Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RESOLUTIONS - 05072004 - 2004-405
RESOLUTION NO.20041405 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA., RELATING TO THE HUWHREY RANCH PROPERTY, APPROVING TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OR RESCISSION OF A PORTIONOF 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 Properly. 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"). AREAS, 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 Comity 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 Plan as Single-Fancily 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 Comnients 1 Final ElR 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 ("SRVUSU' or "School District"). Also to the South of Humphrey Ranch is the Town of Danville's Oakhill Parka 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.2004/401 ............ .................................. ...............................................................................................................................I........................................ 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.20041405 ................. .............................................. 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 suinultaneously 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 EIR, 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, AP#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 .........................:.>:t„x�.:� t« « ,, .................................. ......I--......... ........................................... RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405 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 properby 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 ($ 1,157,000.00). 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#2002012029). 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 Board of Supervisors on the date shown, ATTESTED: JOHN SINE&EN, Clerk of the Board of Sup visors and County Administrator Deputy Page 5 of 16 Resoiution 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 BOCK 419 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION'8016 THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 09'00'00" EAST 811.29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59"00'00" EAST 400.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27000'40" EAST 525.00 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 76014'22" EAST 762.6FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4605549' WEST 470.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34046'27" 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 83011"41" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 59.38 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13156'33'; 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 85031'46"WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 30.31 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL.ANGLE OF 86°49'28"; THENCE SOUTH 01019'11" EAST 34.81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88040149"WEST 632.60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING'23.34 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Lr KBIT !!w3 PLAT MAP L p V141,U '1 i fwr/rw»r �+ '787 •--'--- ,'►---"--__-'--- fn-//o-ws h W 762.69` i�`♦a fareft ,� � ♦a tq-Ne-0F7 t , a --------- 4/ k7 ♦♦♦ a Td_.T �p �h ftp s♦}/i-/ftp-Oi/. i f3 �9' /li//eR•♦ F tri tMefD IH-lil�tl9i�s 6 AREA — 23.34 ACRES '�. �ileYtw � �r fAr/na app��ws-/sr-aor r ccvlr ��j'• eO1vy N 93'11'41' ER} N $8'4049" E 869.83• 1104 ; G/i or iMi1M1G1'IIR.i. m ---N 20.44'52' W 194.73' 6� 42*04` ' g' R�995.90' to. z L-62.16' N 88.40'49" E 36.43' D X03"34'34` 91.47`12 E(R) R-20.00' =3"1' ,3+86.49'28' N r T — ------ _r_r- E 632.60' N 07'19'11" W 34.81' MOUNARO 196-050-00 $TONE VALLEY EX. RW EAS. 1 135-3 CHURCT0—H 031 MONTE VISTA HIGH SCHOOL 189-310-019 TOWN Of DANVIUC ; 196-370--025 i , LEGAL DESCRIPTION DETENTION BASIN A PORTION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HUMPHREY, RECORDED JUNE 9, 1993, IN BOCK 18835 OF OFFICIAL. RECORDS AT PAGE 517,'DESCRIBED AS'FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SUBDIVISION 8016, RECORDED APRIL 18, 2000, IN BOOK 419 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NORTH 39001'18" EAST 743.90 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 244.00 FEET,A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 8301141"1/VEST; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY 59.38 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13056'33"; THENCE SOUTH 20044'52" EAST 188.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 995.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 220.77 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 121,42'04"; THENCE NORTH 8804049" EAST 36.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01°19'11`"WEST 451.37 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 88040'49"WEST 161.77 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.97 ACRES MORE OR LESS. "`XHBI ! '$Ass PAT MAP G CAM < 1Ita-sm-m ------------------ RNs-rm-oro , tr �'+st, t�f>wN t ltNmftL a Ift-o t-01Y i Illi- - •; t N-fit-8fifaa i✓� a lw t sum atilt-�rjl-titi t t i r 4� .. tars-n-u�e,r 7 MYoifA�4Mt.. iprylMt:"gCfto' .'Y!C'tTfQ r� wrIn-Mt-0Dt p N 88"40'49' E 09 164,77' to-ur-o" Ea�1 •YaNlt trAtitt SM _ t/y AREA - 0.97 ACRES i ma in to r/ #., y N W40'49" E 36:03. / G� 42 84" / MOUNARD , # s—DSD — c#9 S'{"ME VALLEY ROAD t #9 3 0 03# EX. RW EAS: MDf"F#'E VISTA HIGH SCHOOL +I TOWN OF OAfMLLE ' 1965-310-019 t 195-37o-OEs i t Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2004/405 CEQA FINDINGS HUMPHREY RANCH I. PREPARATION OF THE EIR 1. Can 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, 2043, 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 Elk provides adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to all comments received during the comment period that raised significant enviromnental 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 Unwed 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 opera 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. II. 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.20041405 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 ETR provides a project-level analysis for the Project, its alternatives, and each of the three Project components hath 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 modifications 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 ETR 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 ETR 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 8 of 16 Resolution No.2004/405 RESOLUTION NO.2004/405 presented in the EIR. In particular, the Board adopts the EIR's resolution of the traffic and noise issues. In particular, the Beard 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 Beard 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 10The Board adopts the attached Exhibit C pursuant to Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6, as the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The Board further determines that Exhibit C 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 ETR 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 ETR.. The Board ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the EIR, as clarified or supplemented by documents and testimony received after preparation of the Final ETR:. The Board specifically adopts the EIR's conclusions regarding the level of significance of each impact prior to and following implementation of the mitigation Page 9 of 16 Resolution No.2004/405 RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405 measures, as reflected in the attached Exhibit C, 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. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 14.The mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit C reflect the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. Exhibit C 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 mitigateimpacts 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. 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. Page 10 of 16 Resolution No.20041405 .wr:;.v .....:::: is:•. ... }: t:r:yy, ,r.:o, xe :ei.Y ::..x :..,.: e: RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405 VH. 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 ETI . 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 ETR. studies a reasonable range of alternatives. The Board certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the ETR. 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 matte 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 11 of 16 Resolution No.1004/405 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 I)of 16 Resolution No.2004/405 ----------- ........ 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 RPSPONS€TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 63 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 Raman 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 LIR;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 acid 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 mandatary 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. EXCERP7`0 PROW RESSPOA45E 7-0 COMMEAMS1 F MAL ETR HUMPHREY PROPER 7Y(SO4#20O20121029) 6 . 1 ar! i Q. LAG# au wJo, p Fv cc ry lot UQ U UU o ami �U � U .° � � 96 V m a. w v ° ° 4' ao .p as °" cZ A �. b w .c eKs yy, s c GyiK ts. ar ar y, cr 7g U LD FU R p ewe H Cc U C z d V z � D f lz o 00 w p Q E C4 z 00 .o a a � H � z azW � a 79 cc w c ctww tib a ^ . R o 'v o eC m g TO ti. to as � o � . ICIL �y ' Oz 3 .r a ' o m o c.o 4 o O .a O >,.y to •U .2 sm.�, us C a> '41 az N vs ai C D C Cl btD C> Ell ar C oo Via, 0a 0 co 4) cn v <C ._ a.3 0 .°' Ci U U O Z► Q y � F � V VAan Z dM ern a IN d V m d .n U z u`. z r t z _ � G7 c � � a rn a� IZO R! pfl. " 78 .W 4 `S_ tt ! Vii,pG L yC ,G t4 p S 9a s aha I: <° -S - E E! p c Cda z U 41 q p CS ? 4 Q7 C LL 3 7, 4« H gj EC xl V a.3 t U � z 4- 2 2 0 r 4 O —' 2 z n, o p do U .o � awz c°a � v° cp � a ° hum Up c c vUU UUUWxvU 7C) W 0, a rn w >, 54 ;? as ? te a c � - 181 `c o c� c a, L w 0=0 40. sa. c tau ai to vus cud "C r O U 41 d: > y � p � � C � � i rJ1 0 LD � . v ern as w t� U cw 8-s 41: Q Ei u o O z , a 0S [!J W fA v ° a: > Cz � � � � � •� ami ai � � v5 � 0 UU� Q { u U U cc C.> ::ren U U 04 ICE .rS W Ed "rn v v p �Y GL t» C3 CI! tir 96 LLQ d 0 7R to S- .:. = .54 z ,. _ � .+ ' ., Cl tsfl C? C 'r ay 4>> S.. ry 'C3 0 U IL V ism IDSJ � WEN IV La ce pz 0 Ix rA 12 m w ................................................. ................................................... ......................... a. lz cc 2 L u A* Z CA z 0 0 W4 416 .2 zo, w Do EU u t a 45 td* ID Co 0 0 in 0 0 cd w 10 tn to E bo cd U tD 67 Is U a3 Z 00 . 11 .LY 48 4 &6 r E , M. -0 0 tw 15 9 0 In cC > 5 -0 Cd a cd -Z to *0 47 < 0 U z C5 0 z C) . F -Z 0 lu re of ......................... a z rr >( 78 -S . , cu , V c 06 i6. � � z G te � t�p � aa � ' � o � -o ._ � �, 2 , 78 1 it .....................................................................................I'll ''I'll'', ............. ............................................... ....................................— ........................................................ Z C) 0 49 0 z 0 E z lz C) 41C z 16 u rA zAp dQ ww zx� 75 .2 z 8 W E *= t..= R '�o0 Js = U a 2 Id 4cl: 4) to 2,t ob "Z g m as 4) fn tv pyo C> tg 0 �-vr b. U t 5 0 _ID 0 0 0 7M E Cl A 03 u =0 O 0 z 0 It z 0 .44 ou L OU ..................... t? PW .� a C7 z s ca r G'� o n3 tU W Z 50,L v t4 U4u tot . bo M�' O S W C3 dvi �p � c U ��^ C� U m m Uu u o H o .... v � 78 16 19 A al U , . w � fiKa ..........................................................................I.,.... ... ................................................ Z C) o b UI oz .2 P: cc 10, 0 -40, a w t: 0 0 M. 00 IS* Z ad a 'o w 0 2 a: ai OVA o su t: �p .2 75 S j & 0. rn r) >� . 4 -,1, �, .8 t 0 ul 00 Lj ett .2 S cc 6I Cb ivC, M. cc > 0 = 40) 0 > cc-E E C4,T 0 ca -18 iu to V5 0 M I- IN 0 z N z ix 0 'Cog 06, ............. ............................................ Z u IA 0 top � E FA tu IZR g Y/ to to G 03 "'moi � itlixT � .� •� 2 LA to ops u , h, .� 4 > = .2 o X 78 tSee bb ` 'm " ' ate='c ig uID c- a , "' z O � .4ate � f+ �C ► t m G7IX m c�i H -10 a .................................................................................................. ......................I'll . . ............................................................................................................................. ... .......... U u 4. 7O 0 ON iD 41 tcd t ani tz 1 0 — tu 0 tu L W U .th z 0 2, C U UU "B = U z 0-9 < &ZO CL U CD 7B > 96 y CS — .= > rn 4) > .0 Bb 2 e w to = 1 -0 .– ". ct -tl .5 '.61 = 0 0 5 0 7;5 4r- C CA F- U 9 U1 u z 0 = s U o . — C� CC 1 1 , 0 .917, A., �Z 0 LL C14 0 = = 40 tA 'z ') .9 .2 11 4) to = .2 —V3 0 WE 0 © Z as VA W W fn Z CG y 0 16 a N .2 a va 091 0 & 4 r2 go w S O U Z C Au as 96* 00 79 CG "ate+ G►� - w rt � r � 4a r ° liff SID "S V t) z 79 0 7 OX to 0 00 78 Illa -6u v a G 4. ar i U C C C6 ra C m y O td � � CL' . La C6 Lc °= r a y d C O C LsD,d C7 'Sy C }td, ttl Ct 0- G• m IL A U Z U7 Q U 0 7E -� U U C4 z C) C) H d O ' g 'ate,, o ;u Lu toc � m .� A d w C ^' a d o ID Q to g � .c.n ` � d ' % w ami o a Vb p .� � x c» r y, Cb ;pus ro z 'E 7Rco ;a wv 10 o c. 0 t! 0 Z IX U" A, . I' C9a "►� dW ............................................ U . � on to ta a w °' a cn tw OZ to M CL Val OM oata ro mo79 w. c oto 0 ; = .� � � 43 01 -15 ani to g� t sit ...................................................................................................... ...... .................. ............................................................................... ca z V5 bo 1-0 m 0 bo ti C, 0 0 E0 u u 44 C u ti ur Q 16 tai U U z Q A > MU OX u Uu ca U UU C=d u U-1 Z: rA Ow T >, I as cc = "0 A ST a o.= 0 — la pq — U) > rA al 0 al 60 15 C�61 —cu IUD > .04 U ca =6 0 z V3 1 V _0 I tz en a O aIL Go t� ` a 79 � oA 5 7Z HA i O O O .. ,. SD a P 4) ate a U x ; R l a � f c3. a } Cz " ........................................................................................... ..................11 ................................................................................ O cd r. IL tprh 2 -1-24 1 79 Cf) 0 0 - -z to 0 it ztz" -S c 5 4 E2 En , 'C > 0 >0 cc =0 to tW a 10 42) 6, '—o 75 "0 to m"M 0, m. rn u E Q 14 u V V z 00 &ZO =06 60. CD Co 0 0 G eQ IICE lt6U cd —OJ to 0 8 20 "S 0 L) P. gID 0 W Cc V, 0 E - om %D V- bo 1! 0 yob 0 U. -S — = t* W JE M ID 4c 0 V3 0 N ho 14 111 0z .4 fu ma ............................................................................ Z tow iu C V Lit rte+ U Ofa 4 C tl p .� EL) p a � . o me, Z. <� u c c��, p o ° as B coo a bn ° ob c w v to $4 0 bD Cc, 'G n-• �a r� en o air 4>1 o f Z i ................................................................................................................................. . ............................ .................................................................................... 41 Cc QC? CEO 0 toC. th cm tow tn U ti Zoo 00 mz 4>1 10, ed al u > a 7° Q OD 106 cd 0- .0 -14 = ri C> ID 0 bo bo .2 -0 bD St, ° may ' W WA 0 o 0 zc z In ---------------------- ..... ...... ........... U z z t u � ° ° o Z -f —, o 't GE IR *2 a 1 i 5 � z to UO Z V 00 '> c ° v lz u Uu 5 C.i'� .� p ¢r a to Eu u ct. Q w t" . ° w tta.. ."a O z - ............................................................ Z iii Z" z C U m Mt G. 99 16 C4 z C) In rA U2 w 15 :2 cl Z 'C "o tow 2 LU -4 9 g R e R CZ t: Cc) La 0 0 Z V� 9w = u 'i JD 5 A 00 0 , a: �; o as CL W LAD2 cn CL 4 0 E CL tL O z 0 Ci O z jL .aa L .................. Z 4z U6 cb ELI je ca Lu I Y co uQr4u .= ,= , S .s z — 00 zm 71 t v 6 *Be S2 U U 4. E .9 C, 0 ID CL.=, > R cr. Au ED aE > CL ad W= 79 41 1 z ............................................................................ *12 w cc 0 20 W-- Js. - 0 78 9 a v ai aj- g U 00 C=P 42. Q u U L40 z ao OM 075 -e 'D 0 C6 7E U — .8 0 > 00 ID Z, 0 --a 49 z t) bb FQ C-3 cc V., C 0 zy . m A .0 ID g @ W A Colo cc u z ZO 6 Ml z ........................... .................... c� CA sototo w a p v � V � Z 00 3 61 may+ to % to cQ "4 U cr .p w g _ w G1 v b + Sim' y 0G Q p tt v o a d y a Z zc � ,,3 ` S Z 4 C"' e`n `a g H U -v ani o E-* ori O nit G 0 .a z d a v �azgp � � U � U az v a ( E Q as r� w � ID �p i? ro 0-0 •r y .^. QI 41 H ,� CJ' ,. - rh r""is C. y .fir .Q a Gc � � vl �0- 0 • a> ^ .�. tt 4 'D Oi O C 1 L7 72Ch G. O +^+ ++ y U Q 0 z V, A ju C � � m z° ...................... ................... ....................... o l z ac x Izoo , 0 C4 z al tot rz 7B ID CL C4 tip r` IZ t4 A r4 fj .................. .................... g i t= ram 0 um vu u u OO t: � WQ z Co bo 3 en Va 0 0 M E go m Z.2 14 "Co CL 43 bo X 1) 0- 9 E — =6-5 1: t, 4 :6 "Z 0 tD -6 0 0 -Z 4) 0— r-L cM Qn .0 ui a> v0 to O z 0 z cc on Q 26 0 w —2 w A 1 0 r C% .......... E E6 12 C:6 UA CL C7 a n cowry 70 > a ° a 'a v sa _° f7-L 4151 Zo � a > > arU ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............. ag 0 tz a > t Ji t= im rL a =2 -t On m Ls w rl- 16 0 z � 0 u w ° mz e. v r-L a 0 Z ED > Cd ar cm, to0 0. a -- 0 -0 E5 `8 by .80to 6, 8 Z:a o gip' 0 -2 ....................... 000 .� c n :° . a. " 48 a U Cgs G fl �° 48 :5 75 +4+ c � r. T' c►„ a �- as b -• to z a � o ` o 4) CE ed Oz fn � �' cn z G� ...................................................................................................................................................................................I.-........ ......................................................................................... > O tu Z= Cc 0 A EA C6 g a U ID o a) > 96 v � � a � UA � � U u u u u u O WH rb rn • LZ') rL r4 Go ai .0 IS �qz u z A = Q co C�. cc 0 u 9 -= . O CA u to gn It u to tA. :5 7E 16 cz U "0 "4D, r cc > = RE to P Cd CL z 0 Oz 0 16 w 0 eo ..................................... ......... u Fgz w F t+ "`+ m _ C to u+ C/1 �+�/ M F tit .g Cy > .. o o •;; AL 711 0 0 a»'�., �? ;� L'� p � cs ¢ "«° a IDS at � = �Y,'`•' G � +terpy'+� C 0 'rrr. Cot en cI� yr i�.� ren U 't3 W 'L .i z O 4 a n w. w � w � U � d 0 a � rn uj W r� � W V � rR 1J H Wd w 0-0 z �a z cc a's a vlu in z � A us a ou :y;:.,..�,.,w ::::: -.T�t nw�ww.'+r..hry+iC�iY.AYVTpXK{{�} ...�.....+.n :n�.nti+.w..•ryftA..... u+ z N N Z W a U a r W N "f. a N W ac sd .cr o w w a z a e e+ 0 m z 0 a z c a 0 W v� Exhibit D to Resolution No. 2004/405 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 lame 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 (LILLL), 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 ritgelines, 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 future 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.2004/445 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 pursuea 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 Nit. 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 fiirther 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) anal)-sis 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 galley 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 .vwuv:RM+b rrm•.• RESOLUTION NO. 2004/405 IL 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, 1919. 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" WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT CANCELLATION STEPS AND PROCEDURES (CA Dept. of Conservation publication) t tg r it G5� t i �k rt YN 5� trX� ,r.,.� ,x ,,:"Z +t R _ F � r`t"2�;�f✓ { a t d�E f "' � } 1t7 :� ! • ,+;,cc'r �t t�r� d•s a. .t- tJ �4im t 5 +r�t qty VRFE o- WILLIAMSON_ACT CONTRACT CANCELLATION The Mate of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that "If a Landowner desires to change the use of his land ander contract to uses other than agricultural production and compatible uses, the proper procedure is to give notices of nonrenewal pursuant to section 51245."j54 Ceps. 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 councilfor Williamson Act contract cancellation. A beard or council may grant tentative cancellation only if required findings (Government Code §'51283(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 for a 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 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 "C" MEMORANDUM: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSESSOR SUBJECT: CANCELLATION VALUATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR THE HUM'PHREY RANCH PROPERTY 9/25/2003 7/19/2004 Contra Costa County Ass'essor's Office 2530 A,oM Dlive,state ate►,tee,CA 9455-1-4359 DATE: July 19,2004 TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors FROM: Crus Kramer, County Assessor By:Stephen Dawkins,Assi;t i%Sessor SUBJECT: CANCELLATION VALUATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT FOR HUMP EY PROPERTY Reference is made to a request by the Community Development Department for the cancellation of a portion of Land Conservation 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, 193-200-019. Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 51283, the County Assessor hereby certifies to the Board of Supervisors the following value as of July 19,2004 for the puzpose of determining the cancellation fee: Cancellation Valuation: $9,256,000 The cancellation fee shall be an amount equal to 12 1!2% of the cancellation valuation In this case, the ameelWou fee is 511157,000. This fee is only valid if paid,or a Certificate of Contract is issued within one year from the date of recording of the Certificate ofTentative 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 William J. Pollacek, Treasurer- Tax Collector John Sweden, County Administrator's(ice Clerk of the Board State Department of Conservation Jeff ThayerDalvidon Humphrey Family c%J. Wyro SD:jv cuceitgtson_valustion2 TOTAL P.e2 Contra Costa C©unty Assessorgs Office 25MAmD ` td Dtive,5nitc 40(),MArtittex,C!1 44553.4354 -DATE: September 25, 2003 0: Ccentm Cogs County Board of S'upemisors FROM: Gus Kramer, county Asse gsor By: Ste WnDawkins)Assistant Assessor SUBJECT: CANcELLATICIN VALUATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT HUMP'HREY PROPERTY MR Refercnre is made to a request by the COMMunity Devc o fnoat of Land Conmvatjob Contract'4_76 eov � Department for the cancellation of a pori on Assessor's Parcel No. 193-190.005, 153-2#1C;w�t}5,�i93 2Ct8`07 of � i 3 acres, unser identified as $ port an of Pursuant to Ciaverlw nt Cork Section 51283, the County Assessor hereby certifi Supervisors the following valuer as of September 22,2003 for the to es tc; the Board of Purpose of de#erre f1�e cttncallaton fee: C:arscellEdon Valuation; $9,256,000 The cancellation foe shalt be an amount equal to 12 1/2% of the cancellation valuation. I cancellation fee fay $1,157,,000. This fee iS only valid if paid,or a Certificate of Contrrtct is issued within one Y� from the elate of recording of the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation. Kindly advise this OfFJ"Of the recording of the Certificate of Cancellation. Cc: Dennis M. Barry,Director of Community Development Patrick Roche,Cornrnuruty beveloprnent,Conservation Programs Kenneth,1. Corcoran,Auditor William J. Pollacek, Treasurer.Tax Collector John Sweeten,County,Administratces office Clerk of dw Board State I)gmttrtmt of Catrservatiann Jeff Thayer Davidon Humphrey Family cin J. Wyro SD:jv cnn�!3ntion,_vz<tuatinq