
18,
1986
the
City
Council
considered
a
General
Plan
amendment
and
Zoning
Ordinance
Amendment
to
add
policies
related
to
hillside
development.
These
policies
applied
to
rural
residential
development
. The
business
park
and
Rancho
Arbolitos
were
excluded
from
application
of
the
proposed
policies
and
standards
as
each
had
an
approved
development
plan
with
associated
standards
set
within
the
ir plans.
Consideration
of
the
General
Plan
and
Zoning
Ordinance
Amendments
was
continued
for
further
discussion
and
adopted
on
April
15,
1986.
• April
29,
1986
-The
second
reading
of
the
ordinance
was
held
and
the
City
Council
voted
to
refer
the
item
back
to
staff
for
discussion
at
a workshop
meeting.
The
record
includes
letters
from
people
opposed
to
the
City
Council
adopting
the
ordinance
and
General
Plan
Amendment.
•
July
10,
1986
-The
City
Council
held
a workshop
on
the
proposed
Ridgeline/Hillside
Ordinance.
Staff
were
directed
to
provide
a
terrain
sensitive
grading
ordinance
and
review
of
hillside
landscaping.
On
November
12,
1991,
Ordinance
345
was
adopted
which
updated
the
grading
ordinance.
•
November
12,
1991
-The
City
Council
considered
the
General
Plan
Update.
Included
were
policies
to
: preserve
natural,
scenic
and
cultural
resources;
requirements
for
ridgeline
and
hilltop
development
including
a
visual
impact analysis
for
projects
with
slopes
of
15 percent
or
greater
to
determine
the
most
suitable
location
for
the
building
pad(s);
and
brush
management
plan
requirements.
Council
discussed
the
item,
received
public
testimony
and
continued
the
discussion
to
November
19,
1991
when
the
General
Plan
Update
and
related
actions
were
approved.
•
February
10 , 2000
-The
City
Council
received
a
report
in
response
to
City
Council
comments
of
November
16,
1999
Concerning
Hillside,
Ridgeline
and
Hilltop
Protection.
Background
was
provided
on
two
development
projects
identified
in
citizen
inquiries
to
Council
Members.
An
overview
of
applicable
General
Plan
policies
and
City
ordinances
related
to
the
City's
natural
topographic
features
was
also
provided
.
•
February
5,
2013
-The
City
Council
adopted
Resolution
No.13-001
rescinding
Resolution
No
.
85-019
which
required
MDRA
by
the
City
Council
within
the
Hillside/Ridgeline
Overlay
Area
.
The
action
was
a part
of
a series
of
actions aimed
at
reducing
processing
time
and
costs
to
the
applicant
and
utilizing
staff
time
more
efficiently.
The
result
was
that
all
MDRAs
could
be
approved
administratively
even
those
within
the
ridgeline
review
area
. All
standards
and
requirements
for
ridgeline
review
remained
consistent
and
would
be
applied
administratively
for
MDRAs.
o
The
staff
report
mentions
that
19 MDRAs
had
been
reviewed
by
the
City
Council
in
the
hillside/ridgeline
areas
between
2007
and
2012.
Comments
reflected
that
projects
had
been
approved
based
on
staff
recommendation.
o
Some
of
the
benefits
mentioned
for
eliminating
City
Council
approval
include
reducing
review
time
by
5-weeks,
reducing
staff
time
in
preparing
an
agenda
report
and
resolution
(estimated
at
24 hours),
reducing
application
fees
of
$424-$759.
o
Hillside
Ridgeline
MDRAs
were
previously
approved
without
public
hearings;
however,
adjacent
property
owners
were
notified
. The
same
notification
would
occur
of
adjacent
property
owners
.
•
May
21,
2024
-The
City
Council
adopted
Ordinance
No.
869
which
eliminated
the
requirement
for
a
MDRA
for
construction
of
a single-family
home
not
within
a tract
subdivision,
an
addition
to
a
single-family
home
and
a
detached
accessory
building.
These
projects
no
longer
require
2 of
10 December 2, 2025, Item #8
an entitlement phase and can apply directly for administrative clearing, grading and building permits.
Adopted Policies and Standards:
The culmination of actions in the aforemention chronology resulted in the City Council's adoption of policies and strategies designed to allow development of hillside/ridgeline areas in a manner consistent with the community character. The standards for reviewing hillside development are included in the General Plan and in Resolution No. 01-103 adopted on November 27, 2001. In addition to providing the precise methodology for calculating slopes, the policy limits lot size and grading areas based on slopes. The standards incorporate several General Plan Policies related to Hillside Development. These apply to all projects with slopes greater than 15%, including those within the Hillside Ridgeline review area. For purposes of these regulations, areas with natural slopes under 15% are not considered hillsides, unless they are on prominent ridgelines. Areas with slopes from 15-25% may require special hillside grading, architectural and site design techniques. For areas with slopes over 25%, only limited, if any, grading will be allowed. Development is discouraged on portions of lots where the slope exceeds 25%. Listed in Attachment B are applicable policies/strategies from the Community Development Element of the General Plan included under Goal I.
Development in hillside areas requires a delicate balance of multiple standards including the following:
• Hillside standards of the General Plan
• Grading limitations of the Municipal Code
• Disturbance limits, preservation of highest value habitat and specific design criteria of the Habitat Conservation Plan
• Fire Code requirements including Fire Protection Plan standards for property located in a wildland-urban interface area and setbacks from top of slope • Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual standards for vegetative fuel management in very high fire hazard areas
• Cultural Resource sites requiring avoidance
• Designing to provide utilities and access
While the standards from the Hillside Study in 1985/1986 were not adopted, staff refer to these standards when working with applicants to ensure projects minimize visual impacts. The cross sections in this study provide a great way to communicate how to comply with adopted policies and standards. The study recommended that view corridors from lower elevations should be determined and considered, especially those emanating from public places and designated scenic roadways.
The adopted General Plan strategies require a visual impact analysis for projects with slopes of 15 percent or greater to determine the most suitable location(s) for the building pad. The plans Scenic Areas Strategies under Goal IV, Policy A states that significant open space areas and scenic vistas along local scenic roadways should be protected. The policy prioritizes evaluating views from public locations.
Current Ridgeline Review Process
The California Subdivision Map Act outlines the process for subdivision of land. After an application is deemed complete and environmental review is completed, a public hearing is held to consider the tentative map, referred to as a tentative parcel map when four or fewer parcels are created. This step involves evaluating a project for compliance with existing objective standards, conditions and policies. 3 of 10
December 2, 2025, Item #8
After a noticed public hearing and evaluation of the evidence, the City Council adopts a written decision or Resolution based on evidence presented.
The City Council considers the proposed grading, including the elevation and location of proposed building pads, as part of a tentative map application. Since at least 1988, visual impact analysis have been included in tentative maps and tentative parcels maps approved by the City Council showing proposed pad elevations. There are several examples of projects for which the City Council has conditioned limitations on pad heights, location or number of stories to address the potential for visual impacts associated with a proposed project.
With the recent elimination of the MDRA for single-family homes and detached accessory buildings, the next step after tentative map approval is for applicants to apply for grading and building permits.
For projects in the ridgeline review area, staff apply all of the same objective design standards, including hillside regulations, in the review of project plans that were previously applied by the City Council when considering the tentative map. Projects are required to conform to the pad elevations approved with the tentative map within two feet in elevation, or meet any more restrictive standard set in the conditions of project approval. Projects that don't meet the conditions of the tentative map are required to request City Council approval for a modification of the tentative map (see Williams Ranch discussion as an example).
Grading Approvals Since 2013
The requirement for the City Council to approve a Minor Development Review Application within the Hillside/Ridgeline Overlay Area was eliminated on February 5, 2013. Since that time 23 MDRAs have been approved by staff. Of those 23 projects 22 were built based on grading plans included with a tentative map previously approved by the City Council. The remaining project had a Tentative Map approved by the County prior to incorporation.
Background on Projects of Concern
During public testimony at a recent City Council meeting, concerns were expressed regarding recent hillside ridgeline development. The following background information is provided regarding the projects identified.
Amazon Project:
The South Poway Specific Plan (SPSP), adopted by the City Council in 1985, included an environmental impact report which assessed visual impacts associated with the industrial park and established design standards. The Specific Plan set standards for building heights and slope setbacks. While there are Hillside/Ridgeline Review Areas within the SPSP area, the provisions of Resolution No. 85-019 requiring City Council approval of ridgeline MDRAs does not apply to the SPSP as the standards are set in the Specific Plan. Also, the MDRA process doesn't apply to new construction within the SPSP.
Development Review permits within the business park are administratively approved.
The Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 06-04 and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 84-01 WWW for the project were approved by the City Council in 2007. The staff report included substantial discussion about the elevation of the building pad height which was described as 40-feet above the street level. City Council's approval of slopes over 30-feet in height was requested and granted (manufactured slopes up to 140-feet high were approved). After a noticed public hearing, the TPM and SPA were approved by the City Council. The pad was graded in 2011 in conformance with the TPM approval. 4 of 10
December 2, 2025, Item #8
On
October
12,
2018,
a
Development
Review
permit
for
the
Amazon
facility
(14500
Kirkham
Way)
was
issued
administratively
in
accordance with
the
SPSP
(as
amended
in
2007).
The
building
was
approved
to
be
placed
on
the
existing
graded
pad.
The
height
of
the
proposed
building
conformed
with
the
SPSP.
A
maximum
building
height
of
45-feet
is
allowed
within
the
business
park.
Based
on
City
Council's
approval
of
the
TPM
and
pad
elevation,
the
property
owners
were
entitled
to
construct
a
building
conforming
to the
SPSP
on
the
pad
that
was
previously
approved.
On
November
7,
2018,
the
City
Council
considered
SPA
18-001,
an
amendment
to
the
SPSP
to
re
designate
a 39.6-acre
parcel
from
Industrial
Park
and
South
Poway
Commercial
to
Light
Industrial
for
the
purpose
of
building
a
warehouse
and
distribution
facility.
Photographic
simulations
of
the
proposed
Amazon
building
were
presented
to the
City
Council
and
there
was
one
speaker
in
support
of
the
project.
After
a
duly
noticed
public
hearing,
the
SPA
was
approved
by
the
City
Council
on
November
7,
2018.
Willams
Ranch:
On
May
19,
2020,
the
City
Council
approved
a tentative
map
revision
(TTM
19-004)
and
MDRA
18-014
for
a
home
on
Lot
10 of
the
Williams
Ranch
subdivision
(TTM
89-09)
on
Del
Poniente
Road.
The
applicant
requested
an
amendment
to
the
tentative
map
related
to
the
open
space
easement
and
consideration
for
a
partially
two-story
structure,
rather
than
the
single
story
required
in
the
original
tentative
map.
Photographic
simulations
were
presented
to the
City
Council
and
after
a
duly
noticed
public
hearing,
the
project
was
approved.
Welton
Lane:
On
May
17,
2005,
the
City
Council
approved
TTM
04-02,
a
six-lot
subdivision
located
on
the
southern
terminus
of
Welton
lane.
Hillside/Ridgeline
review
was
completed
with
the
TTM
application,
including
the
evaluation
of
photographic
simulations
from
various
view
points
along
Poway
Road
and
Garden
Road.
The
tentative
map
set
the
pad
locations
and
elevations.
The
tentative
map
also
set
the
maximum
building
height
for
each
lot,
with
a
maximum
height
of
27-feet
for
lots
facing
Poway
Road
and
25-feet
for
lots
facing
the
South
Poway
Business
Park.
MDRA
14-024
was
administratively
approved
as
it
included
a
pad
elevation,
location
and
building
height
consistent
with
the
approved
tentative
map.
Benefits
and
Impacts
of
Changing
the
Review
Process
One
potential
perceived
benefit
of
requring
City
Council
approval
for
building
permits
within
the
Hillside/Ridgeline
Review
Area
is
the
additional
attention
and
visibility
of
the
action.
However,
the
benefit
of
a
public
process
is
limited
as
the
notification
policy
under
Resolution
No.
85-019
included
adjacent
properties
only.
Also,
the
ability
to
require
changes
based
on
public
feedback
is
limited
as
further
outlined
below.
In
recent
years,
the
State
legislature
has
enacted
several
new
housing
laws
designed
to
encourage
housing
production
. Government
Code
65589.5
(the
Housing
Accountability
Act)
states
a
local
agency
cannot
reject,
reduce
the
permitted
density
or
make
infeasible
housing
without
a
thorough
analysis
of
the
economic,
social
and
environmental
effects
of
the
action
and
without
making
written
findings
based
on
the
preponderance
of
the
evidence
in
the
record
that
either
1)
the
project
as
proposed
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
on
the
public
health
or
safety
and
there
is
no
feasible
method
to
satisfactorily
mitigate
or
avoid
the
specific,
adverse
impact
without
rendering
the
development
s
of
10 December 2, 2025, Item #8
infeasible, or 2) the project is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete. In other words, if a residential project complies with the project site's applicable General Plan and zoning requirements, it cannot be denied absent a finding that it would result in a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development infeasible.
Housing must conform to objective design standards and state laws. The city is not able to apply new restrictions to housing approvals that are subjective. Review of housing projects is limited to applying objective design standards to proposed projects. While public noticing could expand the degree of public input received, unless an objective development standard applied, City Council would not have the discretion to require additional design changes. The City Council would be required to apply the same objective development standards as staff.
Ridgeline properties are generally large lots. Based on analysis of the MDRA's approved since 2013, nearly all (22 of 23) of the ridgeline development has occurred after a parcel map or final map which required City Council approval: Ridgeline review has been conducted by the City Council at the tentative map stage for these parcels and the pad elevations have been set.
Requiring City Council approval of an MORA prior to development within the Hillside/Ridgeline Review Area impacted the time and cost associated with development. Currently there is no entitlement process for single family home construction after the tentative map has been approved. So, requiring an MORA for single family homes would add roughly eight months to the time to build a new home.
This assumes three 30-day completeness review cycles (90 days), three cycles for applicant preparation/revision of designs and visual simulations (90 days) and two months for conditioning, noticing and Council agenda report preparation. The MORA would result in some savings during the grading/building permit review process which is estimated at roughly 30 to 60 days. The net increase in time is roughly six months.
The cost for a MORA permit with City Council approval is $2,366 based on the current fee schedule.
The applicant can also expect additional costs associated with preparing the MORA application, much of which would be useful in the grading/building permit phase. The estimated cost overall is at least $5,500 per site.
Hillside Protection:
Since the City's incorporation, the City Council has supported protection of Poway's prominent ridgelines in several ways. First, the Senstive Lands Acquisition Fund was established to acquire heritage lands including notable portions of Twin Peaks, Van Dam Peak, Tooth Rock and Rattlesnake Hill. The City has acquired more than 1,300-acres of land within the Hillside/Ridgeline Area for permanent protection. The City has also partnered with State and local agencies and non-profit groups who have acquired more than 900-acres of Hillside/Ridgeline land for protection, including the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve. Second, the City Council adopted the Habitat Conservation Plan which sets aside 53% of the City within its Mitigation Area boundary, significantly limiting clearing and grading in these areas. Finally, the General Plan establishes objective design standards for thoughtful and measured development within the Hillside/Ridgeline Area. 6 of 10
December 2, 2025, Item #8
Options: The
following
options
are
provided
for
consideration:
1. Continue
the
existing
policy
of
administrative
approval
of
single-family
homes
in
the
Hillside
Ridge
line
Review
area
reinforcing
the
commitment
to
implementation
of
the
hillside
standards.
2. Require
City
Council
approval
for
only
single-family
homes
where
the
grading
has
not
already
been
through
City
Council
Ridgeline
Review
during
the
tentative
map
or
other
process.
3. Require
City Council
approval
for
all
single-family
homes
within
the
ridgeline
review
area,
including
those
with
previously
approved
visual
impact
analysis
that
set
pad
location,
elevation
and
building
height.
Environmental
Review:
The
agenda
item
is
exempt
from
environmental
review.
Pursuant
to
Section
15061
(b)(3)
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
Guidelines
the
activity
is
covered
by
the
common
sense
exemption
that
CEQA
applies
only
to
projects
which
have
the
potential
for
causing
a significant
effect
on
the
environment.
Where
it
can
be
seen
with
certainty
that
there
is
no
possibility
that
the
activity
in
question
may
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
the
activity
is
not
subject
to
CEQA.
Fiscal
Impact:
None. Public
Notification:
None. Attachments: A.
Hillside/Ridgeline
Review
Area
B.
City
Council
Adopted
General
Plan
Policies
Reviewed/Approved
By:
Assistant
City
Manager
7 of
10 Reviewed
By:
Alan
Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Chris
Hazeltine
City
Manager
December 2, 2025, Item #8
8 of
10 COMMUNITY
DESIGN
RESOURCES
l
LEGEND
~
MAJOR
TOPOGRAPHICAL
FEATURES
o:J
FOCAL
POINTS
~
SCENIC
ROADWAYS
fm«
iJ
HISTORICAL
STRUCTURES
ARE.A
k--,
MAJOR
CREEKS
AND
CHANNEI.S
'10Ullf
I
CITY
OF
POWAY
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
* -
AREAS
OF
DeveLZJP/Y?G!JT
CC1,vCc.vr7?Ar/O~
CITY
OF
POWAY
@
SCALE
:
~"r
ro
SCAt.£
ATTACHMENT
A
ITEM
:
6ffl/zoA
86-0J
DRAF7""':
.
J?1DGeLA/€/#ILLS/Lt
TITLE
.
SrUC>Y'
December 2, 2025, Item #8
City Council Adopted General Plan Policies
(Excerpts from the Community Development Element Addressing Hillside Development) Policy B -Subdivision Design
11. Significant existing natural resources shall be incorporated into the design of new projects rather than removed. These shall include, but are not limited to, large mature trees, sensitive biological habitat and vegetation, streams, steep hillsides, major rock outcroppings, and archeological and historical structures.
15. Developers shall be required to employ proper site planning so as to minimize the amount of grading needed for development and utility construction.
16. Development sites and associated roadways should be oriented to follow the natural terrain and to maintain landform integrity.
17. Development should be concentrated in the least environmentally sensitive locations in order to preserve open space, retain natural vegetation and protect natural, cultural and historic features.
Policy C -Site Design/Hillside Developments
14. Prominent ridgelines and hilltops shall not be built upon.
15. Buildings should be sited so as not to project above the natural landform when possible.
16. Intermediate ridges and hilltops shall be preserved in a natural state to the maximum extent possible. Development on intermediate ridges shall only be permitted in association with the preservation of significant open space habitat and rock outcroppings, unique geographic features or cultural or agricultural uses within the same project. Open space proposed for dedication to the city should perform multiple functions such as view maintenance, resource protection and hazard avoidance.
17. Driveways shall be designed to avoid cuts or fills in excess of ten feet in height and no greater than 2:1 inclination.
18. For projects with slopes of 15% or greater, a visual impact analysis shall be prepared to determine the most suitable locations for the building pads.
19. The maximum allowable area of the lot that may be graded for driveway, residence and accessory functions is determined by the degree of average natural slope. Sensitive biological or other environmental constraints may require application of stricter standards.
20. Hillside development should vary the location and design of structures, landscaping and access to give a more natural appearance and should be designed to follow the natural contour of the land and to limit land alteration.
21. Where construction is proposed on portions of lots where the slope exceeds 15%, the use of custom homes with multiple foundation levels is encouraged. Where construction is proposed 9 of 10 ATTACHMENT B
December 2, 2025, Item #8
on portions of lots where the slope exceeds 25%, the use of custom homes with multiple foundation levels is required.
22. Building pads, driveway, roads and structures, including recreational courts and accessory buildings in hillside areas shall follow and not significantly alter the natural contour of the land.
23. Natural vegetation shall be preserved where feasible. Clearing should be limited to access roads, homesites and fire break buffering. Where visible slopes are created adjacent to areas of natural vegetation, similar plant material shall be introduced for erosion control and to mitigate the visual impact of land alteration.
Policy D -Grading
1. Mass grading of custom residential subdivision lots in hillside areas is prohibited.
2. Grading in hillside areas shall leave rounded off, natural appearing slopes and shall use variable slope ratio instead of manicured cut and fill areas. Grading shall be limited to that required for building pad placement and for driveway and utility lines.
3. To the extent possible, cut slopes should be concealed by the structure.
4. All exposed graded slopes shall be revegetated with plant materials compatible with surrounding vegetation.
Single-Family Development
20. Custom homes should be constructed of textured materials and should utilize primarily earthtone colors and complementary accents in muted shades of red, blues, greens, grays, browns and yellows.
10 of 10