None. The applicant is responsible for 100% of the application fees.

I. Executive Summary  
  
The applicant is pursuing a residential subdivision on 10 acres in the unincorporated North Gate area of Walnut Creek near the entrance to Mount Diablo (Figure 2 - Vicinity Map). To accomplish this, the approvals necessary for the project are a subdivision and a rezoning. After two public hearings, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision, as submitted by the applicant, and recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the rezoning. The proposed rezoning, from A-2 to R-40 would be consistent with the existing development pattern and zoning to the north and south of the project site ( Figure 3- Rezoning Map). On September 22, 2011 the County received an appeal from Save Mount Diablo on the Planning Commission's decision to approve the subdivision.  
  
II. Planning Commission Hearing August 9, 2011  
  
On August 9, 2011 this item was heard by the County Planning Commission. Before them was a proposed subdivision of 7 lots and a Remainder (Figure 4- Applicant's Proposed Subdivision).On the Remainder lot is the applicant’s home with a smaller secondary home. The proposed subdivision includes a 60 foot landscape buffer along the western and southern borders to screen it from the open space area , as well as a creek buffer on the north end of the site.   
  
At the hearing were two speakers who expressed concerns about the proposed development. The first speaker was an adjacent neighbor, located to the east, who spoke about his view to the open space area and how it would be impacted by the development. The second speaker was a representative from Save Mount Diablo (SMD) who spoke about their concern of the project’s impacts to the surrounding area.   
  
Save Mount Diablo’s concerns were primarily the potential visual impacts to the surrounding open space and impacts to the creek. According to SMD, most of the concerns could be addressed by realigning the access road, creating a larger buffer between the proposed homes and the open space land with trails. They would like to see a greater creek buffer as well.   
  
At the end of the hearing the Planning Commission continued the item until September 13, 2011 since they wanted the applicant to provide them with an alternative design of the project that may include realignment of the access road.   
  
  
III. Meetings with Save Mount Diablo  
  
On August 25, 2011 the applicant’s engineer met with representatives of Save Mount Diablo and County staff to discuss Save Mount Diablo’s concerns, which included the realignment of the access road.   
  
At a follow-up meeting, on September 1, 2011 that same group met at the project site to walk the area and discuss the issues in more detail. The applicant’s engineer designed an Alternative Design ( Figure 5- Alternative Subdivision Design), which he brought to the site visit, which showed the realignment of the access road. By realigning the access road the project would lose one lot.   
  
After seeing the Alternative Design SMD still had concerns that there was not enough visual separation between the proposed homes and the adjoining open space. They had concerns that the access road should be immediately outside the buffer not inside the buffer , so there would be a greater distance between the homes and open space. They also wanted a greater creek buffer to protect that resource.  
  
  
  
  
IV. Planning Commission Hearing September 13, 2011  
  
  
The Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on September 13, 2011. At the hearing the applicant’s engineer presented the Alternative Design (Figure 5) that shows the realignment of the access road and one less lot.   
  
The applicant Nelda Champion stated the project, as she has proposed, would create more of a traditional neighborhood in which most of the homes faced each other allowing neighbors to interact more freely rather than the Alternative Design in which neighbors on many of the lots would not be facing each other and perhaps less apt to interact.   
  
Seth Adams from SMD spoke about how the project needs to be more sensitive of its setting in the North Gate area visual corridor and its proximity to the entrance to Mount Diablo. He also expressed concern that the project should create a feeling of openness in the area through both larger lot sizes and dedication of land. Realigning the road outside the buffer in the Alternative Design would give the project a “feel” of bigger buffer. He also expressed concerns about how the project would impact the creek at the north end of the project site, which may contain federally listed endangered species and other wildlife.   
  
  
The applicant’s engineer spoke and compared the two designs. He stated that the project as proposed by the applicant was preferable to the Alternative Design because the Alternative Design did not lay the lots out in a pattern that created a harmonious neighborhood. He stated the deficiencies in the Alternative Design include; the realigned road would create visual and noise impacts both to the neighbor’s house to the south and the open space area to the west, since it would be closer to both. The Alternative Design would also split some of the lots, he said, with the road separating them and it would also create more impervious surface which is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.   
  
Before the end of the hearing the Planning Commission added two conditions of approval having to do with repainting the existing structures (which are white) to a less reflective color to reduce the visual impact and all new structures would be required to be painted in a less reflective color as well, and requiring a Home Owner's Association (HOA) be created for this project and their responsiblity would include maintenance of the landscaped buffer (without fee title ownership) in case the land owner, upon which the buffer landscaping was located, failed to do so.   
  
At the end of the hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to approve the project as originally proposed by the applicant (Figure 4) and recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning that rezones the property from General Agricultural to Single Family Residential, R-40 (40,000 square foot minimum lot size)   
  
  
V. Save Mount Diablo Appeal Letter, dated September 22, 2011  
  
On September 22, 2011 Save Mount Diablo filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s September 13, 2011 decision (Attachment 2- Appeal from Save Mount Diablo).   
  
Below are the appeal points followed by staff response:   
  
Summary of appeal point #1: The visual impacts are not mitigated. The project site is located in an important view corridor and will significantly affect views from Mt. Diablo, from Central County and from neighboring open space. The project will intensify development impacts on aesthetics by development on a visible slope rather than screen the impacts by sensitive design.  
  
Staff Response to appeal point #1: Staff acknowledges the location of the project site in relation to Mt. Diablo and the neighboring open space. The proposed development may be seen by users of various trails within Mt. Diablo State Park and Shell Ridge when viewing in a northwesterly/southeasterly direction. The views from these trails would not be impeded by the proposed development, nor would views of Mt. Diablo and foothills be blocked. Given the distance of the development from the trails, and the duration of time that the project site would be visible to trail users, this is considered a less-than-significant impact. Staff acknowledges that the near views from the existing trail and proposed trail along the west and southern edge of the property may be somewhat impacted, however the project will have a landscape screen that will visually screen the new residences for the users of the existing and proposed trails.   
  
Summary of appeal point #2: The project fails to adequately buffer wildlife habitat and neighboring public open space. The creek (located at the north end of the site) does not have an adequate buffer.  
  
Staff Response to appeal point #2: The project complies with all North Gate Specific Plan (NGSP) setback/ buffer requirements as they apply to creeks and open space; the project provides for both a 50 ft creek setback and Creek Preservation Plan as required by the NGSP. To protect adjacent open space lands to the west and south the project has a 60 foot buffer that is required by the NGSP. This buffer will be landscaped with native trees. The development rights on both the landscape buffer and creek buffer will be dedicated to the county to restrict development.   
  
Summary of appeal point #3: The project fails to meet the goals of the North Gate Specific Plan, which calls for increasingly larger lots as a transition from suburban residential development to agricultural and open space lands and the dedication of land.   
  
Staff response to appeal point #3: The project meets the goals of the NGSP that call for increasingly larger lots as a transition from suburban residential , that is located to the west, to open space land, that is located to the east. As shown Figure 4 the proposed lots are increasingly larger than the existing residential lots that are located to the northwest, along Pine Creek Road where the more suburban residential is located. , and they match the existing development pattern and land use designation of R-40, Single Family Residential (40,000 square foot minimum lot size) of the immediate surrounding residential development. In terms of compliance with open space lands and dedication of lands please refer to Staff response to appeal point #2.   
  
  
  
Summary of appeal point #4: The project will impact adjacent public trail corridor designated in the North Gate Specific Plan.  
  
Staff response to appeal point #4: Please see staff response to appeal point #1.   
  
Summary of appeal point #5: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate and fails to reduce impacts to less than significant.  
  
Staff response to appeal point #5: The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identified potential impacts including to aesthetic and biological resources. The MND mitigated the impacts to aesthetics by creating a 60 foot landscape buffer along the western and southern boundaries of the site where it abuts open space land. There will be native trees planted in the buffer area to screen the development from nearby users of open space and trails.   
  
As far as biological impacts are concerned, the project applicant prepared several biological assessments, by qualified biologists to ensure that the project site and surrounding area was fully studied. As a result of those studies the MND identified mitigation measures that serve to protect the wildlife on the project site. Such mitigations as preconstruction surveys for the California red-legged frog and other species that may occur on the site, construction workers shall be trained by a qualified biologist regarding Californai red-legged frog, exclusionary fencing and an on site qualified biologist or an on site monitor (such as construction manager trained by the qualified biologist) shall check the site in the morning and in the evening of construction activities for the presence of California red-legged frog. In conclusion, on September 13, 2011 after fully considering all of the evidence and comments received the Planning Commission found that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequate for the project .   
  
Summary of appeal point #6: The Planning Commission failed to include conditions of approval agreed upon such as scattered native valley oaks along the buffer which would have broken up the visual massing of the development. The proposed landscaping is not a buffer and includes inappropriate species.  
  
Staff response to appeal point #6: Condition of approval #7 requires that the applicant submit a landscape plan for the buffer area that consists of native evergreen species ( e.g. coast live oak,etc) subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Since the landscape plan is subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator the type of the oak tree will be determined based on pertinent input from the appropriate parties, including Save Mount Diablo.   
  
  
Summary of appeal point #7: The Planning Commission failed to include conditions of approval that were agreed upon regarding repainting of the larger white existing house.  
  
Staff response to appeal point #7: At the September 13, 2011 Planning Commission hearing the Commission added condition of approval # 10A that states that no later than 120 days after the issuance of building permits of the first building the existing structures on the property that are to be retained shall be repainted with a paint that reduces the visual impact of the structures. The paint color is subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. This applies to proposed structures as well. The purpose of the condition is to lessen the visual impact of the structures on the surrounding area.   
  
Summary of appeal point #8: The Planning Commission failed to include a condition of approval that was agreed upon for a larger setback from Walker Creek at the north end of the property.   
  
Staff response to appeal point #8: The agreement referred to by the appellant was between the appellant and the applicant. This was not a condition placed by the County Planning Commission since they did not feel that it was necessary to require greater setback than what is required by the North Gate Specific Plan. Staff is not recommending any larger setback than what was approved by the Planning Commission.  
  
VI. Conclusion  
  
Staff recommends that the Board 1) Deny the appeal filed by Save Mount Diablo and Uphold the 9/13/2011 Planning Commission's decision to approve the subdivision 2) Find the Mitigated Declaration for the project is adequate and adopt the Mitigation Measures with the Mitigation Monitoring Program 3) Adopt the rezoning of the subject site from A-2 to R-40 and Adopt Ordinance No. 2011-18 giving effect to the aforementioned rezoning and 4) Adopt the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-2011 as the basis for the Board's approval.   
  
  
  

If the Board does not deny the appeal by Save Mount Diablo and approve the rezoning of this property from A-2, General Agricultural to R-40, Single Family Residential the applicant cannot subdivide the property into 7 lots and a designated Remainder as they propose.

Speakers:  Jodi Bailey and Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo (Appellent); Vince D'Alo of Aliqout Associates (on behalf of Applicant); Allan Moore, resident of Danville; Kish Rajan, resident of Walnut Creek.

CLOSED the public hearing;