Planning Commission Takes First Pass at Hillside Regulations
By Sophie Braccini
Hillside and ridgeline protection is the second most important public policy topic for Moraga residents, just after rapid response to 911 calls, according to a recent survey. So reviewing the rules that regulate development on those beloved and pristine features is a process taken with the utmost care by civic leaders and residents alike.
After two years of work that included several public meetings, a steering committee drafted proposed amendments to standardize and sometimes amend the rules across the different regulatory documents that drive the development process. The next phase is now for the planning commission to review the committee's recommendations and transmit the document to the town council with their suggestions.
The steering committee identified 10 key issues and proposed some changes of the rules.
The first issue is the MOSO open space map. In 1986 Moraga residents approved the Moraga Open Space Ordinance, MOSO, that protects some of the undeveloped areas of Moraga. The open space map was created without the use of a Geographic Information System (GIS). Over the years, some discrepancies appeared between the original map and the town zoning map. The committee's recommendation was the adoption of a single map that would align with the boundaries of existing private properties, which was not always the case in the original MOSO map.
The second issue is the MOSO ridgeline map that also presents inconsistencies over different town's regulatory documents. In particular, a portion of Indian Ridge (undeveloped land above the country club toward Canyon) is considered a minor ridge while the rest is designated as major. The committee recommended labeling the entire ridge as a major ridgeline.
The third issue pertains to the high risk area map that was included in the MOSO initiative. The rule is that in open space areas of high risk (history of soil slippage, slope grade, accessibility and drainage) the maximum development density be one unit per 20 acres. The issue is that when applicants have submitted a geological study of their parcel, the result does not match the determination made in MOSO. The committee supported the creation of a new map that was prepared using a GIS and added that when applicants are requesting a final determination of high risk status they should use as the basis for this request the same methodology.
The fourth issue regards the definition of the term development. The General Plan and the MOSO guidelines (rules developed after the adoption of MOSO to implement it) define development as much more than just the erection of structures. For example it includes the placement, discharge or disposal of any material, or grading. The MOSO ordinance itself does not include a definition of the term development. The committee recommended using the General Plan definition consistently across all regulations.
The fifth issue regards the hillside development permit (HDP). This permit is a document that predates the adoption of MOSO and other more detailed regulation. Does the town still need an HDP as a separate document? The committee recommended to maintain but improve the HDP to make sure that all projects on hillsides are specifically analyzed.
The sixth issue addresses the non-MOSO ridgelines definition and regulation. MOSO lists and protects a number of ridgelines in town, but there is no standard rule to define if a piece of land not included in MOSO is a significant ridgeline requiring protection from development: should it be based solely on elevation, or on its visibility from the scenic corridors, or on its visibility from roads and trails?
... continued on page A11
Before you print this article, please remember that it will remain in our archive for you to visit anytime. download pdf (use the pdf document for best printing results!)