HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09142004 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LY # County
DATE: JULY 27 2004
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OR RESCISSION OF A PORTION OF THE
WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT (LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT, AP# 4-76)
RELATING TO 24 ACRES OF THE HUMPHREY RANCH PROPERTY, ALAMO
(County File: AP#01-0001)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the Petition for Partial
Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No., AP#4-76 (Williamson Act
contract) for the Humphrey Ranch (County File: AP#01-0001), as submitted on
behalf of the Humphrey Family Trust.
2. CLOSE the public hearing.
3. ACCEPT the June 21, 2004 recommendation of the Zoning Administrator, as
contained in Resolution No. 20-2004 (see attached Exhibit "F") that the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Humphrey Ranch Property (SCH
2002012029)is adequate and prepared consistent with State and County CEQA
guidelines.
4. CERTIFY that the Final Environmental Impact Report is adequate and complete,
and that the Board has considered the information contained in the document
prior to making a decision on this project.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
ILL
—1,RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE
�--" PPROV OTHER
SIGNATURE
ACTION OF BO ON d APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER)C
VOTE OF SUR ISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT & CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Patrick Roche,CDD-Adv.Plan(925)335.9242 ATTFRTFn tea �t / r rr
cc: CA Dept.of Conservation -''�� S w-c CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Assessor SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMININISTRATOR
CAO
County Counsel
Clerk of the Board BY ,DEPUTY
Humphrey Family c/o John Wyro
Jeffrey Thayer, Davidon Homes
San Ramon Valley Unified School District
.............................................
July 27, 2004
Board of Supervisors
File#AP#01-0001,Tentative Cancellation or Rescission of Williamson Act Contract, Humphrey Ranch Property
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS - continued
5. APPROVE the tentative cancellation or rescission of the Williamson Act Contract
(Land Conservation Contract, AP# 4-76) for a 24-acre portion of the Humphrey
Ranch Property by adopting the required findings and determinations for contract
cancellation, and the conditions for final cancellation or rescission,as contained in
draft Board Resolution No. 2004/405 (see attached Exhibit "A").
6. DIRECT the Community Development Department to file a Notice of
Determination and pay the filing fees to the County Clerk.
7. AUTHORIZE the Community Development Department to proceed with General
Plan Amendment and rezoning studies relating to a proposal for 39 residential lots
and a stormwater detention basin for the 24 acre portion of the Humphrey Ranch
Property which is subject to the tentative cancellation.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.The costs associated with considering the petition for tentative partial cancellation of the
Williamson Act Contract on 24 acres of the Humphrey Ranch Property are covered by fees
paid by the applicant.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Summary/ Introduction
On February 5, 2001, members of the Humphrey Family filed a petition for cancellation of a
Williamson Act Contract(Land Conservation Contract,AP#4-76)pursuant to Government Code
section 51282 on a portion of the Humphrey Ranch in the Alamo area. The Humphrey Ranch
property,which is comprised of 96.5 acres located at 2900 Stone Valley Boulevard,was placed
under a Williamson Act Contract on February 10, 1976. The Humphrey Family has owned this
land since 1951 and has been engaged in agricultural operations since then. The petition filed
by the Humphrey Family, submitted after filing for Notice of Non-Renewal on Land
Conservation Contract, AP#4-76, specifically seeks the cancellation over 24 of the 96.5 acres
for the purpose of allowing for the eventual development of a 39-lot residential subdivision.The
Humphrey Family also filed a request for authorization of a General Plan Amendment study for
the potential development of the 39-lot residential subdivision on the 24 acres. In response to
this petition the Board of Supervisors on April 10, 2001 directed the Community Development
Department to process the petition for partial cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract, prior
to the Board's consideration of the Humphrey Family request for authorization of a General
Plan Amendment study,
July 27, 2404
Board of supervisors
File#AP#01-0001,'tentati
July 27, 2004
Board of Supervisors
File#AP 01-0001,Tentative Cancellation or Rescission of Williamson Act Contract, Humphrey Ranch Property
Page 4
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS — continued
Ill. Williamson Act Contract Termination
The law provides three methods by which a landowner may terminate a Williamson Act
contract. First, a landowner has the right to file a "notice of nonrenewal" prior to the annual
renewal date of the contract. Upon filing of a notice of nonrenewal, the contract will ordinarily
expire nine years after the next annual renewal date and the taxes on the property are
increased gradually over the remaining term of the contract to a tax level for unrestricted
property. The second method for termination of a Williamson Act contract is cancellation upon
petition by the landowner. As described in the statute, cancellation is not a matter of right, but
may be approved by the local government only after a noticed public hearing and only if
specific statutory findings can be made. Approval of cancellation of a contract is viewed as a
land use decision because it ultimately leads to the conversion of agricultural land to urban use.
Consequently, the petition for cancellation of the contract must be accompanied by specified
alternative use of the land. Cancellation of the contract also requires the landowner to pay a
cancellation fee of 12.5%of the current fair market value of the property as though it were not
under contract. The third methodfor termination of a Williamson Act contract involves placing
other land area of comparable value under an agricultural conservation easement in exchange
for release of the subject land area from the Williamson Act contract.
The statute identifies procedures that must be followed and certain findings that must be made
before a local government can approve the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract. A
detailed'listing of the steps, procedures, and required fi'nd'ings related to contract cancellation is
provided in Exhibit "B" to this report.
As more fully described in the attached(draft)Board Resolution No.20041405,the Humphreys
are seeking to either cancel the portion of their Williamson Act contract (Land Conservation
Contract,AP#4.76)and pay the 12.5%cancellation fee as provided under statute,or to obtain
an agreement from the County to rescind that portion of the contract and simultaneously
provide the County with agricultural conservation easement over other land area in the County
of comparable value, as provided in the statute,depending whether or not they can secure an
agricultural easement before final cancellation or final rescission. It is noted that the County
Assessor has determined the cancellation fee value at$1,157,000 for the 24 acres proposed
for cancellation or rescission (See memorandum attached as Exhibit "C" to this report).
IV. Issues / Public or Agency Comments
To date, the primary manner in which public or agency comments on the proposal for partial
cancellation or rescission of the Humphreys' Williamson Act contract have been received is
through the CEQA review process. The following is a summary of the general themed
comments received on the Draft EIR released in March 2003:
1. Project Level Analysis of the EIR and Subsequent Use of the EIR
2. Impacts of the SRVUSD Component (9.6 acre site for high school parking and
playfield)
July 27,2004
Board of Supervisors
File#AP#01-0001, Tentative Cancellation or Rescission of Williamson Act Contract, Humphrey Ranch Property
Page 5
BACKGROU'NDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS —continued
3. Noise impacts and Methodology for Assessing Noise Impacts
4. Assurance that the proposed Open Space Component (63 acres) will remain as
open space and will not be developed.
5. Agricultural resource value of the Humphrey Ranch property and evidence to support
findings required under the statute.
6. Traffic impacts associated with the Residential Component and SRVUSD
Component.
7. Evaluation of Alternatives in the EIR.
8. Questions about the Alameda whipsnake habitat.
In the Response to Comments/Final EIR document (see attached document), the general
themed comments are addressed by the Master Responses. The other more specific
comments raised by individuals or organization are also addressed in direct response to their
comment.
V. California Department of Conservation Comments
Additional correspondence has been received from the California Department of Conservation
since the close of the comment period on the EIR, and it is attached as Exhibit "D" to this
report. In accordance with the statute, a local government must considerthe comments of the
Department of Conservation prior to acting on the proposed cancellation. These comments,
which raised questions and suggested clarifications or changes to the EIR, have been
substantially addressed in the Response to Comments /Final EIR document.
VI. Staff Analysis/ Recommendation
The Williamson Act allows for cancellation of a Williamson Act contract on two grounds: the
cancellation would be consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, or, the cancellation
is in the public interest. Because the statute limits the use of the cancellation method for
termination of a Williamson Act contract to a narrow set of conditions and findings,
cancellations account for only a small fraction of total contract terminations statewide and
locally. For example, the last time Contra Costa County approved the cancellation of a
Williamson Act contract was in December 9992 involving the Wiedemann Ranch holdings
along Norris Canyon Road when the Norris Canyon Estate project was approved.
As explained in the EI R and further described in draft Board Resolution No. 2004/405, there is
substantial evidence to support the findings that must be made for the Humphrey Ranch
property to qualify under either grounds, consistency with the purposes of the Act or in the
public interest. The following is a summary of staff review and analysis of the findings
necessary for the two grounds for cancellation:
July 27, 2004
Board of Supervisors
File#AP#010001, 'tentative Cancellation or Rescission of Williamson Act Contract, Humphrey Ranch Property
Page 6
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS — continued
a. Cancellation is Consistent with the Purposes of the Williamson Act(five findings under CA
Govt. Code Sec. 51282 (b) shown in italics followed by staff analysis)
• Sec 51282 {b) (1)-: Cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has
been served pursuant to Section 51245--The Humphrey Family served a Notice of
Nonrenewal of land covering the entire 95.5 acres of the Humphrey Ranch Property
in August 1999 and this notice was recorded with the County Recorders' office on
September 30, 1999.A copy of the notice is included in Appendix N of the Draft EIR.
• Sec 51282 (b) ( ` Cancellation is not likely to result in removal of adiacent lands
from acLricultural use -The cancellation of this contract will not have adverse effects
on the adjacent lands'availability for agricultural use because the adjacent lands are
already developed for urban uses (residential) or are otherwise not available for
agricultural use. The immediately adjacent lands are either already developed with
residences or protected as open space. This condition is best illustrated by an aerial
photograph of the Alamo area, included in the EIR (compare Aerial Photograph,
Figure 8, Ch. 7.0, Final EIR Appendices,with Figures 3.1-2, 3.1-3,3.4-3,4.11-1 and
and4.11-2), showing that the Humphrey Ranch property sits within an established
residential neighborhood in Alamo that is essentially built out.
• Sec. 51282 b 0): The proposed alternative land use is consistent with the General
Plan - The required finding is that final cancellation must be for an alternative use
which is consistent with the General Plan. The subject property is the last large
undeveloped, but potentially developable land in the Alamo area that is within the
County's Urban Limit Line. The County General Plan has policies promoting logical,
orderly growth patterns, in already-developed areas such as Alamo, where
infrastructure and utilities are already available (see a discussion of these General
Plan policies at pages 4.11-5 through 4.11-9).The Humphrey Property meets these
basic conditions in the General Plan for urban development. As previously noted,
the Humphreys'originally sought authorization for a General Plan Amendment study
when they submitted their petition in 2001 that would accommodate the proposed
Residential Component at a specific location and configuration on the property.The
Board subsequently directed the Community Development Department to process
the petition for partial cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract, prior to the
Board's consideration of the Humphrey Family request for authorization of a General
Plan Amendment study. Staff is now recommending that the Board authorize the
General Plan Amendment and rezoning studies to designate the 24 acres for
residential use. It is further recommended that tentative cancellation be approved by
conditioning the final cancellation on the successful completion of the General Plan
Amendment and rezoning studies. This means that final cancellation cannot occur
unless and until the entire 24-acre area subject to the cancellation is established
under an appropriate General Plan residential land use designation.
July 27, 2004
Board of Supervisors
File#AP#01-0009,Tentative Cancellation or Rescission of Williamson Act Contract, Humphrey Ranch Property
Page 7
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS —continued
• Sec. 59282 (b) (4): Cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban
development - As noted above the Humphrey Ranch property is almost entirely
bounded by existing residential development on both sides. As confirmed by the
aerial photograph and other diagrams included in the EIR, it is apparent that the
cancellation of the 24 acres portion for the purpose of enabling a Residential
Development would not result in discontiguous urban development patterns.
• Sec. 51282(b)(5): There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available
and suitable for the proposed alternative use or development of the contracted land
would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development that development of
proximated noncontracted land—As noted above the Humphrey Ranch property is
the last large piece of developable land in the Alamo area and that is within the
County's Urban Limit Line. Since as described above its development would, by the
County General Plan's definition be considered as infill development, it would be
consistent with and contiguous to the existing urban (residential)development in the
area.
b. Cancellation is in the Public Interest (two findings under CA Govt. Code Sec. 51282 (c)
shown in italics followed by staff analysis)
• Sec. 59282(c) (9):Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the
Williamson Act — The San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) has
indicated that it is in need of additional property adjacent to Monte Vista High School
for parking and physical education and recreational needs. Additional off-street
parking is necessary to alleviate safety and circulation concerns arising from the
insufficient parking now existing on the Monte Vista High School campus. The
Humphreys' in 2000 entered into a contract with SRVUSD to sell land(approximately
10 acres) for $2 million less than the appraised fair market value if the tentative
partial cancellation and development of the 39-lot residential subdivision proceeds.
The contract between the Humphreys' and SRVUSD is due to expire on March 31,
2005. Accordingly, cancellation would be consistent with the interests of the
SRVUSD and the safety and educational pursuits of students and staff at Monte
Vista High School.
There are two other public concerns that potentially outweigh the objectives of
retaining the Williamson Act contract on the 24 acres.
First, the Humphreys' have agreed to permanently preserve 63 of the 96.5 acres of
the Humphrey Ranch as public or private open space,potentially underthe control of
the East Bay Regional Park District. Absent the cancellation of contract on the 24
acres, so that development could not occur until the contract fully expires on 2009,
there is the real potential that significant public costs would be incurred post-2009 in
attempting to secure this area for permanent open space.
July 27, 2004
Board of supervisors
File#AP#01-0001, Tentative Cancellation or Rescission of Williamson Act Contract, Humphrey Ranch Property
Page 8
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS —continued
Second, the Humphreys' are pursuing the option of placing other land in Contra
Costa County under an agricultural easement under the Williamson Act Agricultural
Easement Exchange Program. Although the Humphreys' are not proposing that
cancellation of the 24 acres be based on implementation of the easement exchange
program, it is noted that an exchange might well be facilitated and arranged after
tentative cancellation and prior to the final cancellation. They have identified two
sites which would involve the participation by Save Mount Diablo (see letter from
Save Mount Diablo in appendix to Response to Comments/Final EIR document).
One site is in the North Gate area, consisting of 34 acres and owned by the Contra
Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is approximately 3.3
miles from the Humphrey Ranch. The other site is approximately 126 acres located
on the north side of Mount Diablo and is owned by Save Mount Diablo.This property
6.8 miles from the Humphrey Ranch. Both sites are now being used for cattle
grazing. Placement of permanent agricultural conservation easements on these
properties, both undeveloped, would have no effect on current agricultural use but
would ensure their continued use for agricultural and open space purposes. It is
noted that these two sites are in excess of 160 acres of land that could be conserved
in perpetuity in exchange for the removal of 24 acres of land that the EIR concludes
is less viable for agricultural use. When these 160 acres are taken together with 63
acres on the Humphrey Ranch, 222 acres of permanent agricultural/open space
could be secured by allowing 24 acres to be removed from Williamson Act contract
restrictions.
The Board's tentative cancellation on 24 acres of the Humphreys' Williamson Act
contract would enable the pursuit of three opportunities which could provide
significant public benefits: SRVUSD purchase of land for Monte Vista High School at
$2 million below appraised fair market value,preserving of 63 acres of the Humphrey
Ranch as permanent open space, and the dedication of permanent agricultural
conservation easement on agricultural land in the County that is under development
pressure.
+ Sec. 5128210 t2}:There is no proximate noncontracted land which both available
and suitable for the proposed altemative use ordevelopment of the contracted land
would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development that development of
proximated noncontracted land—As previously noted above, the Humphrey Ranch
property is the last large piece of developable land in the Alamo area and that is
within the County's Urban Limit Line. Since as described above its development
would, by the County General Plan's definition be considered as infill development, it
would be consistent with and contiguous to the existing (residential) urban
development in the area. Also, as previously discussed there is no proximate non-
contracted land which is both available and suitable for residential development of
this size (24 acres) available in Alamo.
_... ....... _.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........._...
....._ ........ ....... ........ ......... .......... ............ __....._. ........... ......... .........
D.3
ADDENDUM
D.3 September 14, 2004
Patrick Roche, Community Development Department, presented the staff report for the Board's
consideration of a tentative cancellation or recission of a portion of the Land Conservation Contract No.
AP 4-76 (Williamson Act Contract)relating to 24 acres of the Humphrey Ranch Property, Alamo area .
John Wyro, representative of the applicant, made a presentation to the Board,to respond to issues and
questions that Supervisor Greenberg raised at the last meeting. Mr. Wyro noted that the Humphrey family
and Davidon are committed to ensuring preservation of the proposed 63 acres of open space. if for some
reason an agreement cannot be made as desired with the East Bay Regional Park District, the land would be
placed with the homeowners association with a scenic easement granted to the County to preserve the open
space in perpetuity. He noted the willingness of the applicant and the Danville School District to work
with the County to bring about the desires of the board noted in the previous meeting, including but not
limited to, preservation of flak Tree#48,trail linkage and a staging area, a traffic signal and measures to
protect the safety of the students, noise and landscaping concerns, as well as grading and drainage
mitigation measures.
Mr. Wyro further noted that a recent meeting with the School District,the District confirmed that the plan
shown in the Environmental Impact Report is the plan they intend to implement.
Chair Glover invited the public to comment. The following persons presented testimony:
Jeff Thayer, Davidon Humes, 1600 S. Main Street, #150,Walnut Creek;
Dave Wilson,Equestrian Trail Advocates,484 Edgefield Place,Brentwood;
Heidi Koch, San Ranson Horsemen Association, 3126 Lunada.Lane, Alamo;
Vicki Koc, School District and Alamo Area of Benefit, 391 James Bowie Court, Alamo;
Sandra Peterson, 118 Austin Lane,Alamo;
Margaret Knaus,2339 Roan Lane,Walnut Creek;
Dana Jones, 5483 Blackhawk Drive,Danville;
Kim Johnson,2361 Heritage Oaks Drive,Alamo;
Joan Buchanan, San Ramon Valley Union School District, 19 Mott Drive,Alamo;
Didi Reed,Alamo;
Jay Lewis,Monte Sereno Neighborhood alliance, 125 Mountain Canyon Place,Alamo;
debbie Wiley,234 Pebble Court,Alamo;
Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, 1196 Boulevard Way#10,Walnut Creek;
Roger F. Smith, Chairman-Planning Commission,Alamo Improvement Association, 85 High Eagle Road, Alamo;
Sally Smith, 135 Mountain Canyon Place,Alamo;
The following persons did not wish to speak, but left written comments for the Board's consideration:
Paulette Little, 1879 Calle Del Suend, Livermore;
Goldie Schnitzer, 3067 Sandy Way, San Ramon;
Layne McDaniel, Monte Vista High School, 808 Feather River Street,Danville;
Sue Moore, Monte Vista High School, 242 Still Creek Road, Danville;
Diane Skrip, Monte Vista High School PTSA President, 2731 Falcon View Court,Alamo.
The Chair closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for discussion.
Supervisor Greenberg spore to the following concerns, the details of which had previously been provided
to staff, to be considered a part of her motion to approve the recommendations presented today:
1. A mechanism for the dedication of the open space , including long-term maintenance
2. Appropopriate buffering of the school playfield and parking lot
3. Landscape plans for both parking lot and the project on Stone Valley Road
4. Analysis of traffic signal and the design conditions to ensure student safety, possibly by
channelization of pedestrian movement
5. Retention of the oak tree
6. Integration of the grading plans for both parts of the project
7. Trail linkages to existing trails and Mt.Diablo
&. Fencing, soundwall and landscape designs sensitive to the neighbors
9. Horse trail with a staging area to trail connections and equestrian usable traffic signal
10. A funding mechanism to enable dedication of the 63 acres of land to East Bay Regional Park
District in fee-title to ensure the open space is permanent and maintained
11. The possibility of a public/semi-public General Plan designation on the approximately 10 acre
School District site
12. Formalization of the drainage releases form the lower lots to the School District property
It is understood that many of these concerns are related to future actions and the cancellation of the
conservation contract is contingent upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment. Early and
thoughtful cooperation between the interested parties is hoped to streamline the process and result in
actions that are to the greatest benefit of all.
It was also noted that the proposed development of the area is less than what would be allowable under the
General Plan should the conservation contract expire on its set schedule, and should that occur,there would
be no guarantee of preserved open space.
Having discussed the matter and heard from all those who desired to speak,the Board of Supervisors took
the following actions:
CLOSED the public hearing; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2004/405 to grant the petition for partial tentative
cancellation of Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract No., AP# 4-76 for the Humphrey Ranch,
submitted on behalf of the Humphrey Family Trust, to remove the property owner's obligations, and any
successors in interest, to the enforceable restrictions on 24 acres of the 96.5 acre property located at 2900
Stone Valley Boulevard, Alamo; ACCEPTED the June 21, 2004 recommendations of the Zoning
Administrator as contained in Resolution No. 20-2004 that the Final Environmental Impact Report is
adequate and prepared consistent with State and County CEQA guidelines; CER'T'IFIED that the Final
Environmental Impact Report is adequate and complete, and that the Board has considered the information
contained therein prior to making a decision on the project; APPROVED the tentative cancellation or
rescission of the Williamson Act Contract adopting the required findings and determinations for contract
cancellation, and the conditions for final cancellation or rescission, as contained in Resolution No.
2004/405;DIRECTED the Community Development Department to file a Notice of Determination and pay
the filing fees to the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZED the Community Development Department to
proceed with General Plan Amendment and rezoning studies relating to a proposal for 39 residential lots
and a stormwater detention basin for the 24 acre portion of the property.
...................I........
July 27, 2004
Board of Supervisors
File#AP#01-0001, Tentative Cancellation or Rescission of Williamson Act Contract, Humphrey Ranch Property
Page 9
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT "A": draft BOARD RESOLUTION 2004/405
EXHIBIT "B": WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT CANCELLATION STEPS AND PROCEDURES
(CA Dept. of Conservation publication)
EXHIBIT "C": MEMORANDUM FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSESSOR, 9/25/2003,
SUBJECT: CANCELLATION VALUATION OF LAND CONSERVATION
CONTRACT FOR HUMPHREY PROPERTY
EXHIBIT "D : CA DEPT. OF CONSERVATION LETTER, 12/1712003
EXHIBIT "E": PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND MAILING LIST
EXHIBIT "F": ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. 20-2004
Attachments(7 items)
GAAdvance Planningladv-plan\HurriphreyABOARD ORDER Humphrey Prop Tentative Canceltation.0c
EXHIBIT "All
draft BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,
RELATING TO THE HUMPHREY RANCH PROPERTY, APPROVING TENTATIVE
CANCELLATION OR RESCISSION OF A PORTION OF THE WILLIAMSON ACT
CONTRACT(LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT,AP#4-76)
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ("Board") hereby
adopts the following findings and makes the following determinations with regard to the
petition to cancel a portion of the Williamson Act Contract (Land Conservation Contract
No., AP#4-76)applicable to the Humphrey Ranch Property.
WHEREAS, David G. Humphrey and Susan R. Humphrey (as Trustees of
the David G. Humphrey and Susan R. Humphrey Revocable Trust) and William L.
Humphrey and Marcia D. Humphrey (as Trustees of the Humphrey Living Trust) are the
owners of approximately ninety-six (96) acres near Stone Valley Road, in the Alamo area of
Contra Costa County (the"Humphrey Ranch").
WHEREAS, the Humphrey family has owned Humphrey Ranch since 1951.
The Humphrey Family members built their residence and kept horses and cattle on the
property. David G. Humphrey, with his father, built and operated a shop for
blacksmithing and forging on the property.
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1976, the Humphrey family entered into a
Land Conservation Contract with the County covering all 96 acres of Humphrey Ranch.
(Contra County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 76-136, Land Conservation Contract
AP# 4-76). This contract was entered into pursuant to the Williamson Act, Government
Code §§ 51200 et seq. (the "Williamson Act Contract").
WHEREAS, when the Humphreys purchased the property now consisting
the Humphrey Ranch, it was a rural residential property in horse and cattle country. Since
1951, and following the execution of the Williamson Act Contract in 1976, significant
development has occurred in the area surrounding Humphrey Ranch, and generally in the
Stone Valley Road/Green Valley area.
WHEREAS, due to the development over the last 25 years, Humphrey Ranch
is now located in a large suburban area, with significant residential and other development
substantially surrounding the property. To the east and southwest of Humphrey Ranch is
the Monte Sereno residential neighborhood. The Monte Sereno neighborhood is
designated under the General Pian as Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL), and
zoned for residential lots ranging from 13,000 to 16,000 square feet to the east and 9,000 to
12,000 square feet to the southeast. (See Aerial Photograph, Figure 8, Ch. 7.0, Additional
Appendices and Figures, Response to Comments / Final EIR document). To the South of
Humphrey Ranch is the Monte Vista High School, which is owned and is part of the San
Ramon Valley Unified School District ("SRVUSD" or "School District"). Also to the South
of Humphrey Ranch is the Town of Danville's Oakhill Park. To the west of Humphrey
Ranch is the Stone Valley Oaks development, which includes forty-seven lots on ninety-
Page 1 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
nine acres, trails and related open space. The Stone Valley Oaks project was approved by
the Board in May 1999. To the north portion of Humphrey Ranch is private and public
open space lands. Some of this land is owned by the East Bay Regional Park District and
another portion is the Bryan Ranch Private Open Space, preserved as part of the Bryan
Ranch Development. Further to the north, the Bryan Ranch Private Open Space lands
adjoin Mt. Diablo State Park.
WHEREAS, in August 1999, the Humphrey family notified Contra Costa
County that they were not renewing the Williamson Act Contract. The Notice of
Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract, AP#4-76, covering the entire 96 acres of
Humphrey Ranch was subsequently recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorders'
office on September 30, 1999. Pursuant to Government Code § 51245 and the terms of the
contract, the Williamson Act contract is now due to expire on the entire 96 acres on or
before the end of February 2009, regardless of whether the County approves early
cancellation of the proposed Residential Site or not.
WHEREAS, in 2000, the Humphreys entered into a contract with the School
District to sell the District approximately ten acres fronting Stone Valley Road to the
SRVUSD. SRVUSD has indicated that it is in serious need of additional property adjacent
to the Monte Vista High School for parking and other modernization needs. The School
District will be able to acquire the site for $2 million less than the appraised fair market
value if the Board approves the tentative partial cancellation and enables the development
of 39 single-family residences to proceed. As reported by the property owners, the School
District does not anticipate waiting until nonrenewal of the Contract in 2009 to close
escrow and develop the site. The contract between the Humphreys and the School District
expires March 25, 2005.
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2001, the Humphrey family filed a request for
authorization of a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") study for potential development for
a Residential Site, together with a Petition for Tentative Partial Cancellation of the
Williamson Act Contract for that portion of Humphrey Ranch.
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2001, the Humphrey family also petitioned for
cancellation of the Contract pursuant to Government Code section 51282 on a portion of
Humphrey Ranch consisting of approximately 24 acres, and described more particularly in
Exhibit A. The alternate use of land specified for this property is development of thirty-
nine (39) single-family homes on the southwesterly twenty-three (23) acres of Humphrey
Ranch, along with a one (1) acre detention pond (the "Residential Component"). The
Residential Component is being pursued along with two other project components.
(1)retention of the majority of the property, sixty-three (63) acres, to be permanently
preserved as public or private open space, potentially under the control of the EBRPD, (the
"Open Space Component" of the project) and (2)the SRVUSD is considering acquisition of
approximately 9.3 acres of the site for use as a parking lot and playing field, immediately
across Stone Valley Road from the existing Monte Vista High School (the "SRVUSD
Component" of the project). The Humphreys are requesting cancellation and/or rescission
only for the Residential Component.
Page 2 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2002, the Humphreys amended their petition
to seek, in the alternative, rescission under Government Code section 51256, which
provides in part:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a city or
county, upon petition by a landowner, may enter into an agreement
with the landowner to rescind a contract in accordance with the
contract cancellation provisions of ,Section 51282 in order to
simultaneously place other land within that city, the county, or the
county where the contract is rescinded under an agricultural
conservation easement . . . .
WHEREAS, the property owners have been exploring options for placing
other land under such an agricultural easement. The property owners have identified two
(2) potential sites in Contra Costa County. One of these sites would involve participation
by Save Mt. Diablo, and the other funding needed to pursue this possibility is not expected
by Save Mt. Diablo to be available indefinitely.
WHEREAS, the Humphreys are accordingly requesting either to cancel the
portion of the Contract on the Residential Component and pay the 12.5% cancellation fee
as provided in Government Code section 51283, or to obtain an agreement from the
County to rescind that portion of the Contract and simultaneously provide the County with
an agricultural conservation easement as provided in Government Code section 51256,
depending upon whether the property owners could secure an agricultural easement before
final cancellation or final rescission.
WHEREAS, On April 10, 2001 the Board directed the Community
Development Department to process the Humphreys' Williamson Act cancellation petition,
prior to the Board's consideration of the Humphreys' request for authorization of a
General Plan Amendment study.
WHEREAS, the County prepared an EIR for all three Components of the
Project in one E1R, SCH # 2002012029, with the Project consisting of the Residential
Component, the SRVUSD Component and the Open Space Component.
WHEREAS, the County Assessor has determined the current fair market
value of the land described in Exhibit A as though it were free of Williamson Act Contract
restriction, and has certified to this Board the cancellation valuation of the land for the
purpose of determining the cancellation fee.
WHEREAS, On July 27, 2004, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the Humphreys' Williamson Act Petition.
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all written and public testimony and
information presented to it regarding the proposed cancellation or rescission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board adopts all the
recitals set forth above as findings.
Page 3 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
................................................-..... ..................... .....................................................
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Board adopts the CEQA findings set forth in Exhibit B
and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that the EIR is
adequate to pursue development of the Residential Component and the Open Space
Component, or any of their alternatives. The Board finds the EIR's discussion and
analysis of each of these Components and their alternatives sufficient to permit
development of the Residential and Open Space components together, without development
of the SRVUSD Component. The Board finds that the Residential Component and the
Open Space component, on the one hand, and the SRVUSD Component, on the other hand,
could have been adequately addressed in two separate EIRs. The EIR addresses all
components as one CEQA "Project" in one EIR for several reasons, including the
following: (i) ease of reference; (ii) the geographic and chronological proximity of the
Residential and Open Space Components, on the one hand, and the SRVUSD Component,
on the other hand; and (iii) preparing one EIR provides more analysis than CEQA
requires. An EIR on the Residential and Open Space Components alone would discuss the
impacts of those two Components, and the impacts of the SRVUSD Component would be
included in with all other cumulative development or treated merely as growth induced by
the Residential/Open Space Components. An EIR on the SRVUSD Component alone
would discuss impacts of the SRVUSD Component, and the proposed development of the
Residential and Open Space components would be included in with all other cumulative
development. Preparing one EIR on all three components allows the public and this Board
also to review a comprehensive discussion of the impacts of only the three components
combined, separate from and in addition to the discussion of impacts of all cumulative
development. The Board further resolves that it would have certified the EIR as adequate
for the Residential Component and the Open Space Components alone.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that the EIR is
adequate for the SRVUSD to pursue the SRVUSD Component, should it decide to do so.
The Board further acknowledges that development of the SRVUSD Component is within
the jurisdiction of the SRVUSD and not the County, and that the Board cannot mandate
that any particular development plan be pursued, or that any particular mitigation
measures be implemented. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(2), the
Board finds that it has adequately studied the impacts of the SRVUSD Component and
determined which mitigation measures may feasibly reduce potentially significant impacts
of that Component to a level less than significant, and that these measures are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the SRVUSD and not the County, and that the SRVUSD
can and should adopt these measures or otherwise assure they are implemented.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board tentatively approves partial
cancellation or rescission of the Williamson Act Contract (Land Conservation Contract,
A-P#4-76) as it applies to the property described in Exhibit A, based on the recitals set forth
above and on the Williamson Act contract cancellation findings set forth in Exhibit D.
Upon fulfillment of the conditions set forth below, and provided the property owners offer
to the County an agricultural easement that complies with Government Code section
51256, the County shall agree that the portion of the Contract applicable to the property
described in Exhibit A shall be rescinded pursuant to section 51256. Pursuant to section
Page 4 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
RESOLUTION NO. 20041405
51256.1, any such agreement shall not take effect until it is approved by the Secretary of
Resources. Alternatively, final cancellation shall occur upon fulfillment of the conditions
set forth below and payment by the property owners of the cancellation fee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to Government Code section
51283, this Board determines and certifies to the County Auditor the amount of the
cancellation fee which the landowner shall pay to the County Treasurer as a condition
required prior to final cancellation, in an amount equal to 121/2 percent of the cancellation
valuation of the property, which is one million, one hundred fifty-seven thousand dollars ($
1,157,4401.00).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of final cancellation or
rescission of the Williamson Act Contract as it applies to the property described in Exhibit
A are as follows:
1. The County's approval of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning
that would allow development of the Residential Component or any of
its alternatives, with any such approvals conditioned upon the
applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR for Humphrey
Ranch Project(SCH#2402412429).
2. If the property owners elect to pursue cancellation, payment of the
cancellation fee set forth above.
3. If the property owners elect to pursue rescission, grant of an easement
which places land within Contra Costa County under an agricultural
conservation easement that complies with Government Code section
51256, as determined by the Community Development Director
(Planning Director).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all attachments are incorporated into
this Resolution and into each other by reference.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
copy of an action taken and entered on the
minutes of the and of Supervisors on the
date shown.
ATTESTED:
JOHN S EN, Clerk of the Hoard
of Sup rvisors and County Administrator
Sy `�f ; ' ��' - Deputy
Page 5 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2004/405
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION OR RESCISSION
Page 6 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2004/405
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION OR RESCISSION
Page 6 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SINGLE FAMILY LOW
A PORTION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO
HUMPHREY, RECORDED JUNE 9, '1993, IN BOOK 18635 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 517, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SUBDIVISION 8016,
RECORDED APRIL 18, 2000, IN BOOK 419 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17, THENCE
FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
SUBI3IVISION 8016 THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 09100'00" EAST
811.29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59000'00" EAST 400.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 27000'00" EAST 525.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE
SOUTH 76014'22" EAST 762.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46055'49" WEST
470.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 341,46'27" EAST 395.13 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 07059'13" EAST 50.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°40'49" WEST
869.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 244.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE
BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 83°11'41" WEST; THENCE
SOUTHERLY 59.38 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1305633"; THENCE SOUTH 20044'52" EAST 189.73
FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 995.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 282.93
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
16016'38" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE
BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 85°31'46" WEST; THENCE
SOUTHERLY 30.31 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 86049'28'; THENCE SOUTH 01°19'11" EAST 34.81
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88040'49" WEST 532.60 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 23.34 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
E H IT "All ll
PLAT MAP
r ,r ,i
�, s
�f
� s�w+earxu, � TprlE vA4ET �
'�.r� , rsa-ass-pfs
i tfs-ax°-oxa }p- -a;a g 76'T4.�"`�. J
H
'y_______________ }n-axp-p4a �4y' 22" w
r It
Z 5g i Haar
f auwrxRRai r i fsf-ssx-ptT
f rN-axO-Oaa ..h 7d'M1iIXxM�y
-------------
�� tffi-ffd-G1Af`
; faa-adp-pafb ,r (yv ��� Id't
t �
f
aa-faf-oar,.
iuMpNRAewn
AREA 23.34 ACRES +f_ t`�ir, fa-ssr-ood,•
3c
'i r.Arrow
R� 4 N $3^11'41" ER) N 88"44'49" E 859.83' czvrr
fab-Sst-pox
w 6 R 33"
WOME VAUSY aMs f -
Nai
CARE pF W WXNEL
ffx-dl7p-pal � ,1
N 20'44'52" W 189.73'
1D
+ '7g
R-
A-� ''42'04"
8.995.90' p°fa
L-52.15'
A-03'34'34" N 88 40'49" E 35.03'
N 81'5712" E(R) 8_20.00'
=30.31'
N 8 _ 11=8549'28"
h1OL1NAR0
9'E 632.60 01'19'11" w 34.81'
195-ow-00. SUME YAU" Q ;
CHURCH EX. RW EAS. ;
195-3TO-O31 MONTE VISTA HIGH SCHOOL
TOWN OF DANVILI F ; 196-310-019
195-370--025
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DETENTION BASIN
A PORTION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO
HUMPHREY, RECORDED JUNE 9, 1993, IN BOOK 18635 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 517, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SUBDIVISION 8016,
RECORDED APRIL 18, 2000, IN BOOK 419 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17, THENCE
FROM SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NORTH 39001'18" EAST 743.90
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE BEGINNING OF A
NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF
244.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS
SOUTH 83°11'41" WEST; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
SOUTHERLY 59.38 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13056'33"; THENCE SOUTH 2004452" EAST 189.73
FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 995.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 220.77
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
12042'04"; THENCE NORTH 88040'49" EAST 36.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH
01°19'11" WEST 451.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88040'49"WEST 161.77 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.97 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
E POT "Ass
PLAT MAP
Yi Yii
l Y
Y Y
! Y
Yt
Y tY
Y t
Q %Y Y
' r
L O 5110 txVpAAl�U. iti--555-015
i t57-5t0^O�O 517- N YY
r tti-150-045 Y%"+'••
i
t5n:x
ft 517WIERi15A Y 't 507-55t-017
555-1t0-055 7'SkMgAY S�
1 57-e55-ox+
ip-5511-010
SLARANNU
157-m-055 t
r �.f
s
r
4t
S4[CO
in-09I 1"
SicM+aunuwy
157-555^OOt✓.
w"1fCFfq
'i17-iit-OOty.
�!4A75151
�f t57-Ut-4@t
p N 88.40'44" E
Rd 4 Od, 157.77' 717-517-N5 ""
d 183'6'33" 1----------
STOW VAU"On AREA 0.97 ACRES +/- 11
xw z '
CAst+5r+e5xnt 7 0
!H-1a7-071 `"1
11'�f rrY
1.
.f1
AOj k7ih gg gp' V
LR=22'77' N 85.40'43' E 3&03'
dr.12 42'04*
1
AfOL'NARO
' STOW VALLEY F40M '
rss�cs5a— C cr1 Ex. RW EAS.
1
f 963 0-031 ' MONTE VISTA HIGH SCHOOL
r
+ TOWN OF OANVILLE
196-310-019
C 196--370-025
r
................. .............................................................................................................................................................................
. .. ................................................
Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2004/405
CEQA FINDINGS—HUMPHREY RANCH
I. PREPARATION OF THE EIR
1. On January 15, 2002, the County re-issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP")
announcing the proposed preparation of a Draft EIR regarding Humphrey
Ranch Project and describing its proposed scope. In accordance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines, the NOP was circulated to responsible agencies and
interested groups and individuals for review and comment for 30 days. A copy
of the NOP is included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR. A copy of the comments
the County received on the NOP in included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR.
2. On March 24, 2003, the County published the Draft EIR analyzing the
environmental impacts of Humphrey Ranch project and several alternative
projects, and filed the Draft EIR with the State Office of Planning & Research.
The County provided for review and comment by the public and interested
agencies for 66 days, after granting a 21-day extension beyond the normal 45-
day review period. The comment period closed on May 28, 2003. The County
also held a duly noticed public hearing to receive oral comments on the Draft
EIR on May 19, 2003.
3. Following the close of the comment period on the Draft EIR, the County
prepared written responses to the comments received, and made changes to the
Draft EIR. On June 14, 2004 the County published the comments, responses
and changes to the Draft EIR in a Final EIR, which was filed with the State
Office of Planning & Research. The Final EIR provides adequate, good faith
and reasoned responses to all comments received during the comment period
that raised significant environmental issues.
4. The Project evaluated in the EIR consists of three components. The Residential
Component consists of construction of 39 residential units on 23 acres, and a 1-
acre site for a detention basin. The SRVUSD Components consists of
subsequent development of approximately 9.6 acres by the San Ramon Valley
Unified School District (SRVUSD) to create a parking lot containing up to 400
parking spaces and sports play field immediately across Stone Valley Road from
the existing Monte Vista High School. The Open Space Component consists of
over 63 acres to remain in their current open space uses, in a permanent
conservation easement, potentially in the control of the East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD) or some other agency or entity devoted to open space and
recreational uses.
IL CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
5. The Board certifies that it has been presented with the EIR and that it has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and the other
information in the record prior to approving the tentative cancellation or
rescission of the Williamson Act Contract. The Board has reviewed the EIR
Page 7 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
regarding the Project studied in the EIR, and each of the alternatives it
proposes. The Board has also reviewed the EIR for the entire Project and each
of the Project Components individually. The Board further certifies that the
EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the
EIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines.
6. The EIR provides a project-level analysis for the Project, its alternatives, and
each of the three Project components both individually and collectively. The
EIR is adequate to support approval of the Project, any project within the range
of alternatives described and evaluated in the EIR, each component of any of
those alternatives, and any minor modiflcations to the project described in the
EIR or the alternatives. The EIR is adequate for the Board of Education and
the SRVUSD to use in pursuing the SRVUSD Component. The EIR is adequate
for the EBRPD, or some other open-space-oriented agency to use in pursuing the
Open Space Component. In discussing the EIR's evaluation of the "Project"
these findings refer both collectively and individually to all these alternatives
and components.
7. As noted in the Resolution to which these CEQA findings are attached, the
Board finds that the EIR is adequate to pursue development of the Residential
Component and the Open Space Component, or any of their alternatives; that
the EIR is also adequate for the SRVUSD to use in pursuing its Component, and
that the Board would have certified the EIR as adequate for the Residential
Component and the Open Space Component regardless whether it considered
the EIR adequate for the SRVUSD Component. Accordingly, each of these
CEQA findings is intended to apply to the Residential and Open Space
Components alone; and to the SRVUSD Component alone, as well as all three
Components combined.
8. The Board recognizes that the Project raises controversial environmental issues,
and that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to some of
those issues. In particular, the EIR recognizes and discussion a difference in
opinion regarding the traffic and noise analyses presented in the EIR, arising
from information submitted by the SRVUSD, the Town of Danville and the
Monte Sereno Neighborhood, among others. In particular, the EIR also
recognizes a difference of opinion regarding the loss of agricultural land. The
EIR reflects the County's position that the physical impacts that will likely result
from cancellation or rescission of a portion of the Williamson Act Contract are
addressed as secondary impacts, which are discussed in the EIR in connection
with each of the physical resources affected. The EIR also reflects the
Department of Conservation position that cancellation is itself a primary,
physical impact on the environment. The Board has, by its review of the
evidence and analysis presented in the EIR and in the record, acquired a better
understanding of the breadth of this technical and scientific opinion and of the
full scope of environmental issues presented by the Project. In turn, this
understanding has enabled the Board to make fully informed, thoroughly
considered decisions after taking account of the various viewpoints on these
important issues. The Board accordingly certifies that its findings are based on
Page S of 16
Resolution No. 20041405
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
full appraisal of all viewpoints expressed in the EIR, as well as other relevant
information in the record of proceedings for the Project, and that the Board
adopts the resolution of these issues presented in the EIR. In particular, the
Board adopts the EIR's resolution of the traffic and noise issues. In particular,
the Board also adopts the EIR's resolution of the difference in position between
the County and the Department of Conservation by fully evaluating physical
impacts of cancellation without regard to whether those impacts are labeled
primary or secondary impacts, and by explaining that mitigation requiring
conservation of the Open Space component would result in a finding of less than
significant impact regardless which agency's position is followed.
9. The Board recognizes that the EIR also addresses and evaluates impacts of the
existing environment on the Project. Examples include all or some of the
analyses and discussions of geological issues, seismic issues, soils issues, and the
like. These impacts are referred to as environmental impacts, and measures
designed to reduce risks related to these impacts are referred to as mitigation
measures, for ease of reference and because of common conventions. However,
these impacts are impacts of the environment on the Project, and not of the
Project on the environment. The Board nonetheless finds that the EIR's
discussion of these impacts is adequate even if the impacts were considered to be
environmental impacts, and it adopts the EIR's conclusions regarding mitigation
measures and levels of significance for these impacts.
III. ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
10. The Board adopts the attached Exhibit D pursuant to Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6,
as the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The Board further determines that Exhibit
D permits mitigation monitoring and enforcement for any of the alternatives, as
the mitigation measures would be proportionately reduced for each alternative
as discussed in the EIR.
IV. ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION
11. The Board recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and
produced after the Draft EIR was completed, and that it contains additions,
clarifications, modifications and other changes. The Board has reviewed and
considered the Final EIR. The Final EIR does not add significant new
information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under
CEQA. The new information added to the Draft EIR does not involve any new
or more significant environmental impacts or mitigation measures, nor does it
indicate that the Draft EIR was in any way inadequate or conclusory.
V. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS
12. These findings do not repeat the full discussions of environmental impacts
contained in the EIR. The Board ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis,
explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the EIR, as
Page 9 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
_. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .....__.. .
_ _ ....... .........._._ ..._._._. ._...__. ......... ........_. ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... .........
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
clarified or supplemented by documents and testimony received after
preparation of the Final EIR. The Board specifically adopts the EIR's
conclusions regarding the level of significance of each impact prior to and
following implementation of the mitigation measures, as reflected in the attached
Exhibit D, and finds that the impacts, corresponding mitigation measures, and
resulting levels of significance are proportionately similar for each alternative,
as discussed in the EIR..
13. The Board finds that the Project will have no growth-inducing impacts because,
as explained in the EIR, it is the last large property available for development in
the Alamo area that is within the Urban Limit Line (ULL). Accordingly, the
Project represents the end of a growth cycle, not the beginning or middle. Also,
the infrastructure for the Project shall be sized to meet only the needs of this
Project and will not be oversized to accommodate future growth. The location of
the ULL provides an independent basis for concluding that the Project will not
induce unplanned growth.
VL MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
14. The mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit D reflect the mitigation measures
set forth in the EIR. Exhibit D includes some refinements to the language of the
mitigation measures for purposes of clarification and brevity, without effecting
any substantive changes to the mitigation measures.
15. Implementation of many mitigation measures will require the cooperation and
action of other agencies. Similarly, mitigation measures requiring the Project
Sponsor to contribute towards improvements planned by other agencies require
the relevant agencies to receive the funds and build the relevant improvements.
This is especially so for the measures recommended to mitigate impacts of the
parking lot and sports field the SRVUSD is considering in the SRVUSD
Component of the Project. For each mitigation measure that requires the
cooperation or action of another agency, the Board finds that adoption and/or
implementation of each of those mitigation measures is within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency, and that the measures can and should
be adopted and/or implemented by that other agency.
16. This Board hereby adopts mitigation measures recommended in the EIR by
conditioning final cancellation or rescission upon land use approvals that are, in
turn, conditioned upon all mitigation measures in the EIR that apply to the
Component or alternative for which any General Plan Amendment and rezone
are ultimately approved. In the event a mitigation measure recommended in the
EIR has been inadvertently omitted from the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(included in Exhibit C), that mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated
verbatim from the EIR. into the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan by reference
and adopted as a condition of approval.
Page 10 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
17. The EIR describes potential alternatives rejected during the scoping process,
and why some alternatives suggested by commenters should not be evaluated
further. These include a 23-unit concept and off-site alternatives. The Board
adopts and ratifies the EIR's conclusions on these potential alternatives, for the
reasons stated in the EIR.
18. The EIR also considered a No Action Alternative (under which no component of
the Project would be approved), a Reconfiguration Alternative (under which the
SRVUSD Component would be eliminated and replaced with housing, keeping
the total number, of housing units for both the Residential Component and the
SRVUSD Component site combined at 39 units) and an Additional Units
Alternative (under which the SRVUSD Component would be eliminated and
replaced with additional housing, bringing the total number of housing units for
both the Residential Component and the SRVUSD Component site combined to
57 units). The EIR also responded to comments suggesting further variations of
these alternatives, and alternative configurations and uses proposed for the
SRVUSD Component. The analysis examined the feasibility of each alternative,
the environmental impacts of each alternative, and the ability of each alternative
to meet the project objectives. The EIR also adequately discussed modifications
and refinements of these alternatives, and included sufficient information to
extrapolate the impacts of any number of units falling between these
alternatives.
19. The EIR studies a reasonable range of alternatives. The Board certifies that it
has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives
provided in the EIR and the record. The EIR reflects the Board's and the
County's independent judgment as to alternatives.
20. The Reconfiguration Alternative and the Additional Units Alternative would
involve cancellation or rescission of the Contract as it applies to the SRVUSD
Component site, as well as the Residential Component site. A larger cancellation
and subsequent consideration of housing on a larger area would not only
eliminate the benefit the property owners have offered to the School District
regarding the price at which the District may acquire acreage for needed
parking and sports facilities, it would also likely raise the fair market value of
that property and thereby make acquisition by the School District more
expensive. This would make pursuit of the SRVUSD Component of the project
less likely, meaning the public benefits of placing a parking lot and sports field
would not be realized. These public benefits are referenced in the attached
Exhibit D. Also, canceling the Contract to facilitate residential development on
the SRVUSD component would not substantially reduce significant
environmental impacts, in that mitigation measures have been imposed reducing
all impacts of the Project to levels less than significant. The Board adopts the
EIR's conclusion that the Project is environmentally superior to these
alternatives. The Board adopts the reasoning and conclusions of the EIR, and
finds that canceling the Contract on the SRVUSD component as well as the
residential component would not avoid or substantially reduce significant
impacts,nor achieve most of the Project goals.
Page I I of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
21. The Open Space component will not be affected by the Cancellation. Even upon
development of the Project, the environmental conditions on the Open Space
component would remain the same. Accordingly, there are no significant
adverse environmental impacts associated with the Open Space component.
Because there are no impacts, there are no alternatives that would reduce or
avoid impacts on that Component.
22. The Board rejects the No Action Alternative for the reasons stated in the EIR.
The No Action Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project. However,
it would achieve none of the Project goals. The No Action alternative would also
eliminate the public benefits listed in Exhibit D. Also, since all Project impacts
can be mitigated to levels less than significant, the No Action alternative would
not substantially reduce or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts.
VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
23. Because all potentially significant impacts of the Project can be mitigated to
levels less than significant, a statement of overriding considerations is not
necessary. However, even if some impacts were considered still significant
despite mitigation, the Board finds and determines that benefits of the Project
(as referenced in the attached Exhibit D, outweigh each of those impacts. These
considerations warrant the approval of the Project, and each of its component
parts notwithstanding the remaining significant impacts. Each of the overriding
considerations constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that
the benefits of the Project outweigh any such impacts.
Page 12 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
.................I............................................................................................................................................................................
Exhibit C to Resolution No. 2004/405
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM—HUMPHREY RANCH
This Exhibit C sets forth the Mitigation Monitoring Program required by
Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines § 15097. This Exhibit C also sets forth
certain conclusions and findings regarding environmental impacts and mitigation
measures,which are incorporated into the CEQA findings attached as Exhibit B.
Page 13 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
...............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/fINAL EIR C14APTIER 6: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
When an agency makes a finding that impacts have been mitigated to less than significant level,the
agency must also adopt a program for reporting or monitoring mitigation measures that were
adopted(Public Resources Code 21081.6). This document is the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the Humphrey Property EIR. Some of the measures included in this monitoring program are
the responsibility of the Project Sponsor for the Residential Component(Davidon Homes)and its
contractors,and some mitigation measures relate to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District
(SRVUSD)Component.
This Mitigation Monitoring Program consists of monitoring by the County,which includes the
confirmation of,or,review and approval of, specific mitigation actions in the form reports,surveys,
and plans.It also includes monitoring of project construction by County staff. The mitigation
measures included in this monitoring program will be completed at various stages of the Project,
including Final Map,Building Permit and Grading Permit approvals for the Residential
Component,actions or approvals linked to SRVUSD Component,and during project construction.
Contra Costa County will provide documentation that the Mitigation Monitoring Program has been
fully adhered to and completed. This chapter includes the Mitigation Monitoring Program which
applies to all activities evaluated by the Humphrey Property EIR;however,only the mitigation
measures associated with approved aspects of the Residential Component and those requiring
transfer of an interest in the Open Space component are required.
Until mitigation measures relating to the Residential Component and transfer of an interest in the
Open Space Component have been completed,Contra Costa County remains responsible for
ensuring that the implementation of these mitigation measures occurs to the extent noted in this
Mitigation Monitoring Program and,where it is noted,Contra Costa County will be responsible for
reviewing and monitoring the required mitigation measures to ensure compliance(CEQA
Guidelines 15097).
Mitigation measures relating to the SRVUSD Component are stated as measures that can and
should be adopted and implemented by SRVUSD,under Public Resources Code section 21081 (a)
(2).Whenever a mitigation measure contains mandatory language and applies to the SRVUSD
Component,the measure shall be deemed recommended as a measure the SRVUSD can and should
adopt for the SRVUSD Component.The SRVUSD is responsible for monitoring and ensuring
implementation of measures relating to development of the SRVUSD Component.
EXCERPTED PROM
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL &ER
HUMPHREY PROPERTY(SCH# 20000.1 2029)
6 - I
W �
U
1.6
c C13 9b
49
01 Z
� b 4
o
0.
U Us .4u U4� c� H v .c C3v�i � o �
u o
U
U
u9 4.101
Ufis�, ce AUd
04 z
0 C
o cK
" C7 U o rh
u go
0
Cc:
oo a `"' ° B
48 v `c «' •o
U Z
a
D
09
CL
Z
me
0
r
z tJ
o
o lz
C
.o
d
a
v
9 zw
M
a
U
a
�., •v t4
a SO
CL cid
to
j b vii n "7 C Oe f O C,
y
u m
U
m
ul
N
99 �.
� d
W
W �rk
N V
Y
W
0 � E
v
d
N
AL 4t
W
a �
w
� a
QHS ` °►
79
rt -00.
"a Gz7
49 t � eg Cl � � c3 .� .� � v � ��
.� C Zcc
a
a
IL
W
O
I-
Z � w
x Iz 4
ova fl
►=
ae
a a
v00
U L WA
UU ` � U
Uuu3 g '�u
� Q
N
aZ4 �.
u a >s43 o
-w
arca v "ED a '
*4 .
ed 0 3 a � a � a � 41 Z
00 ,yG oo �" +
d` ees ci O v " s+3 ^c1 +�
LL
8 � � � � 6L �"�"' � ✓ti` '�
c 3 u ttZwa 3U p.c� a 3 a. �' ✓ .� - �„
v
a z p
V 0 a '
to 5�y aoff+ a :r p�
GNU DC7 � CqU � a t
U
LU
z U
us '�
in m " - 0 .;; R. R,
rA
a "hO
lu
0 pp U
Q u U U
t°
a. .9
4. t/1
<5
zo
0
c:
-c -occ
tv
g g
7B 0
o . 'M U
19
o � . '
° '' QTc IN a ytr
72
40.
Q z 4
r.g
u C
E
C
o
a
r
C
C Q
E
Q
U
c�
v� 0
wH
a U 4. aocs
W p b a p o -i `* UJ?v to
o
y
v
0z 4 cc
U Z
a
C
z L3
U.
x
ulz
0 c.7
H
z
l
C)
� c
w
w
a0
gh All
':g � :
° �' > 'RaY " ,.NO .04 OR
s
�yy
da
• ' �' s. dist . y c� aw
o � - v " cM '
Oz
an
U
IL
0
a
0
x
o
03 U
�
la
�o
x
IL
d h�
U
w
WZI
a
a
0 0 o
78
a� oo
to
OZ
o �
14
M CC tC Gi > t7 y 0
u
aw G z C a
N
901
_....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........._._.
__ .......... ...._._... ......._. ......_. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......_.............................................
v
wH +�
z
01
a � Cc,w
to
o
vva
uu
U sc ` UU
w
lz
_ 42o Con
. 1-4C g.14 �
ot
C
06 � w
o o '10D
v �, . .
bo
oci 10 .8 -0ow o
v � Cc,
F_
0 z
C ry O
IL
°� •o
__
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......__. 111.1
...._........ ....__... ......_.. ......... ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._.
........ _........ ......... ......... .........
U
lzx
cc
z
w
U
A., wz
Z
to
� a
, 78 a a � .8
c -flea ° g °a v �..,
IIA
g 71
y `n n i
a
U
r �
a
to
i� r� 1
U
J
a,
z
W
C
0
fit
z
W
V
t��_rt{ *fin 131 M�7�+1
00
ref
dL
to 0
bo
c, 2
o 3 w 79
bo
.o fpr
w
A.
u � '
U
z
0
r
bo bo
ti �..
iz
u o
v u
ac
wH
0Z
Do
F , U. gh
70>
CA
ja CD
CZ t
4-4
U
J
LL
4A `y
z
w
C *
O
IOU
F �YIIt
z
0.
79
N
w
t
bb
t
IV
x -S g. cc
v AtJX
U . O
� H
Z
ac0
'z a,
0
boo to
Cid .° ate' jE ° Ir
to"lu
d ,
lu
v
U
C U '
C Uv
8U
UU
}
0 . .
At
a�
bb 0
" tom -cygu = 1� 2' t r 'sa
2
v
02
S 78
wo �
low w :
4.2
U
zuj
1.6
z
r 0
� r
O
a
rn
m �y
ifC I�.r
.D
z
a
gb
a
9b to),.� tba
-0 -0 "' ~ . . ani
40)
d [� b A •y y am '
U ,>
IOT R,
sm
r
U C
iL +_5 +
u
Z a sn °7 iso
0
O {
VL
rn ;t4 a, w u u
L
W
IL
v a °
� w v
' v � cgv
w
a
W a
m -cs A fic
5
0 a0i ami a � `s� � Q h 75 IS
o ocPy on° oaar � � E'w ° tA
iz
0g7 9
a40,
0 k0 n ^C a cn
a
48
..
a
0
v
W
lzf+�t �.
ilf V
4
N
09 z
7Y
fd4i
r
Y�
.roc QZ
id
o q� Y
. cl , Uri ~ . > `'
U ." Aa ... .mit,
0.10
0
Iz Iz 0z
At
4
c� < :ei
C
a
0
F
' .c c ° L, c°� °' ami `' +. +� wr"'�
F
to bo
wH
o
0
"`.� �' .° � �, �' .� �' �• �°� � .� � -ate
oo
610 t
CR 11 8 81 o
fl
'" o c78 8 .9 o
�+- 0 '"" 4. ami c� V o -v , '
.., �"' ,�` � "'� � � � as � � '•� � � � � .�
u
0 z
P�
U
tu
I -IL-i
lz � it c o
rn c .» � b13 tti
"�G in '� � 'o.
� +�+ Off " E � -0 ';�",
"� �} »«• ani •�.r-+o � � � ttl � "."
7 L
W
W
a
CLQ o4 cn USID a>
.5 8 a ' o ' 8" coo . °
o ma' o o .� 99 to,
° cs3 � �'s °v' ocoi
Nom'
tti ctt
z -T2
ry
0 Z
a.i
u VVIUS
0 All 04 .2
Him, 105.-Cl, F., �o
I OR
_
m
ce
ri Ed
78
gel �
..... . .. ......... .......... ........ ........ .. ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............._....
_._. ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
� d
2
r7
au
Q% COO
o � V o d o
a ; ms 's ; F
tilu
y
r' ate, H tiw
� G7
u
� S
964 Ln W
a ySO-
0 y
rA t4
Co . C: S So 43 °
z G , a �, oU
is
b 0 ;
!� E
..........................................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................
Z
0
09
06
Z
01
0
2
0
o t=
ac
va
4(16
CA 0
S40)
A
q
-E
4wo
0 (D W
41-1 A It —0
�s
z A 0.
6 Q t>
-lot 0
U. 9Z 4-4 0 oe -
fto- on
mw w
cd m
.12 0 -9 W
43 cz 4z "a 0 4� 92. R rA —A. 0 O.
0
u
z
cc
101 :00: .0 1
..............................................................
I'll.-.............................................. .............
� C
z
LU6
z
0
M 4,> 40,E C4
to, A
to
. q
ci.
, �A ` En
0 c
sn es 0 a3 as c a. 0 "E' boo
is 0 4-, U U
W �
78 j
bo
44
z 10
° bo
o d -4 -0 = o cid o
z � o � ti � o a� as ,a ,
79
ti
C zi °
c
In
4 U
U Z
c
79 9
d �
s
C �
CUJ
W
� Uz � .
705
aea .b' aaa rV > Zero,
w baa y v' a� a � 0
ta
tCti3
b w TJ c3 C�7 ed t C/� v U "G C
U
'' 0 z
to
m
N
�c
C
z
z v5
w
E
ti cp p t0
� R
IA
;+� d a o '> rs p C ami
v
IZp (Ujd
w
0
z
a, 1
s o �
a a o '
3 co C
u z tea. c oma .
ao
08 gn.
aa >,,
w 's - o -v
• y a
z j 4>1d'
CD
4c n
t
AUs
.........................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................
Z
0
(9
rigZ
0
z
0
x 2 V 20
z
0
0
u
lu
o
0
42)
'D (Dada'4
79
-0 —0
00
'Be -0 4D
= 15 g g
40-
bf ct 5
t
1., 143
to.
0 .0, a
0
u
0
z 0
0 z
Z
. ................
...................................................
.......................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................
ul
z
W6
I-
x
0
u
0
f. I z
LU
th
cc
N
ra
0 .-0 =
W.
>
C12, 4E r-
40-
kn
ca
1 -Do :QRS
z bo
0
99 78 L-3 Mo ' o
.12 JZ
z CA 0
C4
z 0
0 z
r9l
.............................................................
............................... ......-... ..............................
U
a
�- Ertl �"� � �' � ,, •� �' � �
x,
p.
W
r
u
Q
zr
OEM to to a oro
71
c3 0 14
75 L
H v°
la
v
o ° mss
1 tot.
oz
� UW � E� U �Jar�'tLJ
A"
z
ul
LL
IY
05
72
Eli C6
CA
"� V!
1•` C�� 7l3 �� Raw � 15 ^� � v1 � bl3
2
va «. .4 o
' ' carp' Z .. �cs
sc
CL
' , 0 � 4. E-" ""' � °n � •� r� '� ° rte `
65
0 z
49
lac,
< 'tW
u � •
....................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................
Z
4.1
o
IL
0 1
Z
7�5 0 96
z o cd 4.
0
RA
9D
0 C
s I
Ise
u
u
u
W4 z
Zzo
gw
4-
0 -0
CC
A
4
v
u
z
00
4,0
w i
F. E 78 o can 7EL
z
lu z
o
0 z 0 0 T
f- z
z
p
................................................................ ............
............................................................... ..............................
............
Z
IJ6 t=
at
a � �
tQ +- - O �q tn" Cl
z Cs,
o U , s �„ q� E .
"*
D arc. n � c
It
ID
141)
411
44
1>1
w w40.
' t 44
4z
z
su
AL
!�
C
U Z
U' CyCd7 CQ��
4
h
z �,,• �+ CD
Z rir ts. t T1 :i+ O t
78 E
31
e
7 Q a
V � Uvv Ln u
� 4
c
4gL„
y .��'' � �•�" d 6� � C � Cap � ti U
`
.j10oma . o ' ►- 'n4K it or, o
W •aa++ a td til iySS ID A p 6 log "Qu,� z~ " ✓' EQ
u
o
N s
1 y1 Min
�a
g �,o � aw :t
V �
Z
41
Z
W
p
w
p cn _ O w+ O
bo
cd
at H iu ce3 G ' G a `. Cy
IL � coSys.
0 70
z CA
z a ci
a
u
h
.�y y
...........................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................
z
rib
cur 4 i 0.
aa �" A
1:4
cn
9 z
NJ
O
z 0
0 z
...................................................................
I'll......I ...................... ..............
.................................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................
Fir
z
0
u
0
rnz
0
IL
111
O Mf
rb
0
lK
0
t
z
0
x
z
0
1-
Ed
L
............................................................
............ ..... ................
Exhibit D to Resolution No. 20041405
WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT CANCELLATION FINDINGS
HUMPHREY RANCH PROPERTY
The Board finds that cancellation or rescission of the portion of the
Williamson Act Contract as it applies to the property described in Exhibit A is in the
public interest. As an independent, alternative basis for cancellation or rescission, the
Board finds that cancellation or rescission would be consistent with the purposes of the
Williamson Act. These findings are based upon the recitals set forth in the Resolution to
which this Exhibit is attached, on the findings in other attachments to that same
Resolution, on information in the EIR (especially Master Response 5), and on the
following:
I. CANCELLATION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST(GOVERNMENT
CODE §§ 51282(A)(2) & (C)(1) THROUGH (C)(2).)
1. Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson
Act. The Residential Component that is the alternative use of the land would
provide needed residential housing in the Alamo area. It would fill in the last
large developable parcel in Alamo, and provide compatible, transitional
densities between the neighboring approved and developed lands in the Monte
Sereno neighborhood and at Stone Valley Oaks. It would promote General Plan
policies to locate growth within the Urban Limit Line (ULL), in areas already
surrounded by existing and approved development, on property already located
next to major infrastructure and transportation corridors. It would implement
General Plan goals and policies encouraging location of new housing projects on
stable and secure lands, and provision of clustered development away from
rdgelines.
2. The cancellation or rescission on 24 acres will facilitate implementation of a
larger project that provides additional public benefits. Sixty-three acres, the
majority of Humphrey Ranch, would be permanently preserved as open space
land., under the ownership of a public or private entity devoted to open space
preservation and recreational uses. The open space and scenic values the
Williamson Act recognizes in agricultural lands would be protected. The Project
provides needed open space to serve not only the future residents of the Project,
but also existing residents in the area. It would implement General Plan goals
and policies encouraging a balance of open space and urban areas to meet the
social, environmental and economic needs of the County now and for the fixture
and the protection of hillsides and ridgelines. The Project allows a needed trail
connection to complete a loop system within a trail network operated and
maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District and State Park system.
3. Allowing cancellation or rescission to occur before the contract between the
Humphreys and the School District expires would, if the Residential Component
is subsequently approved at 39 units, facilitate the School District's acquisition
of land its needs at a price $2 million less than it otherwise would. This
Page 14 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
........................................................................................................................................................................
''I'll-,.............................................................
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
acquisition, in turn, would facilitate the School District's construction of a
parking lot that will improve safety and circulation in the area, by providing
parking space for cars that currently park along area streets, and by providing
logical and orderly access from the parking to the high school, via a cross-walk
in the area where students currently cross in a potentially dangerous fashion.
Accordingly, cancellation or rescission would facilitate development that would
help alleviate traffic problems and improve pedestrian and roadway safety in the
area. The cancellation or rescission will also facilitate the provision of
recreational benefits by making it easier for the SRVUSD to pursue a soccer
field. Tentatively approving cancellation or rescission permits theses
possibilities to be pursued.
4. Allowing cancellation to occur before other funding sources Save Mt. Diablo
relies upon expire would, if the property owners are able to arrange for an
agricultural easement with Save Mt. Diablo, enable permanent preservation of
local agricultural land, rather than payment of a fee to the State of California.
Tentatively approving cancellation or rescission permits this possibility to be
pursued.
5. Public interests in allowing landowners viable uses of the property in a manner
that does not offend the interests protected by the Williamson Act would also be
promoted. The potential for further agricultural use of the site would be limited
grazing due to the small size, steep slopes, and surrounding development,
permanent open space and park land. Agricultural uses would be further
limited should the School District pursue its parking lot and sports field at
Humphrey Ranch. A Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) analysis
conducted for the entire 96.5 acres of the Humphrey Ranch property as part of
the environmental review concluded the agricultural value of the site is low.
Accordingly, preservation of the Contract is not necessary to the conservation of
the State's economic resources, maintenance of the agricultural economy of the
State, or food production. Similarly, maintaining the Contract on the
Residential Component will not discourage discontiguous urban development
patterns or discourage unnecessary increases in the costs of community services.
6. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable
for the proposed alternate use, or that would provide more contiguous patterns
of urban development than the development of the Residential Site on the
Humphreys' property. The few open lands in the vicinity have already been
dedicated as open space through development processes (Bryan Ranch, portions
of Stone Valley Oaks), or are designated public open space lands unavailable for
development (East Bay Regional Park District lands, Mt. Diablo State Park
lands). Humphrey Ranch property represents the last large undeveloped
property in the Alamo area that is not already subject to these restrictions.
Thus, there is no proximate land that is available for a residential housing
development. Moreover, as an infill development project, constructing the
Residential Component will provide for more contiguous patterns of urban
development than the development of any proximate, noncontracted land.
Page 15 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
....................................
..........................................................................................................
-............. .....................
..............................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................
..............
RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405
CANCELLATION WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
WILLIAMSON ACT. (GOVERNMENT CODE§§51282(A)(1)& (11)(1)
THROUGH(5).)
7. Cancellation would be for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served.
The Humphrey family served a notice of nonrenewal of land covering the entire
96.5 acres of Humphrey Ranch in August 1999. This notice was recorded with
the County Recorders' office on September 30, 1999. A copy of the notice is
included in Appendix N of the Draft EIR.
8. Cancellation would not be likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from
agricultural use. The adjacent lands are either developed or permanently
protected as open space. The proposal to dedicate 63 acres as permanent open
space would allow current uses of that portion of Humphrey Ranch property to
continue, and thus would not facilitate conversion of those 63 acres from
agricultural to developed uses. Cancellation would facilitate the School
District's acquisition of the SRVUSD Component of the project at a reduced
price, but the Williamson Act recognizes that the School District, as a separate
governmental entity, may take actions that would result in the Contract on the
SRVUSD component to be deemed null and void. Moreover, the SRVUSD has
indicated that its desire to acquire the site and construct a parking lot and sports
field existed independent of proposed development of the Residential
Component.
9. Cancellation would be consistent with the General Plan. For the reasons
explained in the EIR and above, the proposed alternative use would implement
General Plan policies and would provide housing well below maximum General
Plan densities. The property owners have requested authorization of a General
Plan Amendment study, to consider a General Plan Amendment that would
reflect a shift and enlargement of the residentially-designated land, so that the
Residential Component would be on the portion of Humphrey Ranch property
best suited for housing due to its more level topography and proximity to Stone
Valley Road and adjacent development. This Board is determining that neither
cancellation nor rescission can occur unless and until a General Plan
Amendment is adopted to achieve these goals.
10. Cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of development.
Development on this land would fill in the last remaining undeveloped large
property that is within the Urban Limit Line in the Alamo Area, and would
promote contiguous patterns of urban development along Stone Valley Road,
and especially between the Monte Sereno neighborhood and the approved Stone
Valley Oaks project.
11. As explained above, there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the proposed alternate use.
Page 16 of 16
Resolution No.2004/405
........................................-..............
.......................................................................................
...................
EXHIBIT "B,°
il1ILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT CANCELLATION 'STEPS AND
PROCEDURES (CA Crept. of Conservation publication)
`h a'
.a I NO
0 4
LLIAMSON ACT PROGRAM!
Department of Conservation
k Division of Land Resource Protection
♦zy /+
E x cel/+r pts
NZO
S 1
......................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................
WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT CANCELLATION
The State of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that "if a landowner
desires to change the use of his land under contract to uses other than agricultural
production and compatible uses, the proper procedure is to give notices of nonrenewal
pursuant to section 51245."(54 Ops. Cal Atty. Gen 90, 92 (1971). Additionally,
cancellation is impermissible "except upon extremely stringent conditions", (62 Ops.
Cal. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, (1979).
Williamson Act contract cancellation provisions were included in Government Code
§51280 to deal with emergency situations when the public interest is no longer best
served by the contractual restrictions placed on agricultural land. In such cases,
landowners may petition a board or council for Williamson Act contract cancellation. A
board or council may grant tentative cancellation only if required findings (Government
Code §51282(a)) can be made. Specific notification information (GC §51284) must be
submitted to the director of the department of Conservation. Upon receipt of the
required Notice, the Department will advise the board/council on findings required for
the proposed contract cancellation (GC §51282(a)). Before taking action on the
proposed cancellation, the board/council will consider the Department's comments (GC
§51284.1(b)).
Notice
Government Code §51284.1 requires that within 30 days of the board or council
accepting a petition for tentative cancellation as complete, it must a mail notice to the
Director of the Department. The notice must include:
a copy of the petition
a copy of the contract
■ a general description, in text or by diagram, of the land that is
proposed to be cancelled
■ the deadline for submitting comments regarding the proposed
cancellation
The petition is required to contain a proposal fora specified alternative use of the land
(GC §51282(e)). Additionally, any other information considered relevant to the finding
required should be included (i.e. a description of proximate land, including whether the
land is under contract, vicinity and location maps of the land).
Findings
Cancellation is in the public interest only if the board/council makes all of the following
findings:
■ other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the
Williamson Act
• there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and
suitable for the proposed alternative use, or that development of the
contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban
development than development of proximate noncontracted land.
14
...............................................................................................
.................................. .........................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.................................
Cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act only if the
board/council makes all of the following findings:
• cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been
served pursuant to Section 51245.
• the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use is not likely
■ the proposed alternative use is consistent with the applicable
provisions of the city/county general plan
■ discontinguous patterns of urban development will not result
■ there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and
suitable for the proposed alternative use or development of the
contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban
development than development of proximate noncontracted land
Cancellation Fee
Government Code §51283 requires that before any action by the board/council
approving the tentative cancellation of a contract:
• the county assessor will determine the current fair market value of the land, free
from contractual restriction and certify the cancellation valuation to the
board/council for determining the cancellation fee
■ the board/council will certify to the county auditor a cancellation fee of 12 1/2
percent of the cancellation valuation of the land
Cancellation fees that are not paid within one year of the recording of the certificate of
tentative cancellation will be recomputed as of the date of notice (GC §51283.4(a) and
(b)).
Public Hearing
Government Code §51284 requires that a public hearing must be held by the board or
council before action is taken on a proposed cancellation. Notice of the hearing must
be published and mailed to every landowner under contract within one mile of the land
on which the contract cancellation is proposed. Additionally, the hearing notice must be
mailed to the Department at least 10 working days before the hearing.
Published Notice of Decision
Government Code §51284 requires the board or council to publish notice of the decision
and to send the Department a copy of the published notice, which includes:
■ the date, time and place of the hearing
■ a general explanation of the decision
■ the findings made pursuant to GC §51282
■ a general description of the land under contract
15
...........I..........
................................................................................................
.........................................................................-
Certificate of Tentative Cancellation
Government Code §51283.4(a) requires the clerk of the board or council to record with
the county recorder'a certificate of tentative cancellation upon tentative approval of a
petition. The certificate will include:
• the name of the landowner requesting cancellation
• the fact that a Certificate of Cancellation of Contract will be recorded upon
satisfaction of specified conditions and contingencies
• a legal description of the property
■ a description of conditions and contingencies the landowner is to satisfy,
including
(a)full payment of the cancellation fee
(b) a recalculation of the cancellation fee if not paid within one year of the
recording of the certificate of tentative cancellation
(c) securing all permits necessary to begin the proposed project
Certificate of Cancellation of Contract
Government Code §51283.4(b) requires the landowner to notify the board or council
upon satisfaction of the conditions and contingencies specified in the Certificate of
Tentative Cancellation. The board or council will execute and record a Certificate of
Cancellation of Contract within 30 days of the notification.
16
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
. ..........
EXHIBIT ACC31
MEMORANDUM: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSESSOR
SUBJECT: CANCELLATION VALUATION OF LAND
CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR THE HUMPH REY RANCH
PROPERTY
9/25/2003
• 7/19/2004
..........................................I.........I.........I..,.........
.......................................................................................................
.. .. .... . .. ..... ........... . .. .. . ........ .. ....... .........
''I'll.-,.............................................
.
JIB-20-2004 1211 CCC ASSESSOR 925 313 75?8 P.02/02
Contra Costa'County Assessor'S OffiCe 2530 Arnold Drive,Suite 404,Martinez,CA 94553-4354
DATE: July 19,2004
TO: Contra:Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Gus Kramer, County Assessor
By: Stephen Dawkins,Assi mor
SUBJECT: CANCELLATION VALUATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR
I UMPHREY PROPERTY
Reference is made to a request by the Community Development Department for the cancellation of a portion
of Land Consemation Contract 4-76 covering a parcel of 24.00 acres, further identified as a portion of
Assessor's Parol No. 193-190-009, 193-200-005, 193-200-017, 193-200-0119.
Pursuaat to Government Code Section 51283, the County Assessor hereby certifies to the Board of
Supervisors the following value as of July 19,2004 for the purpose of determining the cancellation fee:
Cancellation Valuation: $9,256,000
The cancellation fee shall be an amount equal. to 12 112% of the cancellation valuation. In this case, the
cancellation fee is 51,1511004. This fee is only valid if paid, or a Certi flicate of Contract is issued within one
year from the date of recording of the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation.
Kindly advise this office of the recording of the Certificate of Cancellation.
Cc: Dennis M. Barry,Director of Community Development
Patrick Roche,Community Development,Conservation Programs
Kenneth J. Corcoran,Auditor
Gilliam J. Pollacek,Treasurer-Tax Collector
John Sweeten, County Admi nimmor's Office
Clerk of the Board
State Department of Conservation
Jeff Thayer-Davidon
Humphrey Family c/o J. 'W'yrto
SD..jv
cancellation_valustion2
TOTAL P.02
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................
C'.'ontra Costa County Assessor's Office 253OAmoldDrive,SWtc4KM4MnMCAg4S53.43gg
DATE: September 25, 2003
TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Gus Kramer,County Assessor
By: SteliMmDawkins, Assistant Assessor
A;Wtj
SUMCT: CANCELLATION VALVATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR
HUMPH RRYPROPERTY
Reference is made to a request by the Community Development DepEdm ent for the cancellation of a portion
of Land Conservation Contract`4-76 covering a parcel of 23-43 acres, fluther identified as 4 portion of
Assessor's Parcel No. 193-190-009, 193-200-005, 193-200-ill 7, 193-200-0 19.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, the County Asmsor hereby certifies to the Board of
Supervisors the following value as of September 22,2003 for the purpose of determining the cancellation fee..
Cancellation Valuation: $9.256,000
The cancell4tion fee shall be an amount equal to 12 1/2% of the cancoUjon valuation. In thb case, the
cancellation fee b$1,157.000. This fee is only valid if paid,or a Certificate of Contract is issued within one
year from the date of recording ofthe Certificate of Tentative Cancellation.
Kbidly advise this office of the recording of the Certificate of Cancellation.
Cc: Dennis M.Barry, Director of Community Development
Patrick Roche,Community Development Conservation Programs
Kenneth L Corcoran,Auditor
YAM= J.Poll4wk, Treasurer-Twc Collector
John Sweeten,County Administrator's Office
Clerk<of the Board
State DOPMUMt of Conscyation
Jeff Thayer-Davidon
Humphrey Family c/o J. Wyro
SD:jv
..................................... .......... ........
..............................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................
EXHIBIT "Dl
CA DEPT. OF CONSERVATION LETTER, 12117/2003
...........I....... ...........
..........................................
.............
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
S T A T E O F C A L I F O R M
?`r} r " "'-t S�Kr f, t•rr
December 17, 2003
DIVISION O F Mr. Patrick Roche, Principal Planner
LAND RESOURCE Contra Costa County
PROTECTION
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor, North Wing
8 0 1 K 5 T R E E T Martinez, CA 94553
SACRAMENTO
CALIFORNIA Subject: Humphrey Property FEIR
958 14 SCH#20020112029
PHONE
916/324-0850 Dear Mr. Roche:
FAX
916/327-3430 The Department of Conservation's(Department) Division of LandResource
INTERNET Protection(Division) has reviewed the parts of the Final Environmental Impact
consrv.ca.9ov Report(FEIR)language prepared by the County's consultant), which were faxed to
the Department regarding the proposed project on the Humphrey property. The
FEIR has been prepared to; 1) review environmental impacts associated with the
GRAY D A v I s cancellation of a 23-acre portion of 96.5 acres of nonprime land enrolled In Land
GOVERNOR Conservation Contract No.4-76 on the Humphrey Property located in Alamo,
California and, 2)to review environmental impacts of the proposed'development of
a 39 lot residential subdivision to be located on the 23 acres. In addition, San
Ramon Valley Unified School District proposes to acquire 10.6 acres of the
Humphrey Property for uncertain uses,though a parking lot and school_playfield
appear to be posited'as hypothetical future uses at an unknown}time for the Monte
Vista High School. The remaining 63 acres covered by the Williamson Act contract
will be retained for agriculture and open space use,possibly under the restrictions
of a conservation easement.
The Humphrey Property, totaling 96.5 acres under Williamson Act contract, is
located at 2900 Stone Valley Road, approximately 2.2 miles east of Interstate
680, in Alamo, an unincorporated community in Centra Costa County (County).
It has historically been used for cattle grazing and equestrian activities.
Nonrenewal was initiated on the Williamson Act contract and will terminate the
contract January 1,2009. Residential subdivisions are located east and west of
the property, East Bay Regional Parklands are located to the north and a
municipal park and Monte Vista High School are located to the south.
Response to Department Comments on DEIR
The Division appreciates the opportunity,provided by the County to review the
proposed FEIR'language. However,the draft language does not appear to respond
to some of the Department's most important comments, including its Responsible
Agency CEQA needs for the Williamson Act cancellation and Williamson Act
Easement Exchange(WAEEP)proposal'(Letter A8). Other draft language is
Mr. Patrick Roche
December 17, 2003
Page 2 of 7
not sufficient, or not sufficiently accurate, to address the other Williamson Act issues raised. We
do not feel that adequate information is being includedin the'FEIR to provide a level of detail of the
contract cancellation and WAEEP project, currently being undertaken by the project proponent, to
aid the Department as a Responsible Agency, other decision makers, and interested public
members and groups in project analysis.
Response A8-1
The Department sought clarification from the County planner and the attorney for Davidon homes
about the proposed A8-1 (response to comments) language that the Department's cancellation
sections raise legal issues that do not affect the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The
planner stated that the items of analysis requested by the Department do not impact on the
physical environment and that it is enough to make a finding relative to cancellation.
Our answer was that Williamson Act findings require analysis of and interpretation of specific
existing, proposed and potential on-the-ground environmental facts and impacts that are indeed
physical. For example, the Government Code section 51282(b)(4) contiguity finding is
environmental criteria related to a number of issues routinely analyzed in EIRs. To determine
as a matter of Division analysis and policy if the finding can be met requires fact-based
environmental (CEQA) analysis.
The Williamson Act contract cancellation is itself a significant environmental impact requiring
CEQA disclosure and analysis. The contract is an enforceable restriction protected by the State
constitution that, once voluntarily entered into, confers benefits both to the landowner and to the
people of the state. One of the State's benefits is that the contract requires that the land remain
in open space until the nonrenewal process is complete. This kind of open space is a significant
physical environmental benefit that is intended to be lost to the State only after passage of the
period of time provided by the nonrenewal process.
The outcome of the use of this open space protection mechanism is not left up to the landowner
alone. The Williamson Act is firmly embedded in the local government planning and public
necessity land acquisition processes. Both parties to a Williamson Act contract, the landowner
and the local government, have the authority to begin the nonrenewal process by serving notice
on the other. Only the landowner may initiate contract cancellation and Williamson Act
Easement Exchange program rescission.
The position of the proposed FEI'R language seems to be that the County does not need to
have the benefit of CEQA process and analysis when it determines whether the findings
necessary for Williamson Act contract cancellation or a(WAEEP) rescission can be met.
However, the Division has informed the County about CEQA analysis that is needed should the
Department comment again in the near future on the cancellation petition, and at the later time
when the Director may be asked to approve the WAEEP project by determining that the findings
can be made.
Considerations for our Department in previous WAEEP projects have included the degree to
which the public has knowledge of the Department's WAEEP role and input from the public on
this before it acts on a WAEEP project. The CEQA process appears to be ideal, first, to
Mr. Patrick Roche
December 17, 2003
Page 3 of 7
describe the steps and criteria of the WAEEP process to the public and, second, to obtain its
comments. We have provided the county for its use in the CEQA process detailed
documentation of the steps of the WAEEP process and information needs for cancellation
findings. This documentation included the WAEEP Process,WAEEP Rescission Part I
Application, and WAEEP Application Binder)and is based on Department experience with other
WEEP projects.
The Williamson Act does not derive its authority from CEQA. It is its own statutory authority
backed by the State constitution. The 1965 Williamson Act predates CEQA five years. The
Legislature and the voters gave qualified open space, including Williamson Act contracted
property, constitutional protection four years after CEQA was adopted, and two years after the
courts confirmed in the 1972 decision Friends of Mammoth v Board of Supervisors (1972) 8
Cad 247 that CEQA applies to private projects.
The Williamson Act cancellation and WAEEP criteria need to be addressed on their own terms.
Williamson Act issues cannot be redefined or renamed in a manner that limits their
environmental review. Williamson Act criteria cannot be redefined to only be customary CEQA
factors. For example, removing agricultural lands is not only an issue of growth inducement. It
is an issue of impacts on agricultural operations, community open space, etc.
To suggest exclusion of Williamson Act criteria from CEQA analysis by naming them to be
planning or other issues cannot remove them from the CEQA analysis that is necessary for the
operation of the Williamson Act. For example, the contiguity of patterns of urban development
is an open space issue at the heart of the Williamson Act and is a critical physical environmental
issue as well as a planning issue.
The Division notes that the overview of the Humphrey's WAEEP project easement proposals is
a'favorable one, in part because of limited agricultural impacts of the Humphreys project
compared to other WAEEPproposals. This dues not, however, reduce or eliminate the need for
Williamson Act CEQA analysis. The opportunity to use the FEIR to demonstrate that the
WAEEP project cancellation components may be favorably resolvers should not be overlooked.
If CEQA information needed by the Department as a Responsible Agency is not included in the
CEQA document, delays in the project could result, which could easily have been avoided.
Open space is recognized in the Act's findings as an economic asset to existing and proposed
urban development. That WAEEP criteria are a higher bar than those of cancellation alone may
also be presumed to result in part from the creation of easements in lieu of payment of the
cancellation fee that is estimated to be$1.1 million in this case. This economic impact
reinforces the importance of full attention to Williamson Act CEQA information presentation and
analysis. The Division's May 16, 2001, letter to Contra Costa Community Development that
responded to the February 5, 2001 partial cancellation petition found that it lacked substantial
supporting evidence to permit the Board to reasonably find that it can cancel the contract based
upon the required findings.
We understand that language is being drafted for the FEIR to address these concerns, and
would be pleased to work on it with the County.
Mr. Patrick Ruche
December 17, 2003
Page 4 of 7
Response A8-3
The proposed FEIR language argues that the acquisition of conservation easements does not
mitigate the loss of agricultural lands. The Department in its Responsible Agency CEQA findings
would not agree with this proposed FOR language.
Protection of agricultural land in perpetuity under the authority of Civil Code section 815 offsets and
mitigates the loss of the agricultural lands to development and the cancellation of the contract and
prevents the future development of the easement land. In lieu of payment of the Williamson Act
cancellation fee, easement land of equal or greater value is protected in a manner that has been
demonstrated to be successful in California and throughout the United States, and is consistent
with the Department's litigation experience. The proposed FEIR language appears to contradict
itself when it characterizes easements as covering"loss of other agricultural land that might
hypothetically occur as a result of other possible future development proposals." WAEEP
easement criteria require that it be likely that the land proposed for protection will be converted to
nonagricultural use in the forseeable future.
The Department would also not agree with the manner in which the proposed FEIR language
proposed to characterize the cancellation of the WIlliamson Act contracted land as being less-than-
significant loss.
The response to the Department's comments indicates unfamiliarity with WAEEP. To clarify how
an easement exchange is processed it is important to understand that a basic requirement must
occur in order to rescind a contract. This requirement is that an agreement between a county or
city and the landowner may be entered into to cancel a contract in order to simultaneously place
other land under an agricultural conservation easement (Government Code section 51256). Since
it is required by statute that an agricultural conservation easement be created to complete a
WAEEPproject, it is clear that it cannot be considered the instrument for mitigating the loss of
agricultural land and the removal of the Williamson Act contract protection of the land. In addition,
such agricultural conservation easement must be of equal, or greater, size than the cancelled
property and the value of the easement must be the same as, or greater than,the cancellation fee
to cancel the Williamson Act contract. Therefore,any mitigation of the impacts generated by the
development of the alternative use as a result of early termination of the Williamson Act contract
through cancellation,must be in addition to the agricultural conservation easement put in place
through the WAEEP project. The landowners have initiated a WAEEP process on the subject
property.
Because contract rescission and concurrent placement of an agricultural conservation easement
on other land pursuant to Government Code sections 51256, 51256.1, is subject to the approval of
the Director of the Department of Conservation,the Department is considered a responsible
agency under CEQA. The Director must also consider CEQA and the environmental impact
reports prepared for a project when reviewing a proposed WAEEP project to determine if all the
criteria and findings necessary are adequately documented and supported for project approval. In
the Department's response to the DEIR we recommended that an explanation of the WAEEP
rescission program, procedures and criteria be discussed in the FEIR. in order to ensure that the
FEIR adequately provides information on the WAEEP project that is being initiated by the
landowners as an option for terminating the Williamson Act contract, we enclose a copy of the
Mr. Patrick Roche
December 17, 2003
Page 5 of 7
WAEEP process,the WAEEP Rescission Part I application, and the Williamson Act Easement
Exchange Application Binder document, for inclusion in the FEIR.
Another response to comments under A8-3, which refers to the WAEEP, Is I r ell
"However, if unable to implement the exchange, the applicants will pay th conservation fee. The
applicants would pay the cancellation fee that is required to cancel the contrac ctions.
This should be corrected in the FEIR. We are not aware of any Legislative finding or Williamson
Act statute to support the response comment in A8-3 that the Legislature has determined that this
(the payment of the cancellation fee) makes the cancellation acceptable and thereby renders the
impact to be considered less than significant.
3.2 Master Response 2: SRVUSD Component of the Proiect
The information provided relative to the potential purchase of the 10 acres of the Humphrey Ranch
by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District(SRVUSD) is inaccurate in several areas. Since
the 10 acres is under the same Williamson Act contract as the Humphrey Ranch, there are explicit
requirements under the Williamson Act(Government Code sections 51290 to 51295)that control
the public acquisition of Williamson Act contracted land for public improvements. In the
Department's response to the Notice of Preparation we recommended that the DEIR should
discuss the public acquisition relative to the notification provisions and specific findings which must
be met in order to locate a public improvement on contracted land. If the School District acquires
the contracted land and later transfers the land to a private party, the District would have to provide
written notice to the Director of the Department of Conservation l. or to transferring the land to
private ownership. In addition, restrictions might have to be reinstalled on the land as required in
statute.
The Department has not at this time received notice from the District that acquisition of land in an
agricultural preserve may be necessary. This notice to the Department and to the County is
required by Government Code section 51291(b). The notice must include consideration of the
section 51290 policies against making public improvements on Williamson Act contracted land,
and the section 51292 findings requirements that the location of the identified public improvement
is not based primarily on a consideration of the lower cost of acquiring land in an agricultural
preserve and that there is no other land on which it is reasonably feasible to locate the public
improvement. The lower cost analysis is a critical need in this project FEIR to address the$2
million reduction below market value for the 10-acre project area.
The draft FEIR language erroneously suggests that purchase of the land by the District will by itself
void the Williamson Act contract. In order to void the contract pursuant to Government Code
section 51295 the acquisition of Williamson Act land must meet requirements of eminent domain
law for acquisition by eminent domain or in lieu of eminent domain (e.g., Code of Civil Procedure
§1230.010 et seq. and Government Code section 7260 et seq.). If the acquisition does not void
the contract,the District's uses of the contracted property will be affected and limited by the terms
of the contract and provisions of the Act. The response comments should adequately and
accurately provide this information.
Mr. Patrick Roche
December 17, 2003
Page 6 of 7
Alternative CEQA analysis for the District acquisition should include eminent domain acquisition of
the 10-acre site, and cancellation of 33 acres of the contracted land(the 23-acre site plus the 10-
acre site).
3.4 Master Response 4:Open Soace
As a possible mitigation measure it is proposed that 63 acres of the 96.5 acres under Williamson
Act contract be protected in open space by several possible methods. It is stated that if the East
Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD)acquires the property, the Williamson Act contract will be
deemed null and void by law. However, we emphasize again that acquisition of Williamson Act
land by public entities must meet specific requirements identified in our comments above. The
response comments should adequately and accurately provide this information.
Master Response 5: Agricultural Resources
The comments throughout this letter address this section.
The last five lines of the second paragraph on page 3-8 and the similar language at the end of
the master response on contract lapse, acceleration of loss, and so forth, do not seem to have
been reviewed yet by the County because they do not reflect County policy, the contract in
question, State law or the Williamson Act.
The proposed FEIR does not define full proiect CEQA needs
The Department's WAEEP experience has led it to prefer to consider WAEEP applications in
two parts, starting first with cancellation issues review. The rest of easement exchange review
such as easement drafting may follow second after preliminary cancellation analysis. The
County's decision to handle cancellation review for the project first may be similar to the
Department's approach. The Department would like to help to develop these apparently dual
approaches, but dues not have enough information to do so at this time.
By present definition, the project in the FEIR is apparently intended to address cancellation, but
not subdivision and other project aspects that require action by the County and others including
the Department. The Department's more specific subdivision CEQA interest is the division of
the contracted 96-acre parcel. The WAEEP Part 11 Application (the WEAAP process other than
cancellation issues consideration such as easement evaluation) is not part of this FEIR. The
CEQA mechanism(s) that will be used through project completion needs to be identified so the
Department may comment.
It is also not clear if necessary factual knowledge exists at this time for CEQA review of all of the
cancellation findings. For instance, the proposed alternate use for the contracted land needs to
be known and is a factor that must be considered for the general plan consistency and suitability
of proximate noncontracted lands cancellation findings for both the 23-acre parcel and the 10-
acre parcel (Government Code section 51282(b)(3) and (5). it is therefore not clear from the
proposed FEIR language that the proposed alternative use of the 23 and 10-acre parcels has at
this time the level of specificity necessary to permit the County and the Department to make the
required cancellation findings (Government Code section 51282(e).
Mr. Patrick Roche
December 17, 2003
Page 7of7
Similarly, there may not be enough information known at this time for the FOR to review the
Williamson Act public acquisition findings regarding which the Department will comment to the
District once the Department has received notice from the District. The cancellation petition
appears to describe the District's use of its own CEQA document.
Should the County decide not to revise the FEIR in accordance with our Responsible Agency
review, we request that this letter be included as a formal comment. We look forward to working
with the County to resolve all our outstanding issues, and appreciate the County's cooperation.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Acting Assistant Director
Enclosure{s}
cc: Jeffrey Thayer, Davidon Homes
Marie Cooper, Attorney
EXHIBIT "E"
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND MAILING LIST
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS
ALAMO AREA
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday. JulX 27, 2004, at 3.00_p.m., in the County
Administration Building, Board Chambers, 651 Pine Street (Corner of Pine and Escobar
Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will
conduct a public hearing to consider the following planning matter:
Petition for Partial arlcellatiol'_Land Caisse nation Contract No 4-76
(Williamson Act contract) for the Humphrey Ranch. (County Erle #tAPOt-
0f101), submitted on behalf of the Humphrey Family "Trust, involving 24
acres of the 96.5 property located at 2900 Stone Valley Boulevard, Alamo,
CA. The proposed action would remove the property owner's obligations,
and any successors of interest, to the enforceable restrictions of Land
Conservation Contract No. 4-76, relating to the 24 acres identified in the
petition for partial ciancell,ation. (CT 3461.02)
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County
of Contra Costa, State of California, generally identified above (a more precise
description may be examined in the Office of Director of Community Development,
County Administration Building).
For the purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2002012€129) has been
prepared for this project. The EIR addresses (1) the proposed alternate use of the subject
24 acres for 39 residential units and a detention basin., (2) preservation of approximately f
63 acres to remain in current open space uses, and (3) the potential purchase and
subsequent development by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District of
approximately 10 acres into parking lot and recreational field uses.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice, or in written
correspondence.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development .Department staff will be available on
Tuesday, July 27, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez, CA, to meet with any interested persons in order to (1) answcy
questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues
being considered by the Board; and, (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with
staff, please;call Patrick Roche, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-17.42
by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, Ju 26,2004 to confirm your participation.
.Date: July 12, 2004
JOHN SWEETEN,Clerk of the
Board of the Bod of Supervisor and
County Admi trator
'Aj Y
.
Jam Free Printing www.avery.com ARv� 596OTM
Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5964TM '�"° 1-800-GO-AVERY lJ
Stone Valley Oaks HOA Mark& Diana Rajeski Stone Valley Oaks HOA
APN: 193-200-030 APN: 193-760-010 APN: 193-200-031
777 California St. 70 Oak Glen Ct. 777 California St.
Palo Alto,CA 94304 Alamo, CA 94507 Palo Alto, CA 94304
Bill Hooper and Teresa Brewer Derry& Gail Cook Gary& Jennifer Vujovich
APN: 193-920-045 APN: 193-760-009 APN: 193-920-046
4115 Stone Valley Oaks Dr. 80 Oak Glen Ct. 4125 Stone Valley Oaks Dr,
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
Robert&Andrea Challinor Stone Valley Oaks HOA Lance&Mary Cottrill
APN: 193-930-047 APN: 193-920-049 APN: 193-920-040
4135 Stone Valley Oaks Dr. 777 California St. 4130 Stone Valley Oaks Dr.
Alamo, CA 94507 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Alamo, CA 94507
Dale & Sharon Green Carl& Charlene Burns Trust Michele Silva
APN: 193-552-015 APN: 193-552-014 APN: 193-552-016
159 Canyon Vista Pl. 169 Canyon Vista Pl. 149 Canyon Vista Pl.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 64507
Lloyd Fisher Timothy&Debbie Hitch Terry&Jennifer Davis
APN: 193-552-013 APN: 193-552-017 APN: 193-920-039
159 Canyon Vista Pl. 139 Canyon Vista Pl. 4140 Stone Valley Oaks Dr.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
Marilyn Gapp Richard Hess Diane Copp
APN: 193-552-019 APN: 193-920-038 APN: 193-552-004
119 Canyon Vista Pl. 4140 Stone Valley Oaks Dr. 119 Canyon Vista Pl.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
Erwin Durrer Arland Snarr James&Susan Nagle
APN: 193-552-020 APN: 193-552-003 APN: 193-552-002
109 Canyon Vista Pl. 134 Canyon Vista Pi. 124 Canyon Vista Pl.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
David& Souraya Saeed Kevin&Nancy Williams Vivekanand&Vinita Jain
APN: 193-551-001 APN: 193-552-001 APN: 193-920-031
1905 Monte Sereno Dr. 114 Canyon Vista Pl. 148 Pheasant Ct.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
Resident James&Elizabeth Rettig Scott Landin
APN: 191-551-002 APN: 193-551-003 APN: 193-542-002
1895 Monte Sereno Dr. 1885 Monte Sereno Dr. 1875 Monte Sereno Dr.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
Herman Timmons San Ramon Valley Unified School Town of Danville
APN: 196-020-005 Dist. APN: 196-370-025
2717 Stone Valle Rd. APN: 196-370-019
Y 510 La Gonda Way
Alai-no, CA 94507 699 Old Orchard Dr. Danville, CA 64526
Danville, CA 94526
wi096S (7AkjMtF AR3AV-09-008-t W1096S 31VI4dW31 OAaaAV asn
............................................................................................................................................I.......
—.....—...11.............................................................................................................................
Jam Free Printing www.avery.com AVERY® 5960TU
Use Avery*TEMPLATE 5960TM 1-800-GO-AVERY N
Kent Molinaro Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Kunio &Tomoko Ishii
APN: 196-050-009 Saints APN: 196-050-018
P.O. Box 1048 APN: 196-370-032 d 109 Smith Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94566 50 E. N. Temple 22 Mr. Alamo, CA 94507
Salt Lake City, UT 84150
GAAdvance Planning\adv-plan\Humphrey\mailing list
prop 300 fl.doc
-096S G) w10965 31V1dW31 @)U9Av asn
AU3AW wo:)-AjQAeMAAM Builuud awl wef
.....................................111.11,11,111.1.......
............................................................................................................................................ .......
........................................11......I.........................................................................
.........................
idin rree rrinung www.avery.com
Use Avery'TEMPLATE 5960-fm 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY05960TM
Terry Roberts,Senior Planner Bob Braitman Ethan Browning
State Clearinghouse LAFCO SRVUSD
1400 Tenth Street 651 Pine Street 699 Old Orchard Drive
Sacramento CA 95812-3044 Eighth Floor Danville CA 94526
Martinez CA 94553-1229
Tina Perault,Facilities Planner Tai Williams, AICP Kevin Gailey,Chief of Planning
SRVUSD Town of Danville Town of Danville
699 Old Orchard Drive 510 La Gonda Way 510 La Gonda Way
Danville CA 94526 Danville CA 94526-1740 Danville CA 94526-1740
)amyl Young,Director Department of Conservation Department of Conservation
State of California State of California
eA Dept.of Conservation 801 K Street 801 K Street
t01 K Street,MS 24-01 Sacramento CA 95814 Sacramento CA 95814
'acramento,CA 95814
Attn:Patricia Gatz Attn:Dennis O'Bryant,
Acting Assistant Director
Timothy C. Sable William Kirkpatrick Linda J.P.Chavez
Department of Transportation
PO Box 23660 EBMUD EBRPD
Oakland CA 94623-0660 375 Eleventh Street 2950 Peralta Oaks Court
Oakland CA 94607-4240 Oakland CA 94605-0381
Jeffrey Thayer John Wyro Ellen M.Poling,P.E.
Davidon Homes The Wyro Company FEHR&PEERS ASSOCIATES,INC.
1600 S.Main Street,#150 40 Valley Drive 3685 Mt Diablo Blvd.
Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Orinda CA 94563 Suite 301
Lafayette CA 94549
Vance Phillips,President Jay Lewis,President Richard K.Humphries,President
Alamo Oaks HOA Monte Sereno Neighborhood Alliance Round Hill Property Owners' Association
229 Smith Road 125 Mountain Canyon Place PO Box 3428
Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 Danville CA 94526
Roger Smith,Chairman Gary Lech&Sally Smith(Treasurer) David H.Johnson
AIA C/O Monte Sereno Neighborhood Alliance Whitegate HOA
PO Box 271 135 Mountain Canyon Place 56 Jessica Court
Alamo CA 94507 Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507
Erwin Durrer Margaret Green Mrs.Giles Day
109 Canyon Vista Place P.Sundararaman 1850 Monte Sereno Drive
Alamo CA 94507 1895 Monte Sereno Drive Alamo CA 94507
Alamo CA 94507
Lawrence B. Levit
Kathy S.Levit Thomas C.Nagle Gayle Jones
1865 Monte Sereno Drive 500 Ygnacio Valley Road,Suite 325 292 Smith Road
Alamo CA 94507 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Alamo CA 94507
Perry and Anne Teymourian Nanci Dias Steven&Rosemary Creel
129 Canyon Vista Place 309 Marks Road 1870 Monte Sereno Drive
Alamo CA 94507-2732 Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507
w,L096S OAMIAV AH3AV-09-008-L wi096S 31V1dW31,&fu9Avasn
WO:YfUSAWAAmArt 6ullulid 0eu3 Luef
............. 11111.111.................I..................
_. _....
.
tam Tree minting armor www.avery.com /� (® 5960TM
Use Avery's TEMPLATE 59601-"" 1-800-GO-AVERY
Marie Cooper Seth Adams
Bingham-McCutchen SHUTE,MIHALY&WEINBERGER LLP Save Mount Diablo
1333 North California Blvd. Matthew D. Vespa 1196 Boulevard Way,Suite 10
Suite 210 396 Hayes Street
Walnut Creek,CA 94596 San Francisco CA 94102 Walnut Creek CA 94595
GAAdvance Planning\adv-pian\Humphrey\maiiing list
interested parties.doc
i
w10965 �7 �/i�b AN3AV-09-008-t wy096S 31VIdW31®tiaw asn
tuorJ(JQAe-mAAm bulIuiad 88.13 Wer
__... .......... ......... . ........ .......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...__... .
_.. ......_.. __...... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
............................................................
jam rree Printing ...ri www.avery.wm
Use Ave '9 TEMPLATE 5960Tcd •�...�... � AVERYO 596OTM
t'Y 1-800-GO-AVERY
Thomas Brumleve Trust Thomas&Judith Jones Trust Charles&Lorraine Parr
1512 North Gate Rd. 18181 Bollinger Canyon Rd. 18311 Bollinger Canyon Rd.
Walnut Creek,CA 94598 San Ramon,CA 94583APN: 199-030-027 (AP#25-75) San Ramon,CA 94583
APN: 194-040-011 (AP#16-69) APN: 199-030-040(AP#17-75)
Michael &Adele Warholic Trust William&Jill Purcell Teardrop Partners
18333 Bollinger Canyon Rd. P.O. Box 761 3189 Danville Blvd.,#20
San Ramon,CA 94583 Diablo,CA 94528 Danville,CA 94507
APN: 199-030-041 (AP#17-75) APN: 202-050-0411042(AP#4-77) APN: 202-050-071/72 (AP#11-70)
Peter Ginochio
3401 Walnut Avenue
Concord, CA 94519
APN:- 138-300-001 (AP#16-69)
GALAdvance Planning\adv-pW\Humphrey\mailing list
for ag preserves near humphrey prop-doc
wt0965 �A2l�A'b► AH3"-O'9-008-t ..®,,., wi0965 3ldldW31(&fuaw ash
ujordjaAe•mmm >� 6uilutjd 99j3 user
David Alyono
221 Hawk Ct
Alamo CA 94507
11jarl<. and Nary Jo Ashby
215 Hawk. L[
Alamo Ca 94507
William ana Shelly Avers
265 Na le Ct
Alamo Ca 9450?
Pier barattolo
4110 Stone Malley Oa Ks Dr
Aiamo CA 94507
Patricia J. Bianchi
Serafino Bianchi
4005 Sirrno V<aliev Oaks Lr.
Alamo CA 94,1107
Michale R y Reisa C.. Honeiti
424 Hawk: Ct.
d?IaIno CA 94507
F'aul & J0111 tjrownstien
218 Hawk C t
alam6 ca 94507
Lynne Castaonal.a
4045 Stone Valley Oaks Or
A.laffio CA 94507
Gino and Janet Cerruti
260 Dole Ct.
Alamo CA 94507
Robert 15 Andrea Cnal'linor
4135 :stone Valley Oaks Ur
Alamo CA 94507
Thomas & Jeanette Chano
206 Hawk C f,
Alamo C., 941)07
Lance C. Cottrill
Amy J. cot"trill
41,30 Stone VaUev Oaks. Ur
4amc) CA 94507
Jona Cm
«B Pheasant Ct
^ Alae Ca 94507
Jennifer C. Daws
iee« N. Daws
4140 Stone Vasey Gw w
Alamo . CA 9450?
JG, and Qwe De &Q
w& Pheasant Court
»
Alamo CA 94507
C .
Mark & Julie Doris
\ 95 S,w Ct
Q«; Ca 94507
Kenneth & Melinda b,»w
y G! Hawk Ct
Alamo » 14507
Abu & Patricia Eamb
40g Stone GQ� Ga 9r .
g«o CA 90107
JefGmvEwR
.
4075 stone GS_ Gw y
Ala« Ca 9437
Jeffrey Fazio
r
4120 Stone Valley &G y
Ramo CA 94507
#cam and Susan Fernando
mo Hawk Ct
w ao CA 94507
David and Denise Fisher
4050 Stone valley Gw w
Alamo CA 9507
Peter »4 Holly FuGer
100Pheasant Q
Alamo. CA 94507
yeorxG Gran
. wJ Hawk Ct.
Alas G 94507
_.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
.. . .........._.._........_....._..... ......... ......... ......... ......... _........ .........
Diane Haskins,
Charles Ronald Haaa.:inS
4035 Stone Valley Oaks Dr
' Alamo CA 94`t07
{
Jeanie Ness
Richard H. Mess
i
4150 Stone Valley Oaks Ar
AIa.fit u CA 94:507
d
Bill H000er g Teresa Brewer.
c 4115 Stant.` Valley Oaks Dr
ctlamo CA 94507
s
Anwar and Noorihtan Jaffer
123 Pheasant CL
Alamo CA 94507
9
Vi.vek.anand & Vini to rain
0 148 Pheasant Court
Alamo CA 94507 �
0 �
Scott and Gwendelvn Kornev
227 Hawk. Ct
Alamo, Ca 94507
C
Jeffrey & Cynthia Liu Trustees
4040 Stnoe valley
Alamo CF' 94507
r
Wallace and tianei c..a9.c0,
r 4065 Stone Valley Oaks Dr
Alamo. ca 94507 "
Enana and &.-tx:i.ma.no Macclaitana
7.24 Pheasant Ct
Alamo CA 94507
Paul ul. Maoui.re
4105 Stone Valley Oaks lir
Alamo CA 34507
kevin and Linda !McCarthy
:.50 E axle CCt.
A laino (..A 945()7
1=redr:ick. and Nanc-y McNeil
212 Hawk Ct
Alamo ca 94507
i{e.;samc d:i.n triad i J. & Susan Hooe
131. Pheasant Court
Alamo CA 94507
Stenhen and Maauie O tnen
116 Pleasant. Ct
Alamo. CA 9450%
David W. and Sheila S. Ouburn
4025 Stone Valley Oaks Dr
Alamo CA 94507
Alan and Wanda Pearce
255 Eaal.e Ct
Alamo Ca 94507
Charles and Karen Scoma
401.5 Stone Valley Oaks Dr
Alamo GA 94507
t
Joaen & Kanan Shah
Q9 Pheasant Court
Ala1110 Co 94507
Rohit. and Vandana Sharma
100 Pheasant. Ct
Alamo CA 94507
i
Arnold Silvestri.
i
132 Pheasant Ct
Alamo CA 9450;+'
Brad and Amy Skeoner
107 Pheasant CT..
Alamo. CA 94507
Trustee Stenaer Trust
Zachary S'tenaer
41.00 S'tonL. Valley Oaks Dr
Alame, CA 94507
Gary & Jennifer Ni ovich
4125 Stone Valley Oaks Dr
Alamo. CA 94507
_. .._.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ._........ ....._.
.. .. ...._._.... ..__....... ......... ......... ......... ......... .._.__.... ......_.. ......... ......... ......... .........
................_...._.....
EXHIBIT 16P
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. 20-2004
_.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _........._.. .. .. __
.. ......... ........_.. .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....._..... ......... ......... ......... .........
RESOLUTION NO. 20-2004
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HUMPHREY PROPERTY (SCH# 200220102029 AND
COUNTY FILE: AP#01-0001) IN THE ALAMO AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a petition for partial cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 4-76
(Williamson Act Contract) was submitted to the Board of Supervisors on February 5, 2001, on
behalf of the Humphrey Family for 96.5 acres of land they own at 2900 Stone Valley Road in
Alamo,California; and,
WHEREAS, the petition for partial cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 4-76,
as required under law, included an alternative land use for the property and the alternative land
use proposed a 39-lot residential subdivision on approximately 24 acres of the Humphrey
Property, retention of approximately 63 acres of the Humphrey Property for permanently
preserved open space, and potential sale of 9.3 acres of the Humphrey Property to the San
Ramon Valley Unified School District for parking and playfield to serve the nearby Monte Vista
High School; and,
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was issued on January 15, 2002 by the Community Development Department to
review the environmental impacts of: (1) the partial cancellation of Land Conservation Contract
No. 4-76; and (H) the proposed Specified Alternative Land Use Proposal for the Humphrey
Property submitted as part of the Petition for Partial Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract
No. 4-76; and,
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Draft EIR
was prepared and circulated for review and comment period of 73 days,between March 24, 2003
and May 28, 2003, and the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on May 19, 2003 to
provide further opportunity for public comments on the DEIR; and,
WHEREAS, after accepting testimony and written comments, the County Zoning
Administrator closed the public hearing on May 19, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, following the close of comment period on the Draft EIR, the County
prepared written responses to the comments received. On June 14, 2004, the County published
the Response to Comments/Final Environmental Impact Report document, which included a
reasoned response to all comments received during the comment period that raised significant
environmental issues, text changes to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
Additional Appendices and Figures, that in its entirety along with the Draft EIR constitute the
Final EIR; and,
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Response to Comments/Final Environmental Impact Report document
was distributed as required by the CEQA and the State and County CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, on Monday, June 21, 2004, the County Zoning Administrator scheduled a
closed public hearing, which was duly noticed, to consider a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors on the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
Humphrey Property(SCH#200220102029).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Zoning Administrator having
fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated both the Draft EIR and Response to Comments/Final
EIR document, and all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter before the Zoning
Administrator, finds the Final EIR to be adequate and complete, prepared in compliance with
CEQA and State and County CEQA Guidelines and to reflect the independent judgment of the
County and recommends its certification by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
WHEREAS, the instructions by the County Zoning Administrator to prepare this resolution were
given on Monday, June 21,2004.
ATTEST:
Dennis M. Barry,AICP
Zoning Administrator
County of Contra Costa
State of California
GAAdvance Plannin&dv-plw\HuMArey2A Resolution on SIR Humphrey Prop.doc
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS
ALAMO AREA
Notice is hereby given that on TuesdaL September 14, 2004,, at 1:30 p.m., in the County
Administration Building, Board Chambers, 651 pine Street (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),
Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will conduct a continued
public hearing(continued from July 27, 2004) to consider the following planning matter:
Petition for Partial Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 4-76
(Williamson Act contract) for the Humphrey Ranch, (County File #AP01-0001),
submitted on behalf of the Humphrey Family Trust, involving 24 acres of the 96.5
property located at 2900 Stone Valley Boulevard, Alamo, CA. The proposed
action would remove the property owner's obligations, and any successors of
interest, to the enforceable restrictions of Land Conservation Contract No. 4-76,
relating to the 24 acres identified in the petition for partial cancellation. (CT
3461.02)
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, generally identified above (a more precise description may be
examined in the Office of Director of Community Development, County Administration
Building).
For the purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), an :Environmental impact Report (SCH#2002012029) has been prepared for this
project. The EIR addresses (1) the proposed alternate use of the subject 24 acres for 39
residential units and a detention basin, (2) preservation of approximately 63 acres to remain in
current open space uses, and (3) the potential purchase and subsequent development by the San
Ramon Valley Unified School District of approximately 10 acres into parking lot and
recreational field uses.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice, or in written correspondence.
Date: August 31, 2004
JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
BY:
Deputy Clerk
..... ..... ..... .......
..
Page 1 of 2
/v 3
,e.......F R ,.;
Main Identity { ,
! s 4 2004
From: "Did Reed"<d2denny@sbcglobal.net> #
To: "vicki koc"<bjkoc1@comcast.net> 1 F- i 2 -
Sent: Tuesday, September 14,2004 2:33 AM ���-- ' :: j.!A COSTA G.
Subject: Moate Vista Parking&the Humphrey Property
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors:
I am a mother of four children in the San Raman Valley Unified Schaal District, one of whom currently
attends Monte Vista,and all of whom are Involved in sports. I have lived in Alamo for the past thirteen
years and have been actively involved in the schools and in the community. For the past two years, I
drive my daughter to Monte Vista,drop her off at the school,and then try to get out of the parking lot.
There is a non-stop stream of traffic heading east on Stone Valley Road to drop off studerrts at Monte
Vista or Los Cerros Middle School. This stream of traffic rarer gives the right-of-way to the west-bound
students trying to turn left into Monte Vista's parking lot. Those parents trying to leave the parking lot
have the almost impossible task of trying to turn left(west toward the freeway)with the constant stream
of east-bound traffic and the extremely long line of left-turning students, none of whom want to yield the
right of way because they may be late for school. it can take five to ten minutes to get out of the
parking lot. In addition,the way the parking lot is configured,students can block the main access lane
Into the parking lot while trying to park in one of the spaces that is on that main access lane, creating
more of a back-up.
In the afternoon, I don't even attempt to go into Monte Vista's parking lot, because with all of the
students and parents exiting, it will take up to hag an hour to get out of it. Instead, I park on Stone
Valleix Road near the fence by Oak Hili'lark and wait for my daughter to walk out to me. Then, I have to
turn around in the dirt driveway area in front of the Humphrey property to head west-bound back to my
home off of Livorna so that I don't get caught for hours in the traffic going to Los C:erros,Vista Grande
and Green Valley. Many fender-benders occur in this area due to inexperienced drivers attempting to
exit the parking lot quickly whenever there is a small gap in the Stone Valley Road west-bound traffic.
There are also parents and students attempting to turn left from Glenwood'Court(just west of Oak Hill
Park)and from the church parking lot(right next to that). It makes for a very confusing, dangerous
traffic condition.
Monte Vista's facilities are also used daily during most of the school year for after school activities by
Monte Vista's many sports teams, performing arts students,and by parents. In addition, the School's
facilities are heavily used by the community. The girls'softball league,T-Birds football league, Mustang
Soccer League, Boys`lathe League, Lacrosse league,etc., all use Monte Vista's fields. One night last
week, at about 8 pm,T-Bird football was Just getting out,a Monte Vista football game was in progress, a
school dance was joist beginning and a Water Polo game was just ending. As you can imagine,the
parking lot was even fug than it had been during the day! Plus, it was dark and many children were
walking through this traffic mess trying to find their parents who were coming to pick them up.
Because of the proximity of Oak Hill Park and its small parking lot, Monty:Vista's parking lot is also used
for over-flow parking for the park on the weekends,especially during the summer. Everts like Music in
the Pari,or Art in the Park attract many people from the community and quickly fill the parking spaces
that are available. Having an additional lot across the street would make these events safer because
fewer people would have to park in the narrow strips of dirt along Stogie Valley Road (which they do
once the parking lots become full)and they could all more safely cross Stone Valley Read at one
crosswalk with traffic controlled by a signal.
I whole-heartedly support the development of the Humphrey property and the purchase of a portion of
the property by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. I support the Districts'development of the
911412004
` Page 2 of 2
7 ,
property into an additional parking lot which will serve not only Monte Vista High School, but the
community at large. I also strongly support the installation of a traffic signal which would control the
traffic exlting bothlots and provide a safe way for people to crass Stone Valley Road to get to their cars.
I also support the creation of a drop-off/pick-up area in each parking lit that would facilitate the flow of
trate enteffrtg and exiting the lots. I strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to approve of this
development and allow it to get going as soon as passible. These improvements are long overdue.
Thank you for your efforts.
Did1Justin-Reed
d2denny@sbcglobal.net
9/14/2004
September 14, 2004 ` 'x ' :
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Board of Supervisors.
My name is Sally Smith and I have lived at 135 Mountain Canyon Place, in the Monte Sereno
neighborhood, for 11 years. Many of my neighbors could not be here today because of work
complications, but are anxiously awaiting a report on the outcome of this meeting.
Everyone here as well as the general population should be outraged to hear that the San Ramon
Valley School District plans to level and pave 10 acres of the last, large undeveloped parcel of land
in Alamo, for a 400 car parking lot. Gone forever will be the rolling hills and meadows in which
herds of deer graze in the morning mist. The school district plans to reconfigure the landscape to
accommodate a noisy,ugly, dirty, unkempt parking lot littered with plastic bottles and bags of
garbage from fast food establishments—all within 30 feet from our property lines. Our views will
most likely be graced with cheap cobra lighting adorned lavishly with numerous pairs of sneakers;
their numbers increasing every year. Hundreds of vehicles with associated engine noises, car horns
and errant alarms, loud mufflers and earsplitting car stereos will be an ever present nuisance.
We realize the county already has plans for the money that will be generated by the housing
development,associated fees, and future property tax revenue. We reluctantly acknowledge that
the board will approve the EK as presented, and know that our future struggles will be with the
school board. I am, however, asking county zoning to wield their approval stamp wisely and
consider whether a 400 car parking lot would be the best use for this property. I am also asking
that general council review California Code 53094 with particular emphasis on the school
district's use of property for non-classroom facilities and its perceived exemption from local
zoning ordinances. We are counting on you and your staff to interpret and enforce California
code and the county's zoning ordinances fairly and justly.
In conclusion let me say thank you to the entire board and especially Millie Greenberg for listening
to our concerns and attempting to renegotiate, on our behalf, an unfortunate decision made by her
predecessor. We want you to know that we appreciate your efforts very much and you certainly
have our votes in November. Thank you, Millie.
Also, I would like to thank the county staff who worked so hard and diligently on this project. I used
to be a public servant so I know that the job sometimes appears thankless,but let me assure you we
are all grateful to those individuals who make their living serving the public at large.
Thank you for listening.
Sally Smith
135 Mountain Canyon Place
Alamo,CA 94507
925.743.0902
aoirich;//255331026/
REOViT
Subj; Monte Vista Parking 4 2004
;Date; Tuesday, September 14, 2004 9;29;25 AM
:From; CALoa#ers CLERK
CONTRA CO&iA,.
'To; Bu4567
Please forward this to the County Supervisor:
I am a parent of a Monte Vista student. 1 am APPALLED at the parking situation at the school. My child
is leaving TWO HOURS before school starts to find a parking spot. He could commute to San Francisco
quicker than he can commute 5 mites down the road to Monte Vista. The school has added 400 students
in the last 3 years and has added NO ADDITIONAL PARKING
This situation is only going to get worse. As the year progresses, you have 500+ sophmores who will be
getting their license and driving to school. These kids are not allowed to carpool or have another child
riding in the car with them. Where are all these cars going to park?
What is the school's liability for these kids who are sitting in their cars for 2 hours waiting for school to
begin?
Something needs to be done IMMMEDiATELY to add more parking spaces to Monte Vista.
A new parking lot across the street would be great-Y if it can be completed ASAP. But we can't wait 2 or 3
years for more parking. We need more parking NOW.
Please contact me if you would like additional information.
Bev Shumate
648.4166
1 Of 1 9/14/04 10.20 AM
aolrich://12830210261
Subj: No Subject
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:43:04 AM
:From: RICK.SHUMATE@ge.com
;To: 8u4567@aol.com
It is my understanding that there is a vette taking place today regarding the parking situation at Monte vista
High School. If so, I would like to encourage you to support a solution to fixing this problem that just seems
to be getting worse every year. Thank yowl
1 of 1 9/14104 10:48 AM
aoirich:/17$6671031/
Subj: Monte Vista High School parking
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:22:45 AM
;From: Jemtapper
7o: Bu4S67
To Joan Buchanan,
Please take under consideration the addition of more parking spaces at Monte
Vista High School in Danville. I am the parent of a Sophmore currently attending MV, and i have another child
who will be attending in two years. The enrollment at Monte Vista has burgeoned in recent years leaving
berth the students and parents with inadequate parking. The issues of traffic congestion, and high amounts of
pedestrianfoot traffic have become not simply an inconvenience, but also a growing safety hazard. It is my
understanding that the land across from the High School has already been acquired for such a purpose.
Please support its development into an additional parking lot. And please forward this e-mail to the county
supervisor.
Thank you,
Jane Tapper
Concerned Monte Vista High School Parent
1 of 1 9/14/04 10:35 AM