Hetfield Estates Planning Commission S t a f f R e p o r t FOR COMMISSION ACTION APRIL 2, 2012 CDP 02-05 for conceptual development plan to subdivide 58.2 acres of property into six single family residential lots ranging in size from 41,826 square feet (0.96 acres) to 59,930 square feet (1.38 acres) plus one remainder 51.45-acre common area parcel; (MOSO, SBR) I. Application Basics A. Current Permits Requested: Conceptual Development Plan to develop parcel greater than ten (10) acres in size, under Moraga Municipal Code (MMC) Section 8.48.090 B. Future Applications Required General Development Plan to develop parcel greater than ten (10) acres in size, under MMC Section 8.48.110 Conditional Use Permit to subdivide five (5) or more lots zoned OS-M (MOSO), under MMC Section 8.52.120 Precise Development Plan to develop parcel greater than ten (10) acres in size, under MMC Section 8.48.120 Conditional Use Permit to construct single family dwellings in MOSO Open Space District, under MMC Section 8.52.110 Hillside Development Permit to grade or improve hillside land, under MMC Section 8.136.050 Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide more than four (4) parcels, under the Subdivision Map Act Design Review for a building permit in a land use district other than single family residential, under MMC Section 8.72.060 C. CEQA Determination: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to evaluate the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The Draft and Final EIR are available via the Internet at http://www.moraga.ca.us/commissions/planning/about. D. Parties Involved: Applicant Property Owner John Wyro, The Wyro Company, 40 Valley Drive, Orinda, CA 94563 Robert E. Lipson and Sandy Gage, 802 North Sierra Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 329 Rheem Boulevard Moraga, CA 94556 (925) 888-7040 planning@moraga.ca.us www.moraga.ca.us
HETFIELD ESTATES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 of 16 April 2, 2012 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Project Site
PLANNING COMMISSION HETFIELD ESTATES April 2, 2012 Page 3 of 16 Figure 2: Proposed Conceptual Development Plan File: P:\Agenda Packets PC\2012\040212\03-CDP 02-05 Hetfield Estates EIR\pc_sr_Hetfield_FINAL.docx
HETFIELD ESTATES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 of 16 April 2, 2012 Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation Subject Property Open Space/Vacant MOSO Open Space (OS-M) MOSO Open Space Surrounding Properties North South Detached single family residences Open space and single family residential Three Dwelling Units Per Acre Residential (3-DUA) MOSO Open Space (OS-M) East Open Space/Vacant MOSO Open Space (OS-M) and Three Dwelling Units Per Acre Residential (3-DUA) West Open Space/Vacant and single family residential Table 2: Special Characteristics MOSO Open Space (OS-M) and Three Dwelling Units Per Acre Residential (3-DUA) Residential 3 DUA MOSO Open Space and Residential 3 DUA MOSO Open Space and Residential 3 DUA MOSO Open Space and Residential 3 DUA Characteristic Applies to Explanation Project? MOSO YES The site is zoned MOSO, which establishes a maximum density range of one unit per twenty acres to one unit per five acres. Slope/Geotechnical YES The site has slopes exceeding 20%, which requires a Hillside Development Permit. In addition, the EIR identifies geotechnical issues that require mitigations and conditions of approval. Creeks YES Larch Creek and an intermittent stream run along the north side of the property. In addition, a bridge is necessary to access the site at the end of Hetfield Place. Oak and Other Native Trees YES There are numerous oak and other native trees on the site. Most of the trees would remain, including those located along the creek and in the upper elevations of the project site. Trees would be removed to accommodate the bridge accessing the site. Trails/Open Space YES The project proposes trails, including one to connect to the Moraga Ranch Trail. 51.45 acres would remain as open space. Scenic Corridor NO The nearest scenic corridors are Camino Pablo, approximately 1,180 feet to the south over a major ridge, and Canyon Road, approximately 2,150 feet to the west. Table 3: Project Chronology Date Action December 2005 November 17, 2008 December 2008 January 14, 2009 January 14, 2011 March 7, 2011 Application submitted Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approved project Neighbors appealed decision Town Council overturned PC decision and directed a Focused EIR be prepared Draft EIR released Planning Commission public hearing on DEIR and project
PLANNING COMMISSION HETFIELD ESTATES April 2, 2012 Page 5 of 16 March 22, 2011 March 23, 2012 April 2, 2012 Public comment period on DEIR ended Public hearing notices mailed/posted and Final EIR released PC hearing Table 4: Proposed Development Standards Standard Proposed Permitted/Required 1 Density 1 dwelling unit per 9.7 acres 1 dwelling unit per 5, 10 or 20 acres Minimum Lot Area 2 40,000 sq.ft. 40,000 sq. ft. Minimum Frontage 36 (Lots 1 and 6); 140 others - Minimum Setbacks Front 25 - Side 20 - Rear 20 - Building Height 35 - Site Coverage 33% - Floor Area N/A N/A 3 1. MMC 8.52.130 (Site Standards for Conditional Uses) requires site standards for conditional uses in MOSO to be set at the time of Conditional Use Permit issuance. The Conditional Use Permit must set the lot area, frontage, front, side and rear yard setbacks, building height, and site coverage requirements. Site standards shall be based on the development constraints imposed by the Moraga open space ordinance. 2. MMC 8.52.140 (MOSO Open Space Density) limits density to one unit per twenty (20), ten (10), or five (5) acres, but in no case exceed one dwelling unit per five acres. Areas defined as high risk, as defined in the Moraga open space ordinance (MOSO) are limited to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres unless the Town finds the characteristics making the site high risk can be abated by appropriate remedial efforts consistent with CEQA and the General Plan. 3. Appendix D of the Moraga Design Guidelines (Single Family Residential Floor Area Ratio Guidelines) establishes floor area limits for parcels of 20,000 sq. ft. or less. The Planning Commission may establish floor area limits through the Conditional Use Permit under MMC 8.52.120 (Processing Requirements, MOSO). Table 5: Proposed Parcel Characteristics Parcel # Gross Size Net Size Approximate Average Lot Width Lot Depth Existing 58.2 acres 1 54,519 sq. ft. 52,198 sq. ft. +/- 170 +/- 240 2 48,163 sq. ft. 39,748 sq. ft. +/- 250 +/- 200 3 44,216 sq. ft. 37,866 sq. ft. +/- 193 +/- 220 4 41,826 sq. ft. 35,474 sq. ft. +/- 203 +/- 205 5 45,398 sq. ft. 39,027 sq. ft. +/- 203 +/- 190 6 59,930 sq. ft. 55,151 sq. ft. +/- 260 +/- 240 7 51.45 acres 51.41 acres File: P:\Agenda Packets PC\2012\040212\03-CDP 02-05 Hetfield Estates EIR\pc_sr_Hetfield_FINAL.docx
HETFIELD ESTATES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 of 16 April 2, 2012 II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The project site is located in the southeast area of Moraga, in a small valley. Sanders Drive bisects the valley and dead-ends approximately 1,050 feet northeast of the site. The neighborhood along Sanders Drive, north of the site, primarily consists of single-story, ranch-style single family residences, most of which were constructed about 40 to 50 years ago. These lots across Larch Creek range in size from 9,200 sq. ft. to 18,200 sq. ft. with an approximate average size of 14,000 sq. ft; most of the lots contain heavy vegetation along the rear, or southern, property line. Hetfield Place is an approximately 60-foot public right-of-way in this location; two parcels front on this portion of Hetfield Place, at its intersection with Sanders Drive. A landslide occurred at the northern terminus of Hetfield Place, approximately 1,000 feet north of the project site, in 2009. The remainder of the surrounding area contains a mixture of detached single family residences on relatively small and larger lots, open space with grazing, and undeveloped single family residential lots (to the south). The surrounding area is pocketed with steep slopes of 25% and greater. Sanders Ranch is located to the east. Camino Pablo School is located further south of the project site. B. Site Conditions: The project site is located south of Sanders Drive, at the southern terminus of Hetfield Place, on a north-facing slope. Overall, the site is relatively steep and ranges from relatively flat near the northern boundary of the site to slopes exceeding 25% in the central area of the site; the parcel ranges in elevation from 531 feet near the northwest corner to 853 feet near the southeast corner. A northwest southeast tree-lined major ridge roughly bisects the project site, as does an inactive fault. Larch Creek, a seasonal stream lined with oaks, bays, willows, and Monterey Pines, runs along the northern border of the site. An ephemeral spring is located in the slope above the northwest corner of the site. A stock pond is located in the northwest corner of the site, and wetlands are located near the northeast corner of the site. The project site also contains numerous landslides. The project site was historically grazed and contains mostly non-native annual grass. C. Background: The project site was originally part of a 65.5-acre lot that extended to the rear of parcels fronting on Larch Avenue, Canning Court, Baitx Drive, and Ketelsen Drive. The lot was zoned Single Family Residential 3-DUA (Three Dwelling Units per Acre) and OS-M (MOSO-Moraga Open Space Ordinance). The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approved a Hillside Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for the Los Encinos subdivision November 5, 2001 (Attachment B). The approval allowed a 10-lot subdivision on the 7.4 acres that was zoned Single Family Residential 3-DUA and created the project site as a designated remainder parcel; conditions of approval required trails on the project site. The Town Council approved the Los Encinos final map August 24, 2005. Since that time, the subdivision was recorded, creating the ten lots, and subdivision improvements were installed; the lots remain vacant and undeveloped at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION HETFIELD ESTATES April 2, 2012 Page 7 of 16 The applicant submitted the current application in December 2005. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approved the project November 17, 2008. A group of neighbors collectively appealed the decision to the Town Council. At its January 14, 2009 meeting, the Town Council overturned the Commission s decision regarding the MND and directed a Focused Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project. III. Project Description The applicant proposes subdividing the project site into six buildable lots, ranging in size from 0.96 acres to 1.38 acres, and one open space lot of 51.45 acres. The six single family residential lots would be located at the base of the slope, on the south side of Larch Creek, fronting the north property line. A 36 -wide private road would access the subdivision, crossing Larch Creek, at the southern terminus of Hetfield Place. The private road would run along the south side of the creek, north of the proposed lots. A public access easement (width undefined) would parallel the access road along the south side of the creek. At the east end of Lot 6, the easement would become a 30 -wide trail easement. The Conceptual Development Plan shows additional trails, some of which were part of the original Los Encinos subdivision project. The project would also involve extensive grading. Grading would extend in an east-west direction from the portion of the parcel south of 1104 Sanders Drive to the portion of the parcel south of 1164 Sanders Drive, a distance of approximately 1,300 feet. Grading would also extend in a north-south direction ranging in width from approximately 200 to 300 feet, south of the creek and riparian vegetation and extending up to the tree line. A portion of hillside along the southern property lines of Lots 1 through 6, ranging in width from approximately 50 to 170, would be re-graded to a 3:1 slope and preserved in open space. The Conceptual Development Plan does not appear to show specific finished elevations for the proposed lots, nor does it appear to show retaining walls for the proposed project. The project would preserve the seasonal wetland northeast of Lot 6 and would include a mitigated location for an existing stock pond west of Lot 1. The applicant estimates cut and fill of 29,550 cu. yds. for primary grading, consisting of excavation and compaction. Remedial grading, including overexcavation and recompaction, would consist of 41,250 cu. yds. for keyway excavation and 109,400 cu. yds. for landslide repair. The extended road and bridge would require removal of trees south of the Hetfield Place terminus. IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: A public hearing notice for this meeting (Attachment C) was prepared on March 23, 2012 and mailed to 244 addresses (including property owners, homeowner s associations, Moraga-Orinda Fire District, and those who have been added to the mailing list). Two notices were also posted in the neighborhood and at the Town Hall, Hacienda, Moraga Library, and Commons Park. As of the date of this staff report, File: P:\Agenda Packets PC\2012\040212\03-CDP 02-05 Hetfield Estates EIR\pc_sr_Hetfield_FINAL.docx
HETFIELD ESTATES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 of 16 April 2, 2012 eight (8) letters and emails were submitted in response to the recent public hearing notice (Attachment D). The letters and emails addressed the timing of the public hearing (beginning of spring break for Moraga schools), the rainfall and microclimate of the project site and its surroundings, flooding and drainage, long-term maintenance and issues surrounding the adjacent Los Encinos project, concerns regarding open space and additional housing, suggestions to consider a three-lot subdivision, opposition to the project, sizes of future residences, safety, traffic, and the need to regulate development. In addition, the Town previously received numerous letters and verbal comments regarding the proposed project, most of which addressed the adequacy of the DEIR and are addressed in the Final EIR. In general, neighbors expressed concerns about a range of issues. These included the condition and appearance of the Los Encinos project; the geologic condition of the project site and associated safety issues; vegetation, tree removal, replacement and screening between existing residences along Sanders Drive and the project site; the proposed scale of the development including large lots, associated house sizes, floor area limits, and compatibility with the neighborhood; creek and drainage impacts; proposed density; MOSO zoning regarding density, open space, and site standards; grading and re-contouring the hillside to appear more natural; traffic; construction staging; potential public benefit; questions about slope calculations; subjectivity of EIR; impacts on open space; and monitoring compliance with conditions. B. Commission Review: The Planning Commission discussed the project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report at its March 7, 2011 meeting (Attachment E). The Final EIR addresses the Planning Commission s comments. V. Issues and Analysis A. CEQA Findings: A Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to evaluate the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR focused on potential impacts to aesthetics/visual resources, geology/geotechnical/soils, hydrology/drainage and planning and land use. As required by CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR analyzed four alternatives, as follows: 1. No Project, in which the project site remains vacant; 2. 3-lot subdivision on reduced project acreage; 3. 8-lot subdivision on reduced project acreage; and 4. 11-lot subdivision on proposed project acreage. The EIR found that the environmentally-superior alternative is an 8-lot subdivision with a reduced development footprint (Attachment F).
PLANNING COMMISSION HETFIELD ESTATES April 2, 2012 Page 9 of 16 The Town released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) January 14, 2011. At that time, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project and the DEIR on March 7, 2011. The Town received numerous comments on the adequacy of the DEIR, in writing and at the public hearing. The Town released a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on the project March 23, 2012. The FEIR contains the comments on the DEIR and responds to those comments. The FEIR identified that impacts in the following areas could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with adoption of mitigation measures: Aesthetics/Visual Resources Geology/Geotechnical/Soils Hydrology/Drainage Planning and Land Use Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Public Services Transportation/Traffic The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP, Attachment G) lists the mitigation measures, the person or agency responsible for implementation, the monitoring requirement, and the timing or frequency for monitoring compliance. In some cases, the mitigations currently identify potentially distant future actions for monitoring compliance, for example at the time of a grading permit or final map approval. Because this project requires additional approvals prior to a grading permit or final map approval, staff recommends modifying some mitigation measures to occur earlier in the process. This recommendation is not reflected in the attached MMP. B. Key Issues: 1. Grading and Geology: As described in the project description and analyzed in the EIR, the project would entail extensive cuts and re-grading of the northern portion of the project site, along the valley, extending between the riparian corridor to the north and the treeline to the south. The EIR evaluates the geotechnical and geologic issues associated with the conceptual project and recommends extensive mitigation measures. According to an early applicant submittal, the portion of the site proposed for development has an average slope of 19%; therefore, it appears the Design Review Board can approve a future grading permit. Because the project site contains slopes of 20% or greater, development also requires a Hillside Development Permit. Overall, the EIR provides adequate analysis for the conceptual development plan even though neighbors and the environmental consultants disagree about the method needed to mitigate geologic hazards. The EIR concludes that a reduced development footprint could significantly reduce the limits of grading required for remedial grading and site preparation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider a reduced File: P:\Agenda Packets PC\2012\040212\03-CDP 02-05 Hetfield Estates EIR\pc_sr_Hetfield_FINAL.docx
HETFIELD ESTATES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 of 16 April 2, 2012 development footprint to reduce the amount of grading necessary and to address other issues discussed below, including neighborhood compatibility and the Moraga Open Space Ordinance (MOSO). In addition, 3:1 graded slopes generally do not appear natural. Conditions of approval could require contouring the regraded hillside to appear more natural and could require a combination of a more gradual slope approximating 2:1 slopes in portions of the site and a planting plan that uses vegetation to further naturalize the re-graded hillside. The 8-lot alternative shows retaining walls, ranging in height from 4 to 4 8, along the northern edge of the re-graded 3:1 slopes at the rear of each lot and along the northern edge of the private street s turnaround, near Lot 6. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider ways to minimize the appearance of the retaining walls if the 8-lot alternative is preferred. Finally, General Plan policies require natural contours and the use of vegetation on re-graded hillsides. 2. Neighborhood Compatibility: The proposed project would introduce new development south of, and behind, existing single family residences fronting on Sanders Drive. The Hetfield Place public right-of-way currently functions as private property. Six (6) new single family residences would add traffic to the street; however, the street s size and design could accommodate the increase. The project proposes lot sizes that are approximately three times larger than existing lots fronting in Sanders Drive. Lots exceeding 20,000 sq. ft. in size are not normally subject to floor area ratio (FAR) limits; however, for lots less than 20,000 sq. ft., the Town s current design guidelines establish a range for floor area ratios ranging from 0.38 to 0.23, based on lot size. As shown in Table 4 (Proposed Development Standards), the development standards for MOSOzoned lots are set with a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends the Planning Commission limit the maximum FAR for each proposed lot to 0.20, similar to the limit for parcels measuring 20,000 sq. ft. in size. In addition, staff recommends basing the FAR on the developable portion of the lot, excluding such areas as the private road and areas graded with the 3:1 slope. Staff also recommends the Commission limit the height and coverage of future residences and specify that future development appear compact and minimize bulk. These limitations would also further General Plan policies regarding new residential development. The environmentally-superior 8 lot alternative would address the size and limit of development; however, the eight lots may create an issue regarding density and MOSO findings (see following issue). 3. MOSO and Density: The OS-M and the MOSO Guidelines set a density limit of one dwelling unit per 20 acres unless special findings are made. Therefore, pursuant to Section III.C of the MOSO Guidelines, the proposed subdivision would require findings to allow an increase in density not exceeding one unit per 5 acres, as follows: a. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and requested density;
PLANNING COMMISSION HETFIELD ESTATES April 2, 2012 Page 11 of 16 b. The development is not likely to cause environmental damage; c. The development is not likely to cause public health problems; d. The distance and relationship to high risk areas is sufficient so that development will not cause undue risk to the subject and surrounding properties and will not increase risk to the public health, safety and welfare; e. The dwelling units in the proposed development can be substantially concealed from scenic corridors by vegetation or the terrain; f. Public benefit will result from the dedication of open space lands, trails or park and recreational facilities beyond those otherwise required for development; g. The distance of development from ridgelines is such that the view of ridgelines from a scenic corridor is protected; h. The project is in compliance with Goal 5 (Policy OS1.5) and related policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan; i. The proposed development is consistent with the information provided regarding development capability under Section II.D (Standards for determining whether open space land is within a high risk area.) The proposed project could meet finding (a) since it is located in a valley, on the flattest portion of the project site, and remains clear of the riparian habitat along Larch Creek and the heavily wooded area on upper slopes. Conditions of approval could further ensure the site s physical suitability by limiting the area of development as described in the Alternatives section of the EIR and avoiding the wetlands on the site. The EIR addresses findings (b), (c) and (d) and finds that all potential impacts associated with geologic hazards can be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level to ensure the project preserves public health and safety through landslide repair and installation of keyways. Future residences would not be visible from scenic corridors, given their distance (see Table 2, Special Characteristics), the terrain (a major ridge is located between the project site and the nearest scenic corridor of Camino Pablo), and the project site s location in a valley, addressing finding (e). The project s proposed public trails through the scenic easement portion of the site and along the subdivision s private road address finding (f); however, staff finds that additional public benefit is necessary for increased density, particularly if the 8-lot alternative is pursued. At its closest point, the proposed lot lines would be located approximately 100 from a major ridge; future single family residences would be set back an additional 40 from the rear property line. Together with the distance from scenic corridors, the proposed development project would not impact views of ridgelines from scenic corridors, complying with finding (g). Finding (h) is addressed through clustering the proposed development in the flattest portion of the project site, preserving 88% of the site in open space, restricting development and grading to slopes of less than twenty percent (20%) and avoiding the crests of minor ridgelines (defined as ridges with an elevation greater than 800 feet), consistent with General Plan policies. File: P:\Agenda Packets PC\2012\040212\03-CDP 02-05 Hetfield Estates EIR\pc_sr_Hetfield_FINAL.docx
HETFIELD ESTATES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 of 16 April 2, 2012 The project site was originally determined high risk in part because of its landslides and unstable soils. Section II.D.2 of the MOSO Guidelines allows a high risk area to be re-classified if the Town finds that the characteristics making it high risk (are) abated by appropriate remedial efforts which are consistent with CEQA, the Town s environmental guidelines, and the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. The EIR concludes potential impacts regarding the landslides and unstable soils can be mitigated to a less than significant impact, and remedial grading, including keyway excavation and landslide repair, can correct the geologic hazards. If left alone, the project site s landslides would not be repaired. Therefore, it is a question of policy for the Planning Commission whether the site is suitable for the proposed density. 4. Public Benefit: The project proposes trail connections through the project site. Since the project proposes an increase in density from one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres to one dwelling unit per nine (9) acres pursuant to MOSO, the Planning Commission must determine if there is sufficient public benefit to support an increase. The 8-lot alternative requires an additional density increase to one dwelling unit per seven (7) acres. Staff finds that the proposed trail connections would be required of most projects to further General Plan policies. Consequently, staff suggests the Planning Commission discuss the adequacy of the proposed public benefit in considering the proposed increase in density. Public benefit is further discussed under Issue #3, MOSO. 5. Drainage: The proposed project is subject to C.3 stormwater regulations, consistent with Contra Costa County s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. These require new developments that disturb five or more acres to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program and implement Best Management Practices to reduce off-site runoff during construction. In addition, the built project would be subject to C.3 standards and require bio-retention facilities to minimize off-site drainage after construction. The EIR requires extensive mitigation measures related to stormwater control. The GHAD would maintain all drainage facilities on the common open space parcel. Conditions of approval should also require the General Development Plan show, and demonstrate the adequacy of, bio-retention facilities. 6. Creek: The Town of Moraga utilizes Contra Costa County Code Sections 914-14.010 through 914.14.014 to establish required setbacks for structures from unimproved earth channels and drainage easements (Attachment H). Structures must be set back a minimum of thirty feet (30 ) for a channel depth of twenty feet (20 ) or less and up to fifty feet (50 ) for a channel depth of fifty feet (50 ) or more. No permanent features are allowed within channel setbacks, excluding fences and landscaping. Staff recommends the Planning Commission request additional information regarding Larch Creek, including the required setbacks for the bridge supports. The EIR also addresses the water flow issues of Larch Creek. It references a 1988 study that recommended changing Larch Creek into a
PLANNING COMMISSION HETFIELD ESTATES April 2, 2012 Page 13 of 16 concrete-lined channel between Larch Avenue and Camino Pablo and cites the limited creek s limited cross-section downstream and heavy vegetation in that location that restricts flow. However, the 2002 Moraga General Plan contains policies that call for restoring creeks and avoiding channelized, concrete-lined creeks (see Attachment I). The EIR concludes the proposed project would not contribute to peak flows in Larch Creek given the C.3 stormwater regulations discussed above. If the 8-lot alternative is selected, the proposed 4 retaining wall near the creek may present an issue relative to creek setbacks. In that case, conditions of approval should require an adequate setback from the creek, a design that blends with the site, and landscaping to screen the walls from off-site views. 7. Trail: Additional information may be required regarding the trails, including a description and map of existing trails that were established as part of the Los Encinos subdivision. In addition, the Planning Commission should discuss the issue of trail construction and maintenance. Since the project requires special MOSO findings to allow an increase in density from one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres to one dwelling unit per 9.7 acres, it would be appropriate to require the applicant to design, install and maintain the trails. 8. Trees and Screening: The proposed project would require tree removal. While the conceptual plans identify the location, size, and species, an arborist report is necessary to determine the health, recommendations, and replacement plan for trees. Since the EIR has established that a limited development footprint would be environmentally superior, staff recommends the arborist report address the trees along Larch Creek from the southern terminus of Hetfield Place, extending south to Lot 1 and east to Lot 8 on the alternate plan. The arborist report should locate the trees, identify sizes, species and health, and make recommendations to adequately address this issue and to ensure consistency with the General Plan. 9. Traffic and Construction Traffic: The proposed project would be expected to generate less than ten peak hour trips, well below the standards set by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, below the threshold set by the Joint Powers Agreement between Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda, and consistent with General Plan policies. A homeowners association would maintain the private street. A condition of approval would require the street to be constructed to Town and Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) standards. In addition, conditions of approval would prohibit a gate or other restriction and would require long-term maintenance and liability coverage, consistent with the General Plan. Finally, conditions of approval would require a construction management and traffic plan. 10. Subdivision Condition Compliance: The project conditions of approval would be connected to specific triggers during the development review process to ensure improvements are installed prior to completion and occupancy. As an example, a preliminary grading plan would be required to submit a general development plan. File: P:\Agenda Packets PC\2012\040212\03-CDP 02-05 Hetfield Estates EIR\pc_sr_Hetfield_FINAL.docx
HETFIELD ESTATES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 of 16 April 2, 2012 Conditions of approval would also address engineering requirements, and specific actions during the construction process (e.g., grading permit issuance) would trigger specific conditions. For example, a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) would need to be in place prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mitigation measures would be incorporated into the conditions of approval to ensure compliance. Finally, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to fund a Town-contracted individual to monitor compliance with mitigations and conditions of approval. This condition would include signage and publicity informing members of the public and neighbors of the individual who can be contacted regarding site activities. This approach is an effective tool that other cities use for larger or more complicated projects. 11. Additional Residential Development: The Housing Element contains policies to accommodate 307 dwelling units for a range of income groups through 2014. The proposed project would add six (6) dwelling units to the Town s fair share, consistent with the General Plan, though the new residences would not be expected to be affordable to very low or low income groups. 12. Impacts to Town Services: The proposed project is subject to impact fees, including but not limited to park dedication requirements. For six residences, the applicant would likely choose to pay the in-lieu fee for park dedication. Another alternative would be to require dedication of a larger site as a park as part of the MOSO findings. The new residences would not generate significant amounts of traffic; however, construction vehicles may result in damage to Town streets. Conditions of approval would require the applicant to repair and replace any damage to Town facilities. These conditions and impact fees would provide consistency with the General Plan. 13. Long Term Subdivision Maintenance: Conditions of approval and mitigation measures would require two separate entities to manage the project s infrastructure over time, consistent with the General Plan. A GHAD would maintain landslide repairs, subdrains, keyways, v-ditches and all other on-site geotechnical issues and facilities. Each parcel would be assessed, and the district would develop a long-range plan and program for site maintenance, abatement, prevention and repairs. A homeowners association would maintain the bridge, private road and other improvements in the common open space area that the GHAD does not otherwise maintain. 14. Scale and Footprint of Development: The proposed subdivision would develop less than one-third of the project site, focusing on the flattest portion of the site. The proposed lot sizes, and potential future residences, however, are not consistent with the existing residential development directly north of the site, across Larch Creek. The 8-lot mitigated alternative does scale back the size of the subdivision significantly, limiting the areas that would be graded, avoiding the wetlands on the site, and essentially tucking the development in the portion of the site that is most heavily screened. The 8-lot mitigated alternative also reduces the proposed lot sizes, closer to that of neighboring lots. As mentioned above, the
PLANNING COMMISSION HETFIELD ESTATES April 2, 2012 Page 15 of 16 project and the alternative both require increased scrutiny under MOSO. Staff recommends limiting the development footprint similar to the 8-lot mitigated alternative but with a lower density of one unit per ten (10) acres for a total of five units. In addition, the smaller lots would still measure greater than 20,000 sq. ft. and would not be subject to FAR limits. Therefore, Staff recommends specifying a building envelope of less than 20,000 sq. ft. on each lot and imposing FAR limits of 0.20. C. General Plan Consistency: The 2002 General Plan contains numerous policies applicable to the project (Attachment I). While General Plan consistency is included in the preceding issues discussion, Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide additional feedback regarding compliance with General Plan policies. VI. Recommendation Following the public hearing, staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss both the merits of the project and the EIR, provide direction to the applicant and staff, and continue the public hearing and item to a date certain, but no earlier than May 7, 2012. In particular, staff requests direction regarding the following: Attachments: Environmental impacts in particular, adequacy of mitigation measures Merits of project as a whole is it possible to approve a project? Area/Limits of development and grading where should development occur? Slopes, grading, retaining walls is additional information necessary? Comment on proposed 3:1 slopes Creek request additional information from applicant Trees request arborist report from applicant; provide direction regarding areas for arborist to concentrate work Lot size comment on proposed lot sizes Public benefit comment on adequacy of proposed trails Overall density what is the appropriate number of residences? Massing/Bulk/Floor Area comment on appropriateness of FAR limit of 0.20 and restricting area for calculating FAR on developable portion of lot Environmentally-superior alternative comment on 8-lot subdivision A. Project Plans, received March 26, 2012 B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-2001, approving Los Encinos subdivision C. Notice of Public Hearing D. Correspondence Received 1. Gordon Nathan, March 26, 2012 2. Walter Klippert, March 27, 2012 3. Bob and Jane Ellerbeck (email), March 27, 2012 File: P:\Agenda Packets PC\2012\040212\03-CDP 02-05 Hetfield Estates EIR\pc_sr_Hetfield_FINAL.docx
HETFIELD ESTATES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 16 of 16 April 2, 2012 4. Nancy & Nelson Wilkerson, March 27, 2012 5. John Valentine, March 24, 2012 6. Amy Jeter, March 26, 2012 7. Jennifer Koziel, March 27, 2012 8. Tadd Koziel, March 27, 2012 E. Planning Commission Minutes, March 7, 2011 F. Alternative Conceptual Development Plan, 8-lot Subdivision G. Mitigation Monitoring Program H. Contra Costa County Code, Creek Setbacks I. Applicable 2002 Moraga General Plan Policies Staff Planner: Shawna Brekke-Read, sread@moraga.ca.us, (925) 888-7043