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 :`■