Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/1988, C-3 - NEGOTIATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) CONSULTANT SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE IRISH HILL GOLF COURSE/HOMESITES PROJECT PROPOSED ON A SITE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHWESTERN CITY LIMITS AND HAVING FRONTAGE ON LOS OSOS VA III�^I�III�IIIIII��I Ilu�ll MEETING GATE: it A city of san lugs oBIspo 11-15-88 MBE COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 'TE"" FA R FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Negotiations for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultant services in connection with the Irish Hill Golf Course/Homesites project proposed on a site located adjacent to the southwestern city limits and having frontage on Los Osos Valley Road and Prefumo Canyon Road. CAO RECOMMENDATION: A. Authorize staff to negotiate a formal contract with the environmental consulting firm, EIP Associates. B. Authorize the CAO to sign consultant services contract for an amount not to exceed $59,495. DISCUSSION: The applicant wants approvals to allow development of about 236 acres of land outside the southwestern city limits and beyond the urban reserve line for use as an I8-hole golf course and 254 homesites (see vicinity map). On August 31, 1988, the Community Development Director made the determination that an EIR focussing on several potential impact categories needed to be prepared. By mutual agreement of the City Council and the Board of Supervisors, the city was designated the lead agency for the processing of the required EIR. The Community Development Department periodically hires consultants to supplement staff in carrying out work that arises as part of the development review process, especially the preparation of EIRs. A Request for Proposal (RFP) to prepare the EIR was mailed out August 31, 1988 to ten consulting firms located locally and throughout the state. Five consulting firms responded by the RFP deadline of September 28, 1988. The five consulting firms were interviewed October 21, 1988 by a panel for four made up of city and county staff members. After the interviews, the panel members came up with a composite ranking of the firms. Staff is asking the council for authorization to negotiate a formal contract with the top-ranked firm EIP Associates to prepare the EIR. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS: The council's decision on this item will not incur any city expense. Once a contract is successfully negotiated, the cost of EIR production will be borne by the developer with city administration of the consultant contract. This is the standard procedure for city-required EIRs. Because the project involves applications before both the city and county, a significant amount of extra staff time is required to coordinate the review effort. It is anticipated that the draft EIR would return for council review next summer. CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION: If a consultant is not retained to prepare the EIR, it would be the responsibility of the city to do so. With a project as large and complex as the one proposed it would be difficult to appropriate sufficient staff hours away from existing projects and duties and to find among city staff the necessary technical expertise to adequately evaluate certain identified impact areas. 11i1 ►1IIIII1I�i11 city of san tuis oBispo ORG COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 EVALUATION The five firms which submitted proposals were: The Morro Group, Willdan Associates, Earthmetrics Incorporated, EIP Associates and McClelland Engineers Incorporated. Copies of the proposal are available for council review in the City Clerk's office. After both reviewing the written proposals submitted by the firms and interviewing key personnel, two firms, The Morro Group and EIP Associates, stood out among the rest as being the most qualified to prepare the EIR. The interview panel of four, consisting of two members of the city Community Development Department, one member of the county's planning staff and a member of the Environmental Coordinator's office, asked a set of standardized general questions and then more specific questions to each of the firms. After the interview portion, EIP Associates ranked first among the five. Top-ranked EIP Associates had a complete and in-depth proposal and a superior performance in the interview portion that demonstrated a thorough understanding of key project issues. The firm has in-house expertise in all major identified project issue areas except traffic which will be subcontracted by Associated Transportation Engineers. Once council authorizes negotiations to proceed, staff will work with the top-ranked firm to refine the workscope and negotiate fees, and to resolve other details of the formal contract. With council authorization, the CAO could approve the consultant service contract without further council action. If agreement were not reached with EIP Associates, negotiations would be discontinued and staff would begin negotiations with the second-ranked firm and so on until an acceptable agreement is formulated. ALTERNATIVES 1. Authorize staff to begin negotiations with EIP Associates, and authorize CAO to sign a consultant service contract for the city, with the cost of consultant services not to exceed $59,495. Authorizing negotiations at this time would expedite preparation of the EIR. Not authorizing negotiations would delay the progress of the EIR's preparation, however if negotiations were to be delayed an additional two to four weeks it would not significantly affect project status. The council may also want to review and approve the consultant contract details. In this case, the item would need to return for final council action once the contract has been negotiated. 2. Direct staff to negotiate with the second-ranked firm as the council deems appropriate. 3. Reiect all Proposals and direct staff to redistribute the consultant RFPs with any changes deemed appropriate. The two top-ranked consultants were superior and their proposals adequately addressed workprogram issues. In staff's opinion, redistributing the RFPs should not be considered unless negotiations with the two top-ranked firms fail. 6. Q -pa 1111111IIIIIFIII city or San tuffs oBispo Nis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 4. Continue the item if additional information is needed: RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that.the City Council: A. Authorize staff to negotiate.a formal contract with the environmental consulting firm EIP Associates. B. Authorize the CAO to sign a consultant services contract for an amount not to exceed $59;495. Attachments: Vicinity. Map Draft Resolution EIR Wo_r-kprogram pr/interview/golf I N =�! 0 500 2000 ez \_ — C� � �. CAL PG LY BEAR VALLEY i r ESTATESI f' '• ,c p TR 502 ` •° , I ` lu LAGUNA PROJECT SHORES I SI TE/ '" i �•"' � •��. 1 �^ ! � - "�a ';:..:-.ice � 1 PREFUMO CAN s •� � s J ESTATES '•�• _�� ' ' TR 858 LAGUNA ' '� �•� HILL ESTATES / I f•~' EXISTING CITY TR LIMIT LINE TR 608 / COUNTY AIRPORT ENGINEERING FIGURE SCATE5TEDA ASOVICINITY MAP 1 ` 320 YIPOMO STREET o SMA LLIS v8t5?0. cA 93+0 o a05:544-365a Resolution No. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A FORMAL CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO SIGN A CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FIRM EIP ASSOCIATES FOR PREPARATION OF THE IRISH HILL GOLF COURSE HOMESITES/EIR WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project needed to be prepared; and WHEREAS, several consulting,firms were solicited to prepare the EIR through a request for proposal; and WHEREAS, proposals from five consulting firms were received; and WHEREAS, the five proposals were reviewed and the firms interviewed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED as follows: SECTION 1. That staff be authorized to negotiate a contract with the top-ranked firm, EIP Associates, to prepare the EIR SECTION 2. That the City Administrative Officer be authorized to sign a consultant services contact for an amount not to exceed $59,495.00. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk c-3•S Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2 APPROVED: City dministrative Officer dllz ty Atto ey Commu ty Development Director �►�I�il► IIII ' �I Cl SM l�,llSOBISPOll► o 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 August 31, 1988 SUBJECT: Request for Proposal to prepare an EIR. Reauest for Services The City of San Luis Obispo wants to hire a consultant to prepare an EIR which will document the project's adverse impacts, and identify appropriate mitigation measures and project alternatives. The EIR must comply with the CEQA Guidelines and address the topics identified in the attached workscope. As the project may ultimately be developed in either the city or county of San Luis Obispo, the EIR needs to evaluate each potential scenario and be adaptable for either city or county use. Proiect Description The applicant wants approvals to allow development of about 236 acres of land outside the southeastern city limits and beyond the urban reserve line for use as an I8-hole golf course and 254 homesites (see location map). The applicant has submitted concurrent applications in the city and the county for processing of the project. Project development in the city requires processing of an annexation along with amendment of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The general plan amendment involves designating the project site as Low Density Residential (currently Conservation/Open Space) and relocating the urban reserve line to incorporate the site within it. For consistency with the amended general plan, the site would be prezoned R-1-PD. City policy requires concurrent approval of a development plan with annexation requests. The county application involves processing of a general plan amendment that changes the designations of the site on the Land Use and Open Space Elements' maps and expands the San Luis Obispo urban reserve line to include the site. By mutual agreement of the City Council and the Board of Supervisors, the city was designated the lead agency for the processing of the required EIR. Background In October of 1986, the applicant submitted an application with the city to develop 32.9 acres of the project site with 95 homesites. The initial study prepared by city staff for the project concluded that a supplement to a previous EIR for an earlier proposal to develop the site (Irish Hills Haciendas EIR, 1981) was needed for CEQA compliance. A request for proposals was mailed to various consultants along with an EIR workscope. At the applicant's request, staff did not proceed with the authorization of a consultant contract for the supplement. The applicant requested that this original application be updated to include the current proposal on the larger project site on April 6, 1988. Laguna Hill RFP Page 2 In September of 1987, a final subdivision map for the project site, Tract 1053, was recorded. This map creates eight acreage parcels: six at 10.5 to 12 acres in size zoned Residential Rural.(development potential of 6 residences), one which is 50 acres zoned Residential Suburban (development potential of 50 residences with community services); and one which is 118 acres zoned Agriculture (development potential of 2 residences; potential of 4 residences if a lot split were approved). Information Available The developer has submitted a written proposal with exhibits and a technical appendix containing water well test data and past environmental studies conducted for the site. In 1981, at the direction of the City Council a focused EIR, entitled Irish Hills Haciendas, was prepa-red for a residential development proposal on the same basic project site. The information contained in the previous EIR remains valid, while other impact areas need to be reevaluated. Project components and circumstances in which the development is proposed have changed since the time the previous EIR was prepared. None of the alternative development schemes analyzed in the prior EIR included a golf course. This combination of factors affirms the requirement that a new focused EIR needs to be prepared. City staff believes that the impacts most likely to be significant, or to require substantial mitigation, will be visual impacts, geologic hazards and effects of grading, traffic and circulation issues, adequacy of services, especially water and sewer, alternative designs and sites, and consistency with city, county and LAFCO goals and policies, and that these topics will require most of the research and evaluation. The city has not prepared an initial study, but staff presumes that the other topics may be addressed in the EIR largely through inclusion and critique of previous work. Previous environmental documents and other pertinent reports and plans may be reviewed at the City Community Development Department and County Planning Department. Pr000sals Requested Your firm is invited to submit a proposal for preparation of the EIR. If you are interested in submitting a proposal for this work, please call Pam Ricci, City Staff •Planner for the project, at (805) 549-7168 by September 12, 1988. If you wish to be considered for the work, three copies of the proposal should be submitted to: Pam Voges, City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 All materials associated with the proposal must be received by the City Clerk, Pam Voges, no later than Wednesday, September 28, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. e..3.8 Laguna Hill RFP Page 3 Content of Proposals Proposals must reflect a clear understanding of the workscope to be performed and include the following information: 1. Resumes of your firm, the project manager and key technical staff, and any subconsultants you plan to employ. Work on previous projects with similar workscopes should be highlighted and telephone numbers of references included. An organizational and manpower chart to show the names of all key personnel assigned to the project should also be included. 2. A draft workorostram which expands on the preliminary workscope is attached. Workprogram shall itemize major tasks and work products, responsible staff, special information or studies required, and special methods or equipment, if any, you anticipate using. Procedures should be included regarding how the consultant plans to coordinate with key city and county staff. The workprogram shall also specify information, equipment, or services to be provided by city and county staff that is not already identified in the preliminary workscope. The workprogram should identify all other elements of the EIR needed to assure CEQA compliance which may not be listed in the attached preliminary workscope, and should explain how this will be accomplished. 3. A preliminary estimate of consultant costs, including costs for each major task and an estimate of the total cost of the services. The cost for firm members to attend public hearings where the EIR is considered (minimum of four) should be included as part of the total cost. 4. A schedule of completion for major tasks listed under #3 above, including a draft payment schedule tied to completion of major tasks. Examples of key tasks are: data collection, data verification and analysis, response to comments for consultant's responsible sections, completion of draft EIR (camera-ready, city responsible for reproduction), completion of public hearings and public review period, and certification of final EIR. It is the city's intent that an administrative draft of the EIR would be prepared within 90 days of a signed agreement between the city and consultant for requested services. Review of this project by city and county decision makers is dependent on completion of the draft EIR. Therefore, timely completion and circulation of the draft EIR is essential to expeditious processing of the project consistent with CEQA and will be considered in evaluating consultant proposals. Proposals will be evaluated by city and county staff. Consultant selection will be based on the clarity and content of proposals, and the consultant's experience and technical expertise. �-3 - 9 Laguna Hill RFP Page 4 If you have questions regarding this letter or its attachments, please call Pam.Ricci at (805) 549-7168. Sincerely, Michael Multari, Director Community Development Attachments: Preliminary Workscope Vicinity Map Conceptual Development Plan EIR WORKSCOPE • IRISH HILL GOLF COURSE/HOMESITES TASK I Transportation and Circulation What are the expected trip generation rates for the project (morning and afternoon peaks and average daytime)? Compare existing rates of traffic with projected traffic levels. How will the projected amount of traffic change the carrying capacity of area streets? How will expected traffic affect residents along Diablo Drive and Valle Vista Place? Will there be a need for intersection improvements at either Diablo Drive and Los Osos Valley Road or Prefumo Canyon Road and Los Osos Valley Road or any other intersections as a direct result of the project? Evaluate turning movements at various intersections to determine potential conflicts and safety concerns. What impacts will the commercial facilities for the golf course have on internal --� circulation, traffic levels and residential noise levels? Evaluate alternative access points and internal circulation patterns, including eliminating access to Valle Vista Place from the proposed development. Determine whether there is a need to modify bus stop locations/service routes to the area. Evaluate the adequacy of bicycle circulation and paths along Los Osos Valley Road. EXPECTATIONS City engineering staff can conduct traffic counts upon direction by the consultant. Analyses of traffic impacts and the need for improvements at intersections, bike paths and bus stops shall be the consultant's responsibility to analyze and recommend specific mitigation. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Irish Hills Haciendas Draft EIR City and County Engineering traffic counts ITE Trip Generation Standards City and County Circulation Elements County Engineering Department C'-3-1C Workscope Page 2 TASK II Utilities Water Service The City of San Luis Obispo has exceeded its identified safe annual yield for use of citywide water supplies. Under existing policies contained in the city's Water and Wastewater Management Element, properties which do not have prior agreements for city water service can only be considered for annexation if they do not increase the demand for city water supplies. This can be accomplished by either providing an on-site water source that meets criteria contained in the element or by making off-site water service reductions. Extension of city water service to the development could only be considered if new alternative water supplies become available. With project development within the city, a water system would need to be designed which meets criteria identified in policies contained in the City's Water and Wastewater Management Element. Therefore, a complete hydrological study would have to be prepared to demonstrate that site groundwater is available of sufficient quality and in sufficient quantity to serve project residents. The possible water service options available to the project are use of on-site groundwater, connection to the city water system or a combination of both. If the project is developed under county jurisdiction, city services will not be provided and groundwater will be the only alternative. All options need to be addressed. ' Evaluate the cumulative impacts on area groundwater supplies including water availability to adjacent agricultural uses if a system using on-site water resources is developed. • Discuss reliability and maintenance considerations of any alternative water system designs analyzed (e.g. recharge considerations with wells). ' Discuss capabilities of water systems to provide water supply and pressures needed to reliably combat fires, including wildland fires. • Analyze appropriate locations for water system improvements (tanks, pumps, etc.). • Discuss necessary improvements and impacts associated with the extension of city water service to the project. ' Analyze appropriate water management strategies (e.g. mixing groundwater with domestic resources). Workscope Page 3 Sewer Service If the project is developed in the city, connections to the city system or a system utilizing on-site water resources that ultimately could be connected to the city system would be proposed. If developed in the county, an on-site package treatment plant is proposed to process project wastewater. Both options need to be assessed. What are the potential impacts of such a plant on area groundwater quality? Evaluate the feasibility of the project being connected to the city sewer system in light of existing city policies. Could the city's existing treatment facilities accommodate the additional service demand generated by the project in addition to the service commitments for other undeveloped sites within the urban reserve? What are the impacts associated with the use of treated wastewater for irrigation of the golf course (e.g. compliance with State standards)? What type of on-site facilities and improvements would be associated with the package treatment plant? Where would these facilities be located and approximately how large of an area would they occupy? What are the associated impacts of the plant on surrounding land uses? Will the project comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board policies (basin plan) and Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) policies regarding the provision of competing public services at the urban fringe? How will the project affect the water quality of Laguna Lake? Electrical Transmission Towers Are electrical transmission towers located on the project site? Will the towers need to be relocated? If the towers remain, what are the impacts of the towers on the project and how will the project affect the ongoing use of the towers? EXPECTATIONS Consultant will be responsible for complete analysis of the sewering options and the three identified water service alternatives available to the project including associated impacts and suggested mitigation measures. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Uniform Design Criteria (Water) - Engineering Standards Water Distribution System Maps Water System Design for Ferrini Estates Subdivision (Tract 1182) Los Osos Valley and Lower Higuera Area Water System Improvements (1973, Penfield & Smith Engineers) Municipal Code Chapter 13.04 (Water Service) � 3 Workscope Page 4 Fire Department Development Guide/ California Department of Forestry requirements Draft Water Management Plan (April 1986) Irish Hill Golf Course Technical Appendix October, 1987 (Water well pump test data) County Division of Environmental Health Regional Water Quality Control Board Draft Wastewater Management Report, Brown & Caldwell, June 1988 TASK III Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Tonograohic Modifications Identify areas subject to landslides and suggest alternatives to lot configurations if appropriate. Discuss potential impacts of the project on both localized sedimentation and erosion. Identify existing springs and discuss potential concerns with soil stability and seepage. Discuss proposed grading and its impacts on prominent ridgelines and its conformity with both city and county grading regulations and standards and county geological study area and sensitive resource area standards. EXPECTATIONS Analysis of identified issues by consultant. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Grading Ordinance City and County Seismic Safety Elements Soils Reports for nearby Tracts 1053, 858, 608, and 444 County Land Use Ordinance- requirements for geology analysis and grading TASK IV Groundwater and Surface Hydrology Discuss anticipated drainage facilities and possible need for easements to convey surface drainage. What are the water quality impacts of the project on Laguna Lake and the surrounding area? To what degree will secondary treatment water from the package plant be a factor? Will the project have drainage and erosion impacts on Laguna Lake? Assess the potential impacts on groundwater and surface waters of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers used on the golf course. Workscope Page 5 EXPECTATIONS Analysis of identified issues by consultant. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Grading Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Uniform Design Criteria (Drainage) - Engineering Standards Flood Insurance Rate Maps County Engineering - improvement drawings Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan TASK V Enersty/Resource Use What types of energy demands will pump and booster systems to provide water service to the area have if they are determined to be necessary? Assess solar access for the proposed housing arrangement and the alternatives identified under Task XII. EXPECTATIONS Consultant will evaluate pump and booster systems in conjunction with system design alternatives discussed under Task II (Utilities), as well as proposed subdivision layout and alternatives. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Energy Conservation Element TASK VI Air Ouality Discuss air quality impacts associated with mobile sources generated by the project. Evaluate carbon monoxide concentrations along Los Osos Valley Road and their potential affect on proposed adjoining residential development. Evaluate the potential odor impacts from on-site sewage treatment and disposal alternatives. EXPECTATIONS Consultant will evaluate potential additional emissions generation using project trip generation under Task I and estimated traffic levels on Los Osos Valley Road based on city and county traffic counts. Compare expected emissions with emissions inventory data to determine projected emissions increases. Assess potential odor impacts. A+ 49 I /� Workscope Page 6 AVAILABLE INFORMATION San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Air Quality Area Plan APCD Local Emissions Inventory TASK VII Policy Consistency Evaluate the proposal's consistency with both city and county policies: City General Plan 1. Land Use Element: a. Growth Management Objectives (pages 9 - 11) Is the project consistent with existing growth management policies which direct growth to occur in designated expansion areas? Is the project a more acceptable land use alternative than the current development options available with the existing county zoning? Does the project provide a more logical, complete and efficient urban edge? b. Hillside Areas Beyond the Urban Reserve (page 25). City policy is to discourage the creation of isolated building sites in scenic hillside areas. In general rural development should be sited contiguous to flatland areas where development is logical and services can adequately be provided. 2. Open Space Plan a. Preservation issues - explore possibilities of city securing permanent open space dedications in conjunction with development plan. b. The Open Space Plan designates the site as "scenic sensitive'. Does development conflict with conservation goals? C. Evaluate the loss of the agricultural use of the portion of the site along Los Osos Valley Road? How will this change affect the viability of agricultural operations in this vicinity? 3. Energy Conservation Element Do a majority of the lots have an orientation which is within 30 degrees of south or meet other identified criteria for providing solar access? �_ so /� 1 Workscope Pa ge 7 4. Scenic Highways Element Evaluate visual impacts from designated scenic highways (Highway 101, Madonna Road, Los Osos Valley Road). 5. Water Management Element Is the project appropriate in light of citywide water supply issues? Are there reliable on-site groundwater sources available to serve proposed development? 6. Housing Element (County and City) What is the project's impact on meeting local housing needs? Explore the possibility of incorporating affordable housing into project. 7. Parks and Recreation Element Evaluate the need for a golf course facility in light of city recreation needs. County General Plan \ 1. Land Use Element: a. San Luis Obispo Area Plan Policies (1.) Does the project conflict with policies which deal with the extent and timing of urban-scale development at the fringe of the City of San Luis Obispo, especially with regard to identified "major expansion areas'? (2.) Should the urban reserve and urban services lines be expanded to include the project site? (3.) How does the project relate to the policy which discourages encroachment of urban/suburban uses into agriculturally viable areas? (4.) Would the project encourage the further conversion of lands in the Agriculture category in the Los Osos Valley? b. San Luis Obispo Area Plan Standards (Planning Area Standards) (1.) How does the project comply with Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) standards and other standards which require minimizing visual impacts, protecting ridgeline views and locating development on gentler slopes while leaving steeper visible slopes undeveloped? (2.) How would alternative development concepts satisfy the intent of these SRA and other planning area standards? 61= / I Workscope Page 8 C. Framework for Planning Part I of the Land Use Element This section contains the criteria used to evaluate proposed general plan amendments. (1.) Do the characteristics of the site and the proposed project satisfy the purpose and character statements for the requested Recreation land use category? (2.) Would an alternative project be consistent? (3.) Would an alternative land use category(ies) be more appropriate? (4.) Do the characteristics of the site most closely meet the purpose and character statements for the existing Agriculture, Residential Rural and Residential Suburban categories? 2. Oven Space Plan: a. The site is designated in the Fractured Rural Lands, Marginal Rangeland and Multi-Use Open Space categories. b. Would a change to Recreation Land and Non-Open Space be consistent with the policies and recommendations of the Open Space Plan? 3. Noise Element: a. Will residential development be consistent with the land use compatibility standards?. 4. Transportation Plan: a. Will the project conform with the recommendations for improvement of Los Osos Valley Road? 5. Other Possible Anplicable General Plan Elements: a. Safety Element b. Seismic Safety Element c. Recreation Plan (especially regarding golf courses) d. Conservation Element e. Environment Plan f. Housing Element (affordable housing) Workscope Page 9 EXPECTATIONS The evaluation of the proposal's consistency with adopted city and county policies will be conducted by the consultant. The consultant, in suggesting alternatives to the project is proposed, should evaluate various subdivision layouts which may provide superior solar access as well as function better in light of site constraints. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Applicant's Proposal City and County General Plan Elements Irish Hills Haciendas Draft EIR and Technical Supplement TASK VIII Pooulation Distribution and Growth: Land Use Compatibility Will the added number and density of residents generated by the project be compatible with the area or affect neighborhood character? How will the golf course and its ancillary facilities affect residents of the project and residents of surrounding neighborhoods? Identify the growth-inducing impacts of the project on the Los Osos Valley? How will the viability of agriculture in the valley be affected? EXPECTATIONS Land use impacts will be evaluated by the consultant. The analyses of other potential impact categories and the resultant conclusions made will have an important role in the evaluation of the appropriateness of the proposal in terms of land use. AVAILABLE INFORMATION 1977 Urban Land Use Element Draft Water Management Element TASK IX Public Services Impacts of the project on city fire and police departments if developed in the city? Impacts of the project on county fire and sheriff departments if developed in the county? Impacts to area schools. Will there be a need for mitigation beyond required school impact fees? �/� Workscope Page 10 EXPECTATIONS The consultant will analyze impacts based on input from School District, California Department of Forestry, County'Sheriff, and city fire and police departments. AVAILABLE INFORMATION School District data and policies. TASK X Aesthetic Address visual prominence of development from nearby vantage points. Will project visually intrude on the hillside area backdrop? EXPECTATIONS Consultant will evaluate and discuss the extent to which the project will alter the visual character of the site and the surrounding area. Analysis should be accompanied by photo documentation. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Scenic Highways Element Irish Hills Haciendas Draft EIR TASK XI Other Issue Areas The following issue areas have been evaluated in previous EIRs, but may need to be reevaluated or further analyzed in the new document. The information contained in previous EIRs can be used in preparation of the new EIR if its current validity can be substantiated by the consultant. Archaeology Vegetation Wildlife TASK XII Alternatives Suggest other lot configurations and project designs (including alternative densities) that address identified potential impacts and function better in light of site constraints. z do-49 —�O Workscope Page Il EXPECTATIONS The city and county considers this to be an extremely important component of the supplement. Several alternatives should be suggested (the previous EIR identified seven project alternatives). Each oroiect alternative evaluated should indicate how it affects identified oroiect impact categories. The following is a list of alternatives that need to be evaluated: 1. A project with some residential expansion that retains the area along along Los Osos Valley Road in open space uses (golf course greens or agriculture). 2. A project similar to the one originally submitted to the city. That proposal included housing to the west of-existing city housing tracts, but no golf course. 3. A project with a smaller reconfigured residential project with a golf course and required dedication of permanent open space on the fringe. 4. A project with a golf course without residences. 5. A project with a golf course on the project site. In exchange for not developing residences on the project site, residential development of the existing municipal golf course located on Los Osos Valley Road would be allowed. 6. A project developed under present county zoning of the site (the "no" project alternative). 7. Evaluate alternative sites for both the residential and golf course components of the project. REQUIRED PRODUCTS The required end products are the draft and final editions of the Environmental Impact Report that can be used by citizens, city staff, the applicant, City and County Planning Commissions, County Board of Supervisors and City Council during development review. Clear, concise, and well-organized writing is essential. The draft EIR should include recommended mitigation measures in an executive summary format to allow easy inclusion into the project and/or conditions of approval. SCHEDULING It is expected that an administrative review draft of the EIR would be completed within 90 days (or other reasonable period of time that the consultant suggests) of the signing of the agreement for the study. This draft would be edited by staff and returned to the consultant for changes. The consultant would then have an additional 15 days to make changes and return to the city a camera-ready copy of the draft. supplement for publication and circulation. Public comment and review of the draft EIR would take an additional 45 days. Workscope Page 12 Text corrections, additions, and responses to comments would be included in the Final EIR to be submitted within 15 days following close of the public review period. The consultant will be expected to meet with city and county staff during the drafting of the EIR and attend no more than four public hearings to explain findings and response to comments or questions which could include both city and county review boards. PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT The consultant shall identify any additional studies, documents, maps, photos, or similar information required for the study but currently not available. This information shall also be listed in the consultant's proposal to the city, along with estimated cost and/or method of getting the information. Consultant is responsible for providing: 1. Five preliminary administrative review draft EIRs. 2. Necessary supporting graphics for EIR. 3. One camera-ready copy each of the draft and final EIR. pr/genfiles/golf N �+ 0 500 2000 CAL POLY BEAR VALLEY t° u 166. i ESTATES TR 502 LAGUNA r SHORES PROJECT I / SITE/ ••. i = ;' i.� h: .A 1 j � I �>•C �.a P R E F U M O �'�•i y;i •o CANYON ESTATES '•\• TR 858 LAGUNAHILL ESTATES ?AMR PARR EXISTING CITY TR LIMIT LINE TR 608 J / COUNTY AIRPORT, EDA ENGINEERING . FIGURE DEVELOPMENT: VICINITY MAP 1 320 NIPOMO STREETaSAN LLIS OBISPO. CA ?3401o805:549-8658 • w LL CY a � a cz7 a O z N w < a r c W o. WI J IL Co WW < w ek: Z F a ie U W ¢e aW z O' W J �° F °0. O a U LL ;ao ° o U w0 o O' w C9 O UA LU Wc . eeenevee � veneee� e �w oz LL U' � ezWW 3. S a O a cl WoL co, o z zWo LU wZi . =WH a O we0 OO !! e O e �'1 qqr WOt ^, J Oe wl WO een $ g eo � 5t88 eonSogn f..e J Jar 0.� N > nem r • n � ei e . eenn e = w ° OI _ oma 5 tu zj 7 i j IL • eewee� �- CO CO = 3 H O O0 x Qi W Q e e ■ 'c o c 0 m w **Ski,■lu,/_41A _ taaAA a_QvA • � i Qi !17•'x.. .�':'�� :. hiss ` �� 1 7 / a y� O e f ry ' o lv , �c.. (( / wee • �9:��,t`. � e rly.. •\ E .s . e so •% .i� il!_If y �� i � i0 gCa10� a . �._ ��� 'IJ ellllta0 :`■