HomeMy WebLinkAboutZCA 59; REVISED DRAFT HILLSIDE PERFORMANCE; Zone Code Amendment (ZCA),r-"
RECEIVt'O o'CT '.'6 1378
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council/Planning Commis'sion DATE: September 27, 1978.
FROM: Hillside Blue Ribbon Committee/Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Revised Draft Hillside Performance Standards
----------~-------------------------------------------~~--------------------------
I. SUMMARY
At the City Council's August 28,1978 meeting, the Blue Ribbon Committee,was
instructed,to reconsider and revise the draft Hlllside Performance Standards
to reflect the Council's and Planning Commission's concerns and input, as
well as the Buildi ng Industry Associ ation' s minority report, and staff's , '
proposed changes. During the time between August 29 and September 13 the
Committee met three times considering all information given them. In revi,stng
the draft ordinance most sections which served to reiterate exT-sting City
policy were eliminated except where they lent Gontinuity to the draft' .
document; several sections were reworded extensively; and other provisions
were dropped completely because they were either too restrictive or were
better handled on a case by case basis through the development review process.
As a result of these changes, this revised draft Hillside Performance
Standards has been shortened and revised through much hard work on the part
of the members of the Blue Ribbon Committee. '
iI. PROPOSED FORMAT
The Council asked the Blue Ribbon Committee to review the question of the
specificity of the proposed ordinance and whether the more technical e,lements
of the ordinance should be separated from the more generalized, or policy
oriented elements. The Blue Ribbon Committee, after much deliberation decided
to recommend to the Counci'l that the proposed format of the ordinance be "
retained. In other words, the draft Performance Standards should combine,
both 'generalized principles of hillside 'development, and more detail'ed
standards. It was the Blue Ribbon Committee's opinion that this approach '
will ,best serve the purposes of the City in regulating'hillside development
and the needs of the developer for clear-cut guidance by clearly inter-
relating principles and standards. The proposed format is therefore more
workable than a more generalized format.
It is the Blue Ribbon Committee's opinion that it is not necessary to put
this proposed Hillside Performance Standards on the ballot, however, such a
decision is in any case more properly made by.the City Council. If the ,
Council should move to place the ordinance on the ballot as a referendum,
then the less technical findings and the ,density standards should be
separated out from the text of the draft ordinance for the voteris "
consideration.
III. MAJOR CHANGES
The follQwing is a summary of major changes made to the draft HiTlside
Performance Standards. The numbering has also changed markedly because
many sections were deleted. '
1. Findings (Sec. 8177)
Those Findings which are already required elsewhere fn the development
'2 revi ew process, or those whi ch are already covered by speei fic City "
policy were removed. The number of Findings was reduced from 17 to 10.,
2. Transfer of Density (Sec. 8178-4, old and new)
The Blue Ribbon Committee rewrote this s'ection to allow density transfers' ,
both uphill and downhill in accordance with tlie Counc,il'!) input on' this;
subject. Such a policy will allow more flexibility in 'designing hillside
developments. .
" .. , ,~ ~ _·i~M.?"'-._~·
;,r-, -~: ;;::--;-:-_~ -~ ~~'":AA" ,.."t;l;!ioIti,-¥}' z"'l\ihi! • t~ • it' ~7 ..
. ,)
Revised Draft Hillside Performance Standards -Page 2
--------------------------------------------------------~-------------------------
3. Maximum Manufactured Slope Length (Sec. 8180-1.1 old and new)
The 400-foot maximum manufactured slope length standard was stricken
because the 400-foot number was, in the opinion of the Blue Ribbon
Committee, too arbitrary, and because such a fixed number may work'
against excellence of subdivision design in some cases. Slope lengths
'is best left to the case-by-case design review process.
4. Manufactured Slo es All Cut or All Fill Sec. B1BO-l.7'old/not resen:t in.
new
This section was dropped by the Committee because it'felt the requirement
was too restrictive and techncially would help relatively little in-slope
stabil ization.
5. Major Drainage Channels (Sec. 8180-2.1 old and new)
The definition of major drainage area as being of greater than ten acres
would prove to be extremely restrictive while not adequately addressing' -
the purposes of this section, which is to preserve stream channels with
significant vegetation in their natural state. Thus, the ten acre
definition has been dropped in favor of only those channels with'
significant natural vegetation. The Committee also' added an 'exception
which allows modification of channels if flood hazards 'would' otherwise
result by -implementing this section. Modification, nevertheless, should
be a last resort. -
6. Completion of the drainage System (Sec. 81BO-2.7 old/Sec. B180~2.3new)
Because of the heavy financial stress this requirement ,may place on , '
developers as it was originally written, this section was ~e~ritten to
say that downstream flood control improvements should be either
completed or IIprovided forll (guaranteed in some acceptable manner) before,
the upstream phases of a development are completed. Provision for
drainage improvements would include such things as bondi,ng, 'participati-on
in an assessment district or any other vehicle acceptable to the City.
7. Fire Protection (Sec. 8180-3 old/absent in new)
This section was eliminated because it repeats in e'ssence current Fire
Protection District policy regarding hillside development.
8. Building Styles (Sec. 8180-5.1.1. old/Sec. 8180-4.1.1. new)
In response to Council concerns regarding the negative 'phrasing of the'
originally proposed Sec. 81BO-5.1.1., the Committee rewrote ,the_Section:
in a more positive manner. The Blue Ribbon Committee felt that this new!
wording will also more clearly express City policy in this regard tha·riI\
the old wording.
9. Building Envelopes (Sec. 8180-5.4.3. old/Sec. 8180-4.3.3. new)'
This section was rewritten to remove the requirement for bui1din,g'
envelopes. Rather, the Blue Ribbon Committee elected to include a
requirement to the effect that buildings should not be added onto
(except m1nor construction like patio covers) if ,they will block the
view from the living area of neighboring buildings.
-. "", ~ " "
.:" ", ~.'-:~,~i..~~~:-~~ ~~ ;~>:~?:~--~s~;#.~~~f i;~1r·: ":.< ~ ' .. ~-~-.
Revised Draft Hillside Performance Standards , .. Page 3
------------------------------------------------------------------~-~------------
10. 'Ridgeline Development (Sec. 8180-6 old/Sec. 8180~5 new}
This section was rewritten extensively in order to shorten it and· to,
clarify the language as it relates to the intent of the ridge1ine
section~ In preparing a draft ridgeline map staff discovered ~~v~ral
ambiguous, redundant, or unclear points in the original language that
could have caused some confusion in the future. Development on those
parts of ridgelines not viewable from the valley floor is allowed.
IV. MAJOR ISSUE AREAS
The Blue Ribbon Committee was not able to reach concensus'on three issue
areas and is referri ng t.hem to the Ci ty Council and Pl anni ng Comm; ssion
for resolution.
1. Densiti es -
While the densities proposed in the attached draft Hillside Performance-
Standards are the same as originally proposed by the Blue Ribbon
Committee, the densities that should be allowed in each slope category'
above 10% remains an issue. Of most concern were the densities between
10% and-20% slope. The various proposals are as follOW:
10-15%
15-20%
Existing General Plan
2.6 units/acre
2.6 units/acre
2. Slope Angles (Sec. 8180-1.3)
HIL
'1 uni t/acre
1 unit/5'acres
.GPAC
, '1 uni t/4 acres
1 unit/10 acres
On a 3-2 vote the Blue Ribbon Committee decided to leave this section III
their draft, but the subject of manufactured slope angles' nevertheless
remains an issue. The main argument-against such an approach to the .
recommended slope angles is that they are overly restrictive; will cause'
more land to be graded for the same number of standard building pads than
if steeper slope angles (i.e. 2:1) are use; and the standard 2:1 slope
may be equally as safe as a shallow slope if properly designed. Un the
other hand, arguments in favor of the shallower manufactured slope angles'
include the Tact that a 4:1 slope becomes usable and can actually be
built upon; the shallower slopes are more aesthetically' pleasing; more
distance between units would result and thus less net density (if standard
pads are used); the shallower slope angles may be safer and less prone to
erosion than steeper slopes, all other things being equal; a'nd landscaping'
is easier to maintain on shallower slope angles. .
3. Grandfathering (Sec. 8176-2.1)
The present wording in the draft granfathers out projects which have
already been approved unless there is a Major Modification which will
change the original intent of the project approval. Present'objections
to this language revolve around the feeling that such a provision will
cause an economic hardship to developers with currently approved projects '
because the number of units originally approved may not-be appro'vable under
the draft ordinance. Quite often, developers commit large sums of money
up-front with the expe~tation that they will make the up-front money back
in later phases. They could thus stand to lose large sums of money if the
development standards change after the original approval of th~ project ;,S
received from the City. Arguments on the other hand include the . .
observation that the original approval would stand, and thus the original'
number of units approved, if no Major Modifi,cation is r~quested by the
developer. in regards to time extensions, the' same ·Concerns· about the
~~~""""'''''I''i~,,~,,~,'''.I<.>QI''.'f ~S.""" ..... ,:;:x;.~}.t'~., 4JtJ"??3t-:>,:;c:qQ ,!,~"" .. / 1'l..,K< t,.,~."",~~~--~" , . . .
. -:: .. ' .
. . ->
. ,',
Revised Draft Hillside Performance Standards Page 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------~-~--
~randfathering clause would apply. In this case, however, the developer
1S legally requesting a new permit, and it can be argued that the intent
of st~te law in this regard is to allow for rereview of proposa1Sgiven a:
changlng legal and community climate. . . . . . .
Several alternative approaches can be taken to th~ ~randfaihering issue:
a. Only grandfather in tracts which have been approved, but·not
major modifications. . .'
b. Tak~ the approach of the present draft by grandfathering i~ appreved
proJects and relatively minor Major Modifications. ".
c. Grandfather in all approved projects and those for which there 'is a.
formal Tentative Tract of Planned .Deve·lopment appl ication. . ,
d! Grandfather in only approved projects and minor Major Modifications
but allow the origin~lly approved number of dwelling units to remain' the same in any case. . . .
. V. MINOR CHANGES
Many other minor changes were also made in orde~ t~ clarify language or to
make administrative processes clearer.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE
Three pieces of correspondence relating to the proposed Hillside Performance
Standards have been received since the August 28 meeting.
1. Attachment I is a letter from Southern California Edison expr-essing some ..
concern regarding' the section requiring·that utilities ·be undergrounded •.
These concerns are moot at this point since the Blue Ribbon Committee
removed the undergrounding requirements from the ordinance because .they.
were repetitive of current City ·policy.
2. Attachment II is a letter' from the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra' Club
expressing support for the Hillside Performance Standards;'"
3. Attachment III is a letter from the Santa Susana Mountain Park
Association expressing support for the proposed Hillside Performance
Standards.
. "
._ •• hF~ ...... 'ttiJi.:2!, ... ,b~1 _"";",~""""-",,-""""~WQ",~:,""""'lS'f'4.R"-... ,,,~,,,!P .'t-"~':"'":..:,,: I EJ!~ ... _;:9t.# ~ a __ !2, .. ~~...,~~"':e"""~""",.,,,_,'!'t'_.-. --~~~-"""'.--.,.,. --........ _ .... ~&::I',r$ID~ •• 2,. (', .-:r<"~~.
' .. '.
.... '. • I _ ~ _. >'!.';t~"""''''':';;''.' oidoiiiliiiii:.tir;· '." _::~II!I'~ __ i!JiMI __ M-z!'E' 'ilCl:· ...... ;:~-t_~Id~~~!!i:~~i3~~~~:;~ .. "' .~ .. ~ . __ ~, .;~:;: .. ::~4.~I-~~~)~~'(~~~;;:h~.~~~~·~~;:~t~~~:~=~:~if:~~~~~~~"l~f.~~:.~~ .. ~ ';'" '-... ;.~.:. ~ . .' ~~...;....;~~:.~ .... ,l~.~~£~~~~~::. ~~ii.i~~~~~~ f~";" ~·r~~~--; i-~~ ~i~.~!~;;;..~~~~.~~~;J::~
-.~, --'-' -.. '-~ -..,.,-----_ .. _ .. _---.
Southern California Edison Company 1603 Los Angeles Avenue .
Simi Valley, cA 93065 .
September 1, 1978
City of Simi Valley
3200 Cochran Street
Simi Valley, CA 93065
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard .Malcolm, City ~nager
SUBJECT: Hillside Ordinance
Gentlemen:
The Southern California Edison Company has reviewed
Simi Valley's proposed Hillside Ordinance and suggest.s
the following wording be inserted in Section 8180-8.1
pertaining to utilities: .
All utilities shall be undergrounded
subject to the applicable rules, reg-
ulations and tariffs of the respective
utility, or utilities, on file.with
the California. Public Utilities C.ommis-··
sion.
Your consideration of this suggeste~ Change will be
appreciated.
HJR:elh
Very truly yours, I/J /,,' I -~l· 'if!;;;:?;
H_ ,.:r _ Robings'
City/Area Mana.ger
Simi Valley.
• ~ • 0 ••
,'"
~ . -' ~ ... --... , ." : :·,:~,~;'t4~~;~."
· ' ", .. :, ,
SIERRA CLUB -ANGELES CHAPTER
2410 WEST BEVERLY BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90057
(213) 387-4287
Mr. Ernie Glover, Associate Planner
Department of Community Planning
City of Simi Valley
3200 Cochran Street
Simi' Valley CA 93065
Dear Mr. Glover: '
September 16, 1978
, '
The Santa Susana Mountain Park Force of the Sierra Club, which consists'
of members from both Ventura County and Los Angeles County, is working
with the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation to esta-
blish a state park in the Simi Hills and Santa Susana Mountains. The
State Parks Dept. has proposed'the former E. John Brandeis ,Ranch for in~-
tial acquisition, which consists of 480 acres just,east of the Ve~tura "
County line and north of the Simi Valley Freeway. It is our intention to,
work with all pertinent public agencies to extend the state park into the '
Ventura County portion of the Simi Hills, hence the two-county ::'~presen
tation on the Task Force. As a resident of Ventura County I serve as the
liaison for my 'counterpart in Los Angeles County. ' For this reason weare
vi tally concerned with any long-range planning that is undertak~n by the
City of Simi Valley in the Simi Hills especially as'it pertains to open'
space and development in hilly terrain.
We have had an opportunity'to examine the proposed City of Simi Valley
,Hillside Performance Standaxds and, in general, are 'very pleased ldth its
provisions. There are, however, a couple of areas within the proposed
standaxds that we believe deserve strengthening. Specifically these axe:'
1. Section 8180-2.1 of the Drainage Standaxds.
There should be some stated protection for riparian vegetation",
beneficial uses of water, and natural stream recharge areas. " ,
2. Section 8180-4.4 Special Streets "
Special streets should also be approved by the Ventura County Fire
Department. '
3. Section 8181-3.7.3 within Exceptions
It is our concern that even a development that comprises fo~ Or
fewer residentaal structures or lots could do irreparable damage to
hillside slopes and stream beds. It is imperative that the Director
of Community Plrullling in consultation with the City Engineer, ensures
that none of the criteria wi thin the Hillside Performance Standards
will be jeopaxdized q,:waiving the required reports for ,a development·
of four or fewer lots.
...
" ' -,~, ~.
,. ',; _." 0'/ ....
,e
2
The santa Susana Mountain Park Task Force of the Sierra Club expresses its
~upport of the prop~sed Hillside Performance Standards and asks that this
letter 'be made part of the public recoId.
\
Yours sincerely,
!liaureen R. Cates, Co-ChairpersQn,
Santa Susana Mountain Park Task Force'
Sierra Club '
140 Healy Trail
Chatsworth, CA 91311
"
,.;'~---.. '-. ' ... ',:' ~ . ' ... ,
=', ,~, " ~ ,,: :)~~'i~:~~~~~fi,:?~~:~~~~~~;if~~~:'; •. ', ',?~i~~4,.'t~i;~J~!~·;<".~~·'i~s-:'}),:, \-.'~ .
, ' L.~ "'~"-+-h'rt;t;t; t ',,;--
"
", .
Santa Susana Mountain Park Association P.O. Box 831, Chatsworth, California 91.311
Mr. Ernie Glover
Associate Planner
Department of Community Planning
City of Simi Valley
3200 Cochran Street
Simi Valley CA 93065
Dear Mr. Glover:
September 18, 1978
The Santa Susana Mountain Park Association is pleased to support the
proposed Hillside Performance Standards of the City of Simi Valley. Our
only concern 1s that these standards will also be applied to developments
of four or fewer residential structures or lots.
We believe that the proposed Hillside Performance Standards are a fine
example of enlightened land-use planning that considers the health, .
safety and esthetic needs of ~oth the residents of the City of Simi Valley
and the adjoining Ventur<;l. County areas.
Please include this letter as part of the public record.
Yours truly,
rU/~···
Janice Hinkston, Founder
.,11' ... --
345
Hil-Iside
Development
Policies
Pacifica
California
Prepared for the CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA by
DUNCAN & JONES, Urban Planning and Design Consultants
Berkeley, California
April, 1969
The preparation of this material was financed in part through an
urban planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development under the provisions of Section 701 of the Housing
Act of 1954, as amended.
CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 1
I THE NEED FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 3
II PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HILLSIDES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA 5
III OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT 8
IV INNOVATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES AND THEIR APPLICABILITY
TO PACIFICA 14
V TRADITIONAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES 16
VI FUTURE POPULATION AND PROPOSED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS 18
VII STREET STANDARDS WITHIN HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 27
VIII ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE AND USE OF OPEN SPACE
IX'
X
REVISIONS TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT POLICIES AND
ASSUMPTIONS
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR PACIFICA
GLOSSARY
30
34
36
38
\ "-"
\
INTRODUCTION
This report on "Hillside Development Policies" is the third of a series of re-
ports which are being issued as part of the City of Pacifica's General Plan
program. The first report, the "Basic Data" report, provided city officials
and residents with a summary of factual data and information on Pacifica's
physical, social and economic characteristics. The second rep9rt, on "Issues
and Objectives", highlighted the major problems which have to be overcome if
Pacifica is to achieve distinction and survive as a desirable city in which to
live.
This third report is intended to provide background information and clarifica-
tion of the special considerations and actions deemed neces;sary to ensure the
sound development of one of Pacifica's most valuable natural asrsets --the hill-
sides. This report is not a specific plan or official policy for precise areas,
within the Pacifica Planning Area. Rather, it contains the consultants' recom-
mendations on the framework for city policy that should be incorporated into
the city's regulatory ordinances for the purposes of conserving the hillsides
while also accommodating further development. The land use allocations and
recommendations for hillside areas will be an integral part of the General Plan
proposals.
While this report mainly concentrates on the implications of residential hill-
side development it does recognize the fact that other major land uses may well
be appropriate for certain areas of Pacifica hillsides. However, the premise
of this report is that there are certain basic criteria which must be met no
matter what the final form or type of development. The hillsides in Pacifica
are an invaluable asset and their potential must not be eroded by haphazard and
piecemeal development. A comprehensive and planned approach to the utilization
of the hillsides can ensure the most compatible utilization of this resource to
benefit of the land-users themselves and to the community of Pacifica as a whole.
Should the recommendations and policy guidelines advocated in this report prove
acceptable to the officials and residents of Pacifica, it will be necessary to
. - 1 -
rewrite and amend parts of the existing subdivision regulations and zoning
ordinances aswe11 as to introduce new regulations specifically designed to
control development of Pacifica's hillsides. Five main interrelated areas
of concern will -require particular attention with respect to regu1ator~ con-
trols in hillside areas:
1. Permitted residential densities and housing types.
2. Slope policies and hillside grading.
3. Performance standards for non-residential land uses.
4. The acquisition, maintenance and use of open space.
5. The establishment of a review procedure for hillside development.
- 2 -
I THE NEED FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
All too frequently new residential developments extend the already·monotonous
sprawl of existing residential areas. More often than not, the process of ur-
banization perpetuates or aggravates the inadequacies of community facilities--
most noticeably in the provision of open space and recreatiqn areas.
(Pacifica's future ability to attract new population, commerce or employment op-
portunities, all of a desirable and appropriate kind, will certainly depend in
part on the City's ability to offer an attractive physical, social and economic
environment. Whereas many other cities in the Bay Area have experienced full de-
velopment of their land areas and now face the more difficult problems of re-
development, Pacifica is fortunate in as much as it still has a consideraple land
reserve for future expansion. However, today, few residential developments offer
real choices in types of dwelling units available or in contrasting environment,
and there isvi'ncreaSing disenchantment with the "cookie-cutter" approach of most
tract developers. To continue to permit or encourage such develo.pment in an
area of such outstanding natural beauty as Pacifica would be a tragedy. Pacifi-
ca's hillside land resource also offers an opportunity to correct some of the im-
balance of the current housing market.
/The desecration of much of Pacifica's amenity to date cannot be blamed entirely
on the subdivider or developer. ~A large part of the responsibility must be ac-
cepted by the City for not having actively encouraged more innova~ive development
techniques and a wider choice of housing types.~In addition, there can be no
doubt that some of the problem lies with the existing tools available for imple-
menting community development policy: zoning and subdivision ordinances are
seldom up to the task of encouraging an~thing more than the practice of lot-by-
lot development.
~evelopers, not unnaturally, seldom wish to be involved in the time-consuming pro-
cessing of innovative designs when they know that the c.onventional "cookie-cutter"
product will not only sell but will also pass through the planning commission with
minimum delay. It is now rather more widely recognized among planning commissions
that economic incentives in the form of density bonuses must be built in to local
ordinances in order to overcome this problem and provide the developer with the
economic basis for taking the extra time and effort required. to build a more im-
aginative, varied and desirable development. Nowhere ·is this more urgently re-
- 3 -
l'
quired than in contro. pertaining to hillside reside_al development. Hillside ,.;
living should be a unique experience and not emulate flat land patterns. People
who choose to live in the hills do not expect the same environment --nor should
they find it.
Present hillside developments in Pacifica are largely adaptations of traditional
flat land tract developments, and manyyrguments can be mounted against permitting
such forms of development to continue. The most obvious source of concern must be
in the implications for safety. In such a geologically hazardous area as' Pacifica,
is it wise to permit so much grading and subsequent development on filled lands?
What will happen to these lands when a major earthquake occurs? Are the residual
slopes that are left over after flat pads have been formed for residential lots
safe, or really usable?
Other considerations which must be raised concern the resulting appearance of such
development on Pacifica's hillsides, the limitations that this form of residential
development places on public access and use of major open spaces, and the overall
economic implications on the City. Can Pacifica in its present financial state of
affairs afford continually to extend its services to out-lying low-density resi-
dential developments?
The following basic objectives arise out of a detailed analysis and discussion of
the major issues facing Pacifica in the fu~ure as the City grows they are of
particular concern in a report on Hillside Development Policies:
1. To maintain and strengthen the local tax base to enable the City to provide
improved services and facilities without increasing local tax rates.
Principles: a) Actively encourage great'er heterogeneity in the city's demo-
graphic make-up by providing incentives for residential de-
velopments with units of smaller size, suitabl~ for families
with fewer than the average number of school children per
household, so reducing. the subsequent burden on city services.
b) Actively encourage the location in Pacifica of special re-
search laboratory and/or light industrial employment centers.
2. To ensure that all future development reflects a high qualit~ of site devel-
opment and imaginative design solutions. . .
Principles: a) Prohibit the wholesale grading of the natural topography.
b) Actively encourage large scale planned unit developments and
flexible land subdivision procedures to ensure that adequate
and effective open space and recreational lands are available
for pub lic use.
- 4 -
II PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HILLSIDES WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA
~{n order to be able to recommend hillside development policies it is n~cessary
first to understand fully the physical characteristics of the planning area and
to recognize the implications of various categories of hillside slopes upon land
use development patterns. Table 1 shows the distribution of major land areas
within the Pacifica Planning Area by four major slope categories. The first
category, 0 -12.5 percent, is considered level or gently sloping land and does
not normally present development problems. Land in the second and third cate-
gories, 12.5 -25 percent and 25 -35 percent respectively, is developable but
requires special considerations. It is toward the usage of lands in these two
categories that this report is primarily oriented. Land over 35 percent slope
is difficult, and frequently impossible, to develop under normal circumstances
and it is recommended that such land largely be preserved in a natural state.
Nearly 40 percent of the planning area as a whole consists of land with a slope
in excess of 35 percent. Almost exactly one third of the City of Pacifica falls
within this category, while nearly one half of the remainder of the planning area
is in excess of 35 percent. Easily developable land, 0 -12.5 percent, accounts
for only about one quarter of the planning area, although the land in this cate-
gory within the city limits represents nearly 80 percent of the total in the
planning area.
Areas which have already been designated or which are considered committed for
publicly-owned watershed lands or for proposed regional parks have also been re-
flected in Table 1. These categories amount to nearly 7,000 acres, or nearly 56
percent of the total planning area. Three-fourths of all the land within the
planning area which is between 0 -12.5 percent slope is already developed and
committed, against only a little over one half of the 12.5 -25 percent and 25 -
35 percent categories, and a little less than one half in the over 35 percent
category. This surprisingly high figure for the last category is almost entirely
accounted for by watershed lands or proposed regional parks.
Altogether, 5,433 acres of land remain either undeveloped or uncommitted within
the planning area, of which all but 820 acres are within the City of Pacifica.
However, 2,563 acres of these 5,433 acres consist of land with a slope in excess
of 35 percent. As this is not generally considered developable land it must
largely be excluded from any determination of Pacifica's developable resource
- 5 -
----------------------------------------------. ,
it 'I:
potential, ,which leaves a remainder of 2,870 acres of availab le land in the de-
velopable categories 2,522 acres within the City of Paci~ica and 348 acres
within the remainder of the planning area.
One further subject needs to be mentioned in a discussion of the physical charac-
·teristics of the hillsides, and that is the paucity of natural tree cover. Some
of the hillsides within Pacifica are very exposed to the weather and prevailing
winds from the Pacific Ocean and even if the slopes of the hills were to permit
development it is likely that considerable attention would have to be paid to the
detailed site planning of developed areas in order to create acceptable micro-
climates. Notwithstanding this, significant tree belts will need to be planted
to break up some of the more deadly exposures. As it is now, the planning area
has very few major concentrations of trees totaling fewer than 400 acres of land
altogether.
The most significant concentrations of trees occur in only three readily identi-
fiable areas, in Sharp Park, on the hills to the south of Pedro Point, and on the
land to the east of Perez Drive in Linda Mar. -Part of this latter location, in-
cidentally, is owned by the Laguna Salada Union School District and is being held -
as a potential school site. As Pacifica has such limited areas of good tree
cover it is essential to see that those that do exist are carefully preserved and
only sparingly encroached upon.
- 6 -
TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF LAND AREAS BY SLOPE CATEGORIES: February 1969
Pacifica Planning Area, San Mateo County, California
Area Totals ° -12 1/2% 12 1/2 -25% 25 -35%
Area Categories Acres % -+ Acres %~ Acres % :-7 Acres % -7-
Total Planning Area 12,320 100.0 2,977 24.2 2,164 22.4 -_ 1,803 ;1.4.6
% -!t 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
City of Pacifica 8,065 100.0 2,330 28.9 1,967 24.4 1,068 13.2
% l' 65.5 18.9 16.0 8.7
Remainder of Planning Area 4,255 100.0 647 15.2 797 18.7 735 17.3
% IT' 34.5 5.2 6.5 6.0
• Developed Areas:
Total Planning Area 3,679 100.0 1,813 49.3 1,134 30.8 375 10.2
% If' 29.8 14.7 9.2 3.0
City of Pacifica 3,033 100.0 1,589 52.4 834 27.5 286 9.4
% 1-24.6 12.9 6.8 2.3
Remainder of Planning Area 646 100.0 224 34.7 300 46.4 89-13.8
% If'. 5.2 1.8 2.4 0.7
Watershed Lands/ProEosed
Regional Parks:
Total Planning Area 3,208 100.0 368 11.5 403 12.6 581 18.1
% l' 26.0 3.0 3.3 4.7
City of Pacifica 419 100.0 26 6.2 61 14.6 47 11.2
% l' 3.4 0.2 0.5 0.4
emainder of Planning Area 2,789 100.0 342 12.3 342 12.3 534 1.9.1
% If' 22.6 3.0 3.3 4.7
UndeveloEed Uncommitted:
Total Planning Area 5,433 100.0 796 14.6 1,227 22.6 847 15.6
% t 44.2 6.5 9.9 6.9
City of Pacifica 4,613 100.0 715 15.5 1,072 23.2 735 15.9
% t 37.5 5.8 8.7 5.9
Remainder of Planning Area 820 100.0 81 9.9 155 18.9 112 13.6
% t 6.7 0.7 1.3 0.9
-------
35+ %
Acres % -t
,4,776 38.8
100.0
2,700 33.5
21.9 '
2,076 48.8
16.8
357 9.7
2.9
324 10.7
2.6
33 5.1
0.3
1,856 57.8
15.0
285 68.0
2.3
1,571 56.3
15.0
2,563 47.2
20.9
2,091 45.4
17.1
472 57.6
3.8
III OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
One of the primary purposes of preparing a report on hillside development policy
is to ensure that all the problems of developing Pacifica's hillsides are fully
understood. It is also intended to draw attention tQ the fact that new or modi-
fied codes and ordinances will be required to take care of.the orderly and suc-
cessful development of the hillside areas and to answer the concomitant problems
associated with such development. To this end the following. objectives have been
formulated; it is suggested that their satisfactory interpretation should form
the basis of future action, thus ensuring that all future hillside development
occurs in the manner most compatible with surrounding areas.
1. To maximize choice in types of 'environment available in the City of Pacifica
and particularly encourage variety in the development pattern of the hill-
sides.
NOT THIS
2. To use to the full current understanding of good civic design, landscape
architecture, architecture, and civil engineering to preserve, enhance and
promote the existing and future appearance and resources of hillside areas.
- 8 -
3. To provide density and land use incentives to aid in ensu~ing the best pos-
sible development of the City's natural features, open space and other land-
marks.
/~J .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~~~~~~~~~. '
NOT THIS --------'-- ---THIS
4. To encourage the planning, design and development of building sites in such a
fashion as to provide the maximum in safety and human enjoyment, while adapt-
ing development to, and taking advantage of, the best use of the natural ter-
rain.
NOT THIS
5. To preserve and enhance the beauty of the landscape by encouraging the maximum
retention of natural topographic features, such as drainage swales, streams,
slopes, ridge lines, rock out-croppings, vistas, natural plant format·ions and
trees.
- 9 -
6. To prohibit, insofar as is feasible and reasonable, padding or terracing of
building sites in the hills.
NOT THIS
7. To provide a safe means of ingress and egress for vehicular and pedestrian
traffic to and within hil+side areas while at the same time minimizing the
scarring effects of hillside street
THIS
NOT THIS
8. To prevent the marring of the landscape by utility poles, wires and tele-
vision a,erfals by requiring that all public utilities be underground and
cable television lines be installed.
NOT THIS THIS
From these objectives several general principles emerge which should form the
basis for future hillside development policy.
1. Within the overall framework of the City's General Plan the detailed design
of the hillsides should be carried out as unit developments on large parcels
of land. To achieve this purpose, the major portions of undeveloped. lands
within Pacifica should be designated as the Hillside Development District,
(HDD) which is outlined in the map on page 12. The total area of all lands
within the proposed HDD is 2,800 acres, of which 1,400 acres are uncom-
mitted, developable, and below 35 percent slope, while the other 1,400 acres
are uncommitted, largely undevelopable and over 35 percent slope.
2. With effect from July 1, 1969, no owner of lands 'within the proposed HDD may
subdivide, sell or exchange any portions of his lands without the consent of
the Pacifica Planning Commission, and without the Commission's prior approval
of a comprehensive development plan for all lands owned within the HDD.
3. Cluster developments should be encouraged to minimize tampering with the natu-
ral topography.
CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENTS
4. Outstanding natural physical features such as the highest crest of a hill,
natural rock out-croppings, major tree belts, etc., should be preserved at
all costs.
THIS
NOT THIS
-11 -
_Hillside
_ Development
District (HDD)
-12-
5. Roads should follow natural courses wherever possible to minimize cutting
and grading.
NOT THIS
6. Imaginative and innovative building techniques should be encouraged to create
buildings suited to natural hillside surroundings.
7. Detailed and effective arrangements must be formulated for the preservation,
maintenance, and control of open space and recreational lands resulting from
planned unit developments.
IV INNOVATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO PACIFICA
Over the last few years there have been several attempts to be more innovative in
the approach to land subdivision. While the majority of developments today are
still stand·ard tract subdivisions, new ideas ·are increasingly being accepted and
demanded. In order to encourage even further progress new legislative tools and
programs will have to be advanced.
A connnon theme of recent land development innovations is the attempt to maximize
the effectiveness of land by encouraging a more efficient use of "developed" land
and the subsequent conservation of connnon "undeveloped" land for green belt, open
space or recreational purposes. This principle in some of its applications has
been termed "density transfer"; while the gross density of a site (the total num-
ber of dwelling units per site area) may overall remain the same, the subsequent
distribution of structures (in a manner described above) increases the net density
of some areas of the site and decreases the net density of other areas. This al-
lows a portion of the total parcel to remain 'undeveloped but ensures that the
yield of dwelling units is no less than if distributed evenly over the land. ' Two
variation's of land development techniques which enhance this concept, and which
are similar in their basic approaches, are "Cluster Development" and "Planned
Unit Development". While neither of these approa,ches need be specifically direc-
ted to hillside developments, or, indeed, just residential uses, their suitabil-
ity for hillside residential development is unquestioned.
A "Cluster Development" is one in which a number of dwelling units are grouped
together, leaving the remaining land undivided for connnon use. The individual
residential units are grouped on lots smaller than would normally be permitted
under any given subdivision regulations, or in any specific zoning district, and
the land saved per unit is accumulated into a connnon open-area. Not only does
this form of development create more open space for park and recreational pur-
poses, but it permits natural features of a site to be preserved more readily
than would otherwise be possible by conventional lot-by-lot subdivision methods.
However, perhaps the most significant advantage of all (apart from the fact that
this form of development is such an obvious relief from the monotonous "cookie-
cu~ter" SUbdivision) is the fact that cluster developments can be considerably
less costly per unit than standard tract developments in terms of providing roads
and other utility services.
-14 -
Cluster developments are not, however, without their disadvantages, although as
more and more experience is gained the problems are being ironed out. Perhaps
the most usual difficulty is the unwillingness, inability and unavailability of
sufficient funds to assure proper policing, maintenance, and upkeep of common
open areas. While these areas may be deeded to the public, the feeling invar-
iably is that these spaces exist primarily for abutting residences. As a result,
the pressure by the public at large to maintain them is not great and they re-
ceive little, if any, attention. A more satisfactory arrangement for the sound
maintenance of these common open spaces is for them to be owned cooperatively by
adjacent homeowners through a homeowners' association, or for the maintenance to
be carried out by a special taxing district, specially created for such purposes.
In a "Planned Unit Development" the gross population density of any area proposed
for development remains the same as the basic district zoning requirements. How-
ever, provided a more functional and desirable use of the property is made, the
specific standards and dimensions stipulated in the zoning district or subdivi-
sion ordinance need not be met. For example, residential lot sizes may be re-
duced provided that the land saved is irreversibly retained as open space. A
planned unit development is broader in concept than a cluster development in two
very fundamental ways. First, it may apply to commercial and industrial develop-
ment areas as well as to residential areas, while secondly, it encourages a mix-
ture of differing residential unit types, as contrasted with the homogeneity of
the traditional tract subdivision. Altogether the planned unit development ap-
proach has many advantages. It achieves flexibility, provides for a more desir-
able living environment than would be possible through th~ strict application of
zoning ordinance requirements, and encourages developers to be more creative in
their total approach to the development of land.
Frequently associated with these concepts of density transfer is the concept of
"density increase". A "density increase" in fact is a bonus in the total number
of dwelling units permitted which may be awarded a developer if he satisfies cer-
tain conditions. While there may be several reasons for wishing to offer incen-
tives, the most usual reason for doing so is to encourage more efficient site
utilization and the dedication of open space or recreational lands for public use.
This is a concept which is recommended for introduction in Pacifica. A possible
basis for awarding density increase incentives is sugges~ed in Chapter 6 below.
-15 -
V TRADITIONAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES
f
There are basically two main approaches in the way subdivision ordinances permit )
differing st~ndards for hillside developments. While no two ordinances are ever
identical, the following review shows the considerable degree of divergence in
attacking the problem. The first approach tends to be very subjec.tive, while
the second approach attempts a degree of objectivity.
1. Reliance on Variances and Exceptions. This is the approach Pacifica currently
has in operation. The ordinance requirements for flat-land development pre-
vail with the knowledge that if the land is in a hillside area there can be
variances and a subsequent relaxation in some of the standards. Pacifica's
proposed new subdivision ordinance (section 8.10) permits the Planning Com-
mission "in the exercise of its discretion" to modify lot requirements" only
in the case of •••• 1ots (which) have an area of one-half (1/2) acre or more".)
The lack of firm guidelines, and the rather arbitrary and discretionary nature
of this approach makes this method unsatisfactory.
2. Variations of lot size with slope change. Within this category itself there
are three variations. However, in all cases the main principle remains the
same, and that is that the lot area and lot width relate directly to the slope
of the hillside. As the slope increases the requirements for minimum lot area
and minimum lot width increase.
a) One approach is for regular incremental increases in lot area and lot
width requirements above a certain slope --usually 10 percent slope--
with every succeeding one percent increase in slope. This policy means
that the design must be on a lot-by-1ot basis and overall densities
cannot be computed until after a layout has been fairly thoroughly
worked through. .
b) A more simplified approach is where minimum lot size and minimum lot
width classes are related to a specific number of slope classes --usu-
ally 4 or 5 categories. If a certain percentage of all lots fall
within the sp.ecified lot size category, all lots may be within that
category.
c) A third variation. on the varying lot size/slope relationship is one
which is suitable for use within any residential district and does
not specify exact areas or widths. Instead it requires a regular
-16 -
L __
percentage increase in the basic lot size and lot width in relation-
ship to percentage in~reases in the hillside slope. Usual require-
ments are for the minimum size of the lot in the affected district
to be increased by 2 percent for every 1 percent slope increase above
a predetermined base slope (in Fremont, for example, this is taken
to be 4 percent). Similarly, the minimum lot width is required to
be increased 2 percent for every 1 percent slope increase above the
predetermined base slope figure. The diagram below shows the way in
which a standard 50 ft. by 100 ft. lot (the minimum building site
required in Pacifica's R-l zone) would have to increase in size as
the slope increased on this same principle.
Slope: a -4 % 10 % 20 % 30 %
Lot: a EJ B 76' x 100'
Area: 5000 sq.ft. 5600 sq.ft. 6600 sq.ft. 7600 sq. ft.
The effect of any of the three variations of increasing lot size and width with
slope increase is to reduce the overall density and the intensity of development
with consequent increases in the cost of land and improvements per residential
unit. This in turn means that the cost to the city of general maintenance, ser-
vicing and policing will be more per unit than for the same amount of develop-
ment on flat sites. Such a policy is at odds with one of the basic objectives
set for Pacifica which, as stated earlier, is to minimize the cost of providing
city services.
What are the alternative regulations that can be imposed on hillside developments?
How can they best be expressed? What are the features most important to control
and easiest to administer? It is to questions such as these that answers must be
found if effective control of Pacifica's hillsides is to be assured.
-17 -
VI FUTURE POPULATION AND PROPOSED HiLLSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
A. Population Estimates and Recommended Housing Types
It has been noted in a preceding section that there are 2,870 acres of undevel-
oped uncommitted land within the planning area which are developable; 2,522 of
which are within the city limits (see map page 12). About 1,400 acres of these
are within the Hillside Development District, which, as defined, is entirely
within the present limits of the City of Pacifica. In order to determine Pa-
cifica's probable ultimate maximum population figure it is necessary to ~eter
mine the holding capacity of the developable areas both within, and outside, the
Hillside Development District.
Just over 1,100 acres of developable land are within the City but outside of the
Hillside Development District. While much of this 1,100 acres will be developed
or absorbed by road improvements, freeway interchanges (the interchange between
Routes 1 and 186 will take nearly 140 acres), employment areas, commercial, resi-
dential areas, parks, beaches, and general open space, a considerable proportion
of this land is likely to be developed residentially. It is estimated that:
approximately 300 acres can be developed at low density and house 4,500 persons
approximately 80 acres can be developed at medium density and house 2,700 persons
approximately 1~0 acres can be developed at high density and house 7,800 persons
Total additional potential population 15~000 persons
In addition, it is estimated that approximately 150 acres of land already built
up could be redeveloped in the future with a resulting potential population in-
crease of 8,000 persons over the number of persons already living in such areas.
As a resu1t,exc1tiding the additional population growth which can occur within the
Hillside Development District, the City's population could grow from just over
35,000 persons to about 58,000 persons.
The next major step in determining Pacifica's final population figure is to de-
termine the likely holding capacity of the proposed Hillside Deve~opment District.
In order to realize the maximum population potential it will be assumed at this
stage that the Hillside Development District will be entirely residential in
character, although this is unlikely to be the case, and indeed not desirable.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that the character of this hillside land is most
susceptible to residential development, and amenities -particularly schools.
-18 -
Such an assumption, however, does not preclude development of non-r~sidential
uses in hillside areas provided that such development can meet performance
standards designed to ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential
uses (section VI,D).
It has already been noted that about one half of the 2,800 acres of the Hill-
side Development District is over 35 percent slope and must be considered un-
developable. What, therefore, is the potential population holding capacity
of the remaining 1,400 acres should it all be developed residentially?
If all this land was to be considered as 'net' developable land, the holding
capacity at the City's overall average residential density of 25.7 persons per
net acre would be about 36,000 persons. This figure, of course, is hypotheti-,
cal as the 1,400 acres of potentially developable land cannot be considered
'net' and a certain percentage of it will inevitably be devoted to streets,
schools, parks and local commercial activities. An analysis of some of the
more recent residential developments in Pacifica, on land which is not dis-
similar to the potentially developable land in the Hillside Development Dis-
trict indicates that only between 42-61 percent of the gross area of land is
devoted to net residential development. Again using Pacifica's average net
residential density of 25.7 persons per net acre, the 1,400 acres of develop-
able land at these percentages could hold anywhere from 15,000 to 22,000 per-
sons. If all 2,800 acres of land within the Hillside-Development District was
to be considered potentially developable, and if it is assumed that the density
of development averaged three units per gross acre, which is approximately the"
average gross density of the most recent or proposed development in the City,
the resulting number of units would be 8,400, giving a population of perhaps
27,000-28,000 persons. This, again, however, must be considered largely hypo-
thetical, as the remaining land under discussion is, on average, con~i~erably
steeper than land which has already been developed, or for which plans have al-
ready been formulated. It is unlikely that development similar to that which
is characteristic of Pacifica today could economically result in an equivalent
or higher density than has already been achieved.
Two of the main objectives for the hillside areas in P~cifica are:
1. to ensure that all development in the future preserves as far as possible
the natural beauty and form of the topography and;
-19 -
2. to encourage a more diverse housing mix such that Pacifica is not character-
ized solely by single-family homes which provide tax revenues inadequate to
meet the expenditures for the public services they demand.
,I'
Neither of these objectives precludes development. However, they do both add up
to the need for a change in the form and character of development. 'With this in
mind, and recognizing the fact that the resulting housing mix and average family
size will change, it would appear l~kely that the Hillside Development District
could accommodate anywhere from between 15,000 to 28,000 persons. For the pur-
poses of formulating more detailed'hillside policies it is recommended that the
assumption be made that Pacifica could reasonably accommodate a maximum of 24,000
persons within the 1,400 acres of more easily developable land in the HDD if it
was developed exclusively for residential purposes (including schools, parks and
other residential support facilities). The addition of this figure would bring
Pacifica's total population within' the city limits up to 82,000 persons. If
parts of the developable land are developed for non-residential purposes a pro-
portional reduction must be made in the population holding capacity of the Hill-
side Development District.
Within the Hillside Development District it is proposed that there should be no
stipulated densities and no minimum lot size requirements. Instead, control over
the intensity and density of development will be partly effected by grad'ing con-
trols limiting the amount of land permitted to be developed and partly by economic
incentives encouraging economy in land utilization. Both those aspects will be
discussed in detail later.
In order to permit a land owner or developer to know immediately what amount of
development will be permissable on his land it is suggested that within the Hill-
side Development District the City of Pacifica should enunciate as a policy de-
finitive figures conditioning the overall amount of development permitted per
acre related to the gross area of land --2,800 acres --and the maximum desired
population within that area --i.e. namely 24,000 persons. It is suggested that
the permitted amount of development per development parcel spould be based on an
average density of 20 "unit points" per gross acre' (to give a total number of
56,000 unit points within the Hillside Development District), with the following
schedule being the basis for the allocation of "unit points" per housing type:
-20 -
e e
"Studio unit" (kitchen, bathroom + 1 habitable room. Minimum area 450 sq.ft.) -
3 unit points.
I-bedroom unit (kitchen, bathroom + 2 habitable rooms. Minimum area 650 sq.ft.)-
4 unit points.
2-bedroom unit (kitchen, bathroom(s) + 3 habitable rooms. Minimum area 800 sq.
ft.) - 5 unit points.
3-bedroom unit (kitchen, bathroom(s) + 4 habitable rooms. Minimum area 950 sq.
ft.) - 8 unit points.
4-bedroom (or more) unit (kitchen, bathroom(s) + 5 or more* habitable rooms.
Minimum area 1,100 sq.ft.) -10 unit points.
On the basis of these unit point allocations no matter which residential 'mix is
developed, the resulting 'population cannot vary far from the maximum desired pop-
ulation of 24,000 persons within the Hillside Development District. For example,
should a developer decide to build all 3-bedroom (8 unit points) units within the
Hillside Development District, the resulting population (assuming an average
household size in this unit of 3~4 persons) would be 23,800 persons. This is
derived by
56.~00 unit points = 7,000 units x 3.4 persons per household = 23,800 persons
Similarly, using the indicated average household sizes:
If the HDD was developed assuming an average the resulting total
entirely with: household size of: EOEulation would be:
Studio units 1.2 persons/unit 22,400 persons
I-bedroom units 1.7 persons/unit 23,800 persons
2-bedroom units 2.2 persons/unit 24,640 persons
4-bedroom units 4.3 persons/unit 24,080 persons
While these figures are clearly theoretical and it is obvious that even if all
potentially developable land was developed exclusively with residential uses, it
is most unlikely that those would be only one housing type. Nevertheless, if the
existing character of development is any guide, it is equally obvious that the
residential mix is not going to be as diverse as Pacifica requires to alleviate
the problems that already exist as a result of the predominance of single-family
* Aqditional habitable rooms over 5 will not increase the unit points, in order
to encourage some larger units to accommodate the small percentag'e of extra
large families.
-21 -
houses.
While it is not easily possible to legislate (Jr enforce any one particul~r hous-
ing mix, the City should ensure that future residential development is more"di-
verse, perhaps by introducing a development quota system. The system of measur-
ing density by the unit point allocations described above should encourage de-"
ve10pers to look more searchingly at alternative forms of development. Never-"
the1ess the City must continually bear in mind the necessities for alternative
housing types to the single-family home. With this in mind, the following resi-
dential mix is recommended for the Hillside Development District to help change
the existing housing stock from the predominance of 3-bedroom single family
houses:
"Studio units" " -5 percent
l:-bedroom units -20 ,percent
2-bedroom units -30 percent
3-bedroom units -40 percent
4-bedroom ; units -5 percent
At an overall average bedroom occupancy of 1.25 persons per bedroom, 24,000 per-
sons within the Hillside Development District would require 19,200 bedrooms. At
the average household sizes (a.h.s.) assumed above, the following would be the
number of housing units and population for each type resulting from the recom-
mended residential mix:
Studio unit:
5 percent of 19,200 bedrooms = 960 bedrooms = 960 units,
At a.h.s. of 1.2 persons = 1,152 persons.
1-bedroom unit:
20 percent of 19,200 bedrooms = 3,840 bedrooms = 3,840 units,
At a.h.s. of 1.7 persons = 6,528 persons.
2-bedroom unit:
30 percent of 19,200 bedrooms = 5,760" bedrooms = 2,880 units,
At a.h.s. of 2.2 persons -6,336 persons.
3-bedroom unit:
40 percent of 19,200 bedrooms = 7,680 bedrooms = 2,560 units,
At a.h.s. of 3.4 persons = 8,704 persons.
4-bedroom unit:
5 percent of 19,200 bedrooms = 960 bedrooms = 240 units,
At a.h.s. of 4.3 persons = 1,032 persons.
-22 -
This mix gives a total of 23,752 persons in 10,480 units to give an average of
about 2.4 persons per unit. This can be compared to Pacifica's 1968 overall
average household size of about 3.8 persons.
B. Grading Control and Development Incentives
Within the Hillside Development District the average gross density proposed is
20 unit points per acre. However, it is in the distribution of these unit points
that positive control is required. The following grading control schedule is
suggested as being the minimum necessary to ensure compatible and desirable de-
velopment. This schedule is applicable both for residential and non-residential
developments.
Grading Control
1. No land over 35 percent should be permitted to be developed except at the spe-
cific discretion of the City in accordance with the Hillside Development Dis-
trict Review Procedure*, and where it can be shown that a minimum amount of
development is in the spirit of, and not incompatible with, Pacifica's over-
all objectives with respect to hillside development.
2. The following table indicates those minimum percentages of the ground surface
of a site which shall remain in a natural state (no cut or fill), or developed
solely for recreational purposes, based on the average percent slope of the
parcel in question after the deduction of land over 35 percent slope. "Average"
slope shall be compiled by the formula
S = 0.00229 I L
A
Where S = Average percent slope
I = Contour interval, in feet
L = Summation of length of contours, in feet
A = Area in acres of parcel being considered
(See, also, glossary page 38)
Average percent slope of site
10.0 -12.4 %
12.5 -14.9 %
15.0 -17.4 %
17.5 -19.9 %
20.0 -22.4 %
(continued)
* See Section D below.
Minimum percent of site to remain in
natural state (no cut or fill), or developed
solely for recreational purposes
25.0 %'
32.5 %
40 .. 0 %
47.5 %
55.0 %
-23 -
Average Eercent sloEe
22.5 -24.9 %
25,.0 -27.4 %
27.5 -29.9 %
30.0 -32.4 %
32.5 -34.9 %
35.0 and above
of site
%
Minimum percent of site to remain in
natural state (no cut or fill), or developed
solely for recreational EurEoses
62.5 %
70.0 %
77 .5 %
85.0 %
92.5 %
100.0 %*
Notwithstanding the requirements for the minimum percent of the site which
must remain in a natural state or developed for recreational purposes, it
is recommended that a minimum of 100 sq. ft. of usable recreational open
space for each unit point of development be provided within a maximum dis-
tance of 200 feet of the housing unit to be served by such open space.
"Usable" open space should be of a slope not exceeding 10 percent.
Unit Point Bonus Incentives for Residential Development
1. An increase of up to 25 percent on the number of "unit points" per site may
,,'
be permitted under the Hillside Development District Review Procedure if the
percentage of the site remaining in a natural state (no cut or fill), or
developed solely for recreational purposes, is 75.0 percent or more and, in
the opinion of the City, this will result in a better environment tha~ would
have otherwise occurred with the normal unit point density. Such a bonus will
only be allowed if the gross acreage of the land parcel in question is 40
acres or more.
2. Lesser increases for alternative development patterns may also be permitted
in accordance with the following schedule. In all instances, the lands re-
maining undeveloped in a natural state, or developed solely for recreational
purposes must be dedicated to the City, or entrusted to a homewoners' asso-
ciation, or some other institutional device to ensure its maintenance in such
a state in perpetuity.
* May be subject to review by the Hillside Development District Review Procedure.
-24 -
Percent of gross site area
developed (including streets)
75.0 %
70.0 %
65.0 %
60.0 %
55.0 %
50.0 %
45.0 %
40.0 %
35.0 %
30.0 %
25.0 % or less
Percent of site area remaining
in natural state (no cut or fill),
or developed solely for recrea-.
tional purposes
25.0 %
30.0 %
35.0 %
40.0 %
45.0 %
50.0 %
55.0 %
60.0 %
65.0 %
70.0 %
75.0 % or more
c. Performance Standards for Non-Residential Uses
Bonus
(Percent in-
crease in
unit points
for development
parcel)
1.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
B.O
10.0
12.0
15.0
lB.O
21.0
25.0
Although the emphasis of this report has primarily been oriented towards the im-
plications of residential hillside development, non-residential uses should not
be excluded from consideration in the Hillside Development District. The control
and acceptance of non-residential uses particularly, within the Hillside Develop-
ment District, must be based on soundly conceived and thoroughly objective per-
formance standards drawn up specifically for the hillside areas under discussion.
Because the whole subject of performance standards is so complex, detailed stand-
ards which might be applicable cannot be mentioned fully in this report. Never-
theless, clearly visual performance standards for non-residential development are
going to have to be of prime importance because of the critical character of the
hillsides in relation to Pacifica as a whole. The implications of traffic gen-
eration will also be of unquestionable importance because of Pacifica's particu-
lar concern with this problem already. And, of course, standards controlling the
nuisances or hazards of noise, odor, fumes, fire, explosion or radio-activity,
will also have to be thoroughly investigated.
D. Hillside Development District Review Procedure
It is recommended that a Hillside Development District Review Procedure be estab-
lished for the specific purpose of coordinating the procedures and maintaining
standards relating to the regulation of land development within the Hillside De-
velopment District. These procedur~s should be spelled out by ordinance. It is
further recommended that review be formalized by establishing one, or some com-
-25 -
bination, of the following:
1. A Hillside Development District Review Board, either advisory to the Plan-
ning Commission, or established as an independent board selected by the City
Council with powers of plan approval within the Hillside Development District.
2. A Design Review Board, either advisory to the Planning Commission or estab-
lished as an independent board selected by the City Council with powers of
site plan and building design approval over virtually all development in all
zoning districts in the City including review and approval of proposals in
the Hillside Development District.
The make-up of the Board, whatever its form, should include some combination of
the following: Directors of Community Development and Public Works, one outside
professional architect, planner or landscape architect, two citizens~at-1arge and
perhaps one or more members of the Planning Commission.
Throughout the review process any necessary refinements or amendments to the
ordinances or regulations which will be required can be made to implement the
policy recommendations of this hillside report.
-26 -
..-------------------------------------------
VII STREET STANDARDS WITHIN HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
At present Pacifica does not set different requirements for street standards in
hillsides as opposed to the flat lands. Only "where it can be shown •••• that the
topography or the small number of lots served and the probable future traffic de-
velopment are such as to unquestionably justify a lesser standard" are streets
standards permitted to deviate from those normally required.
Does it make sense to have different improvement standards for hillside streets
than for flat lands? If so, why, and what objectives and principles should be
followed in determining the minimum standards?
The main traffic circulation objective in any development must be to provide for
an efficient and satisfactory total system of movement for both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. With hillside development an equally important objective is
to minimize, as far as possible, the scarring of the hillsides by the imposition
of streets, particularly those of a width greater than will be required by future
traffic generation. It follows, therefore, that improvement standards for hill-
side streets must be extra-ordinarily carefully appraised, and should, in effect,
be absolute minimum standards consistent with circulation needs and safety.
Among the detailed techniques to be observed are:
1. Street alignments where possible should be parallel to contours, in valleys
or on ridges. Where a location between a valley and ridge is unavoidable
directional pavements should be split, with the principle of grading being
half cut and half fill versus all fill or all cut.
-27 ~
2. Sidewalks and walkways should be provided in accordance with a carefully
conceived total pedestrian circulation plan, and not rigidly appended onto
every street in the hierarchy of streets. Hillside street standards should
reflect a rural rather than urban character and, on occasions, in minor
streets it is suggested that a 3-4 foot concave dished surface of concrete
with a vertical standing curb could serve as a walkway and 'as a drainage
~
:,
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATIO
PLAN
3. Street lighting in hillside areas should not be standardized, be unobtrusive,
and scaled to enhance a rural character.
THIS OR THIS
Th~ detailed design characteristics for each level of streets within the street
hierarchy (and, indeed, on occasions for individual streets) should be very care-
fully considered within the framework of requiring absolute minimum standards.
The following schedule and diagrams are suggested as being consistent with this
premise:
Major Thoroughfare
(no frontage devel-
opment)
I-f<~----44' Pavement-----;;>-II
50' R/W*------?::~'I
1111I1I1!1~1111I11/j,1.t, --------~ ________ raJ}!f'/l'\~ k-22' Pavement~
~22' P t--J SPLIT I I I . avemen -I ROADWAY
Maximum
Grade
10 %
* Plus additional requirements for any pedestrian rights-of-way; 53 ft. Pavement
on 59 ft. R/W where left turns are required.
-28 -
L-...---________ J
Collector (no
frontage deve1-
opment)*
Local (Sidewalk
one side only)
Cul-de-sac or
loop street
er~---36 v Pavement -----:;:;..:;;-.ji!
~I""'--~ .. ------44' R/llJ -------;>;:-JI
I ~hll~I~II_" __ ---__
, tJ.(\\ul\\llIitl~ ILIII k-18' Pvm' t ~
L.--; 1/ SPLIT
I" 18' Pvm' t ---I ROADWAY
~ 26' Pvm't >J,.-6' S/W ~3S'-4S'+ R/W "~I,:-~ .-
1l1\111i[(\IU\(lb 1 \\lI~~\lH'f\ k=-17' Pvm' tJ.,,: 6 ' _______ .,,1 SPLIT I· "J:
l*-17' Pvm't~ ROADWAY S/W
~24' Pvm't~ .., J
~30' min. R/W~
Maximum Grade
'12 %
lS %, or 20 % **""
for max. length
of 600 ft.
15 %, "or 20 % **
for max. length
of 600 ft.
Parking should be provided off-street and in no cases within the Hillside Develop-
ment District should parking lanes be provided. Intermittent widening of streets
for emergency parking and turn arounds should be encouraged at convenient places.
The following on-site parking standards are suggested as being the minimum desir-
able and acceptable for residential units wi-thin hillside areas in order to be
consistent with a total off-street parking policy. In cases where half spaces
occur with single units, the standard would be increased to the next whole fig-
ure --notwithstanding the fact that adjoining properties might share common park-
ing areas. The uncovered parking spaces indicated below are in addition to any
areas such as driveways outside garages or carports. Each required spa,ce must be
accessible at all times.
* **
Studio-unit - 1 covered space + 0.5 open space
I-bedroom unit -1 covered space + 1 open space
2-bedroom unit -1.S covered space + 1 open space
3-bedroom unit -2 covered spaces + 1.5 open spaces
4-bedroom unit -2 covered spaces + 2 open spaces
Some sections of pedestrian walkway system may parallel collector street R/W.
Above 15% grade, concrete pavement would be mandatory.
-29 -
------------------~
V~II .ACQUISITION, MAINTEN~CE AND USE "OF OP~N SPACE
One of the direct effects on Pacifica should the hillside areas be developed
broadly in line with" the policy recommendations of this report will be that con-
siderable amounts of permanent open space will become available to the residents
of the City for open space and recreational purposes. This is in contrast to the
present state of affairs where even more open space is theoretically available in
the surrounding undeveloped lands, but where in fact the land is only dormant and
waiting for speculation and development.
In the process of hillsides being developed large areas of open space could be-
come the property of Pacifica, should the City wish to accept dedication of such
lands. Alternatively, these open areas could be retained in the ownership of
homeowners' associations for subsequent maintenance and upkeep. While there is
no doubt that the City can require a developer to lay aside certain lands for rec-
reational purposes (State Planning Law), the City cannot force a developer to ded-
icate such lands set aside to the community as a whole, although frequently the
developer is only too willing for a city to take over the responsibility. However,
it is unlikely that Pacifica would want to encumber itself with the subsequent
maintenance and policing of relatively small parcels of dedicated land even if it
was in a financial position to do so. From many standpoints open space integral
with actual development projects is best left in the private sector.
Pacifica's main concern with open space in the future should be in acquiring major
citywide recreational park lands and in establishing a park 'system' linking up
existing and future parks, community facilities, and schools by means of trails
and greenways. The mere availability of undeveloped land in and around Pacifica
at the present time is not enough to solve the City's shortage of good parks. The
financial burdens entailed in acquiring such lands and subsequently improving them
are enormous. The City's absolute reliance on property taxes and current revenues
makes it nearly impossible for it to ever find sufficient funds to expend on such
a major capital item as park land acquisition. How then can the City fulfill its
responsibility of providing more in-city parks, playgrounds and general community
oRen space?
Federal assistance programs. Grants towards the acquisition of public open space
for permanent park and recreation purposes, the conservation of natural resources
-30 -
and for the preservation of areas of scenj,c. value, caI.l b~ obtained ,f.'rQW .H'QD under
the "Open Space Land P-rogram". However, this progra,1l). would :t;equj,re,50 ··per,cent
,matching grants from the City of Pacifica,. or some other public.body. -"Grants
covering up to 90 percent of the cost of activities may be Cl-pproved in,_projects
that. demonstrate improved methods of preservin~ urban open space. '
Disposal of federal surplus property. Under present laws property no longer re-
quired for federal use (there are 258.0 acres of federal land in Pacifica) must
-' be offered for conveyance to state and local governments for public purposes be-.' :.-. ,
fore it is placed on sale in the open market. Among the principa~ ?rograms for
which a local public agency may be able to acquire such property on,a,preferen-
tial basis are:
1. Public park or recreation use --for which the acquiring agency mUst pay half
its fair market value.
, ..
2. Public health or educational purposes --for which there may be no ·cost.
If the acquiring agency requires no use restrictions to he placed o.J;J.;th~ .. property,
the purchase price is the fair market value of the land.
Land and water conservation fund program. Federal funds are avatla~1.e .tlrrough
application to the State Department of Parks and Recreation to acqui.re and de-
velop lands and waters, or interest in lands and waters, .:for publi.e ol:1't,dQ,er reC-
reation purposes. The State fund for this purpose is parqc:tlly ,de'F.i,ved:.;fr·om fed-
eral funds (Federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) out of admissio~ and user fees,
,_, :..-... t .... _: .!, 4: ~.~ ,:,' .I~
net proceeds from sale of certain surplus federal real p'roperty, and other sources.
I' '.' : ~: ~-'" ." !. :':
Local jurisdictions may apply for these 50 percent matching funds but only on a
., .;~ .. ' I';'~ ·,.·::~J·I
reimbursement basis after a project is completed.
" ::-.... :.
Urban beautification. This HUD program provides grants to local public agencies
"'. .
to assist in the financing of programs of urban beautification and improvement of
open space and other public land in urban areas. Grants may be us~d' ·for' park de-
ve10pment, landscaping, recreation equipment, upgrading and improvement:'of' public
are'as such as waterfronts.
, :,'
The four programs mentioned are only four of several federal programs' "theft have
some relevance to recreation and open space. Further detailed stu'dy s'nchild be
made to determine which, if any, are particularly suitable to Pacifica. These
-31 -
programs seem to be the most likely candidates for consideration and should
clearly be borne in mind --notwithstanding the general need for matching funds.
However, it does appear likely that serious thought will need to be given in
other directions also.
Pacifica's Department of Parks and Recreation presently operates almost entirely
on monies derived from the General Fund. Even increased financial and land con-
tributions from future subdivisions (for neighborhood parks) are still likely to
prove negligible when measured against the total needs of the department in its
struggle to keep pace with present demands and to alleviate past deficiencies.
Additional methods of acquiring open space in advance of development are required.
The potential that the hillsides offer in this direction is considerable, but how
is it going to be possible for the City to finance the purchase of any land it
desires to acquire in these areas? It is certainly unlikely to be a feasible
proposition (or indeed desirable) to issue General Obligation Bonds as the sole
solution, largely because of the resistance there would be to an increase in the
tax rate. Revenue Bonds are politically more attractive, ·but it is difficult to
visualize the development of financially self-supporting facilities on the land
that Pacifica might be able to acquire. This form of bond is more suited to the
development of a recreational facility such as a golf course, or zoo, etc., which
can show a favorable relationship between costs and revenue. They are not suited
to the acquisition or development of such facilities as community parks and gen-
eral open space, etc.
Pacifica's main hope may lie in lease-purchase agreements, whereby the City enters
into an agreement with a property owner to lease an entire parcel of land, and has
option to purchase a portion of such land each year. For its part, the City will
have to finance its yearly purchase out of the General Fund or out of the in lieu
financial contributions received from subdivisions and other types of land devel-
opment.
There are still other possibilities for financial sources. Foremost among them
are selected combinations of federal, state, local and private funds, user fees,
purchase of development rights, and excess acquisition or condemnation of property
for public purposes with the added value to be gained from subsequent sale of the
excess to be used to finance the public project. Among other possibilities are
greater contributions of open space by the developer, inclusion of open spaces
-32 -
•
,
and usable parks within planned unit developments, and the establishment of spe-
cial maintenance districts or home owners associations to own and maintain pub-
lic spaces. Very skillful financial planning will be required to ensure the
maximum use of funds and a minimum reliance upon increases in local property
taxes.
-33 -
IX REVISIONS TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT POLICIES AND ASSUMPTIONS
While this report has intentionally emphasized the implications of residential
development, it is necessary to consider further the alternatives, strategies
and the subsequent implications of non-residential development.
The inadequacy of Pacifica's economic base, and the City's lack of commerce,
industry and other employment opportunities is now familiar. If any serious pro-
posal was received for a major industrial or research laboratory land use to be
located within Pacifica (and inevitably within the Hillside Development District),
what should the City's attitude be, and how will it affect the size of Pacifica's
final population?
Part of the 1,400 acres of developable land within the Hillside Development Dis-
trict lies in a strategic position atop Sweeney Ridge. It is not inconceivable
that a prestigious corporate organization would welcome the opportunity to lo-
cate its headquarters in such a location because of the site's good general acces-
sibility to downtown San Francisco and the entire Bay Area, as well as its proxim-
ity (less than 15 minutes drive when Route 186 is completed) to San Francisco In-
ternational Airport. In addition, the site itself is absolutely magnificent with
uninterrupted views of virtually the whole of San Francisco Bay and much of the
Pacific coastline.
There are numerous precedents for suburban or rural locations, such as Pacifica
offers, to be chosen as headquarters sites for major organizations, both in the
Eastern and Western United States. Among the more notable examples are the Con-
necticut General Life Insurance Company in Bloomfield, Connecticut; Johnson &
Johnson in North Brunswick, New Jersey; IBM in Yorktown, New York; National Cash
Register (on a hilltop site) in suburban San Diego; and several 'think-tank' or-
ganizations around the Palo Alto area.
It is probable that the minimum site requirements of any such firm seeking a
prestigious location on Sweeney Ridge would be 100-120 acres. This would have
to be deducted from the developable land residential potential within the Hill-
side Development District with a subsequent proportional reduction in the area's
population holding capacity.
Pacifica's General Plan should be reviewed periodically in the years to come, and
included in this process should be a review of the Hillside Development District
-34 -
policies and assumptions. Particularly susceptible to review will be the unit
point allocations for various housing types. If, at a later date, the City
finds that the percentage of single family three-bedroom housing units is
still out of proportion to the desired mix, the incentives for other units
must be raised relatively by in~reasing the unit point value of the three-
bedroom residential unit. In this way the developer would be able to get
fewer of those residential units per acre of development and more of alter-
native types.
-35 -
e.
X HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR PACIFICA
From the outset it is essential that it is realized that no single plan for the
development of the hillsides in Pacifica, or set of implementation guidelines
and controls, will guarantee that the hillsides will be developed in the most
beautiful, economical or functional manner --they can merely set up what is be-
lieved to be the 'best-considered' framework for subsequent development. It is
certain, however, that the complexities of differentiated topography and build-
ing types and techniques will require that each project be designed by competent
and well-qualified professionals and be evaluated by the City not only for com-
pliance to the ordinance regulations but also for general acceptability of design.
Pacifica must insist on a high standard of professional design in, the future in
all aspects of development from the initial soils analysis to post-development
maintenance and care of the landscaping. The main basis of a hillside develop-
ment policy must be to ensure that every possible means of encouraging well-designed
and competent comprehensive hillside development has taken place. This will entail
pursuing the following courses of action:
1. Establish the Hillside Development District as a new zoning district, or over-
lay district, and set up the new Review Procedure.
2. Update the subdivision ordinance regulations and other codes and ordinances to
include standards specifically written for hillside conditions --standards
which will assure quality development regardless of the approach taken by the
developer.
3. Re-appraise the requirements for dedication of lands or fees for park purposes
within the total open space and recreational requirements of the City.
4. Build into the development process economic incentives to encourage developers
to accept the planned unit approach and to utilize the best land development
techniques and ideas.
5. Introduce stringent grading controls restricting the amount and the character
of the interference with the natural contours of the land.
6. Draw up objective performance standards for non-residential development.
7. Encourage the establishment of accessible communications between City staff and
developers during all phases of the development process.
-36 -
8. Adopt an attitude and a capacity in the City's Departments of Gommunity De-
velopment and Public Works not merely to react to development applications,
but actively to solicit creative approaches to urbanization and betterment.
9. Prepare a simple Hillside Development District policy manual for wide distri-
bution.
-37 -
GLOSSARY
Cluster Development. A development in which a number of dwelling units are
grouped or clustered together leaving the remaining land undivided
for common use. Individual r~sidential units are grouped on ~ots
smaller than would normally be permitted under any given subdivision
regulations, or in any specific zoning district, and the land saved
per unit is accumulated into a common open area.
Density Increase. A bonus in the total number of dwelling units permitted
which may be awarded if a developer satisfies certain conditions
i.e. dedication of open space or recreational lands for public
use.
Density Transfer. The principle whereby the gross density of a site (the total
number of dwelling units per site area) remains the same overall but
the actual distribution of structures increases the net density of
some areas and decreases the net density of other areas.
Hillside Development District (HOD). The major portions of hillside lands with-
in the City of Pacifica which are presently undeveloped.
HOD Review Procedure. A review procedure, spelled out by ordinance, established
for the specific purpose of coordinating standards relating to the reg-
ulations of land development within the Hillside Development District.
Percent Slope. The vertical drop divided by the horizontal distance multiplied
by one hundred (100).
~ 25 ... 25% slope
100
Average Percent slope "s" is computed by the formula --
S ... 0.00229 I L
A
where S = Average Percent slope
I = Contour interval, in feet*
L = Summation of length of contours, in feet
A = Area in acres of parcel being considered
* Calculations of average percent slope for the purposes of indicating the propor-
tion of the site which should be left as undisturbed open space should be based
upon accurate topograph,ic surveys using a contour interval no greater than 10
feet, and a horizontal map scale of 1": 200' or larger.
-38 -
t e
Planned Unit Development. A development in which the gross population density
remains the same as the basic district zoning requirements but in
which the specific standards and dimensions stipulated in the zoning
district or subdivision ordinances need not be met provided a more
functional and desirable use of the property is made.
Unit Point. A numerical allocation given to different housing types for pur-
poses of determining density and form of development.
-39 -