Moraga planning commissioners approve Hetfield Estates design review with conditions after neighbors press size and fire‑safety concerns

Moraga — The Planning Commission on Tuesday voted 4–0 to approve design review DR‑0624 and grading permit GR01‑25 for Hetfield Estates, a seven‑home project in southeast Moraga, after a night of public testimony focused on home size, visual impacts, landscaping and fire‑safety compliance.

The commission’s approval includes amendments requiring windows to have a two‑inch trim or two‑inch recessed edge to create a shadow line, use of cementitious or equivalent high‑quality roofing material, façade articulation that steps at least 24 inches from the building plane for visual relief, and at least one 36‑inch‑box tree in each front yard; accessory dwelling units (ADUs) must comply with the same design conditions when submitted. The motion to approve was made by Commissioner Halber and seconded by Commissioner Weber; the resolution passed unanimously by the four commissioners present. A 10‑day appeal period applies.

The project site sits in a small valley off Sanders Drive and is to be accessed by a bridge from Hetfield Place, with Larch Creek and riparian habitat along the northern edge of the property. Staff described the requested action as approval of design review for seven residences (many with attached or detached ADUs) and a grading permit for 390 cubic yards (362 cubic yards fill, 28 cubic yards cut) to prepare pads for future homes. Principal Planner Brian Horn told commissioners that the houses generally comply with previously approved conditions, the certified 2012 environmental impact report (EIR) and an addendum addressing emergency‑vehicle access; staff found no additional CEQA review was required under CEQA Guidelines §15162.

Neighbors who live across the creek raised repeated concerns about building scale and sight lines. "I live directly across the creek from Lot 7…[the plan] is at least 50% bigger than anything else in the community," said John Valentine, who identified his address for the record. Multiple speakers said the proposed houses (roughly 3,990–4,000 gross square feet as presented) are not in keeping with the single‑story ranch character of adjacent Sanders Drive homes and asked for stronger screening and larger replacement trees.

The developer, who did not record a full name for the record, said the team has coordinated with agencies including the fire district and California Fish and Wildlife and that story poles and major grading work have been completed. "We are building a stronger foundation…" the developer said, adding that the team would work with the town and neighbors as the project proceeds to building permits.

Contractor Aziz, who identified himself on the record, told commissioners that tree removals to date were authorized under the 2022 approvals and that mitigation plantings would follow a 3:1 replacement ratio. He also said erosion controls were in place and that third‑party inspectors and county monitors have been involved during grading.

Commissioners focused their deliberations on adding objective architectural requirements to reduce visual bulk, asking for details such as 2‑inch window recesses to create shadow lines, minimum projections for awnings and specific materials for roofs and railings. Several commissioners noted that state ADU rules and broader housing laws limit the commission’s discretion over accessory units and urged staff to retain objective standards to streamline subsequent plan checks.

Staff told the commission that the town ratified the MOFD 2025 fire code and that the Moraga fire district would enforce new wildland‑urban interface (WUI) requirements and any home‑hardening measures; the commission requested that the developer be conservative on fire‑safety choices as the project abuts open space. The developer and applicant team said they have submitted plans to the fire district and will return detailed building permit drawings for final review.

The commission noted that the development has prior approvals (including the certified 2012 EIR and subsequent subdivision and precise development plan approvals) and that the current action addresses design review and minor grading to finish approved pads, not the subdivision map itself. The resolution’s conditions require the developer to demonstrate compliance at building permit stage and to work with staff and MOFD on any WUI‑related adjustments that may be necessary when MOFD and Board of Forestry comments are finalized.

The commission also approved routine calendar and reporting items before adjourning at 8:31 p.m.

The commission’s approval is subject to a 10‑day appeal period; appeals are filed with planning staff or the town clerk.