HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07311990 - 1.4 (2) • 1-042
Tg BOARD OF SUPEOISORS
FROM: Harvey B. Bragdon, -- Contra
Director of Community Development -- - _ ulJ.7la
DATE: July 24�1990
@ Coufty
SUBJECT: Alamo Springs Contractual Services Agreement
GPA 1-90, Rezoning 2882-RZ, FDP 3003-90, SUB 7452
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
AUTHORIZE the Chair to execute attached agreement.
BACKGROUND
The County is jointly processing with the Town of Danville
development applications for a 101-unit residential development
that straddles the County/Danville boundary in Alamo.
An initial environmental study has been prepared indicating the
project may have significant geotechnical, traffic, aesthetic and
biologic impacts.
After completing a competitive bid process, the firm of Duncan
and Jones has been selected to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report. Attached is a contractual services agreement which has
been signed and notarized by the EIR consultant.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant for the project, New West Federal Savings
and Loan, has already committed the necessary funding for the EIR
costs.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE I S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON JUL 3 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Town of Danville ATTESTED JUL 31 1990
Community Development Department -
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Cannon Design Group via CDD /f SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ( ,DEPUTY
M382/7-83
1.®04z
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
Special Conditions. These Special Conditions are incorporated below by
reference.
(a) Public Agency: Contra Costa County Community Development Department
(b) Consultant's Name and Address:
Duncan and Jones
2161 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
(c) Project Name, Number and Location:
Alamo Springs Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
GPA-1-90, Rezoning File #2882-RZ, FDP 3003-90, SUB 7452
La Gonda Way at 1-680, Alamo
(d) Effective Date: 7/23/90 (e) Payment Limit: $64,300
(f) Completion Date: 2/28/91
2. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties agreement hereto:
Department: Consultant: MC "�"omm ity Department By:
(Designate ocT ap-ty
in the business) Type of Business
(sole proprietorship,, government
agency, partnership, corporation,
etc. ) So LEPPE—Lo2sKe
If Corporation, State of
Incorporation:
By:
(De ' nate official capacity
n the business)
Board of Supervisors
By:
Chair/Designe
ATTEST:
By: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of Board of Supervisors
and ,County Administrator
Note to Co sultant: (1 xec"ackwledgment form below, and (2) if a
corporation, signatures must conform to designated representative groups
pursuant to Corporations Code Sec. 313.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of California )
ss. ACKNOWLEDGMENT (by
Corporation, Partnership,
or Individual )
County of ALA ME-DA )
The person(s) signing above for Consultant, known to me in individual and
business capacity(ies) as stated, personally appeared before me today and
acknowledged that he/she executed it, the
xe
`d*rett6��'
Dated: v i Y 2 , I 550
i,.,.I OPFICI4L SEAL
ttNoa. icA:-!Fc Notary Public
m NOTFn'!PU5 IC-CA❑FOr'.NIF
ALAMEIN.. Col, >,ry fJ .
MY CCT% E>:r" h' C)(1
—
.C�4'
0
3. Parties. Effective on the above date, the above-named Public Agency and '
Consultant mutually agree and promise as follows:
4. Employment. Public Agency hereby employs Consultant, and Consultant
accepts such employment, to perform the professional services described herein,
upon the terms and in consideration of the payments stated herein.
5. Scope of Service. Scope of service shall be described in,Appendix C (Scope
of Services) , as modified by the revised Scope of Services described in Appendix
D, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.
6. Report Disclosure Section. Any document or written report prepared
hereunder by Consultant, or a subcontractor, for Public Agency shall contain, in
a separate section, the numbers and dollar amounts of this contract and all
subcontracts relating to the preparation of such document or written report,
provided that the payment limit specified in Sec. 1(e) exceeds $5,000. When
multiple documents or written reports are the subject or products of this
agreement, the disclosure section may also contain a statement indicating the
total contract amount represents compensation for multiple documents or written
reports.
7. Insurance. Consultant shall , at no cost to Public Agency, obtain and
maintain during the term, hereof: (a) Workers' Compensation Insurance pursuant
to state law, and (b) Comprehensive Liability Insurance, including coverage for
owned and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum combined single limit coverage of
$500,000 for all damages due to bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death to
any .person, and damage to property, including the loss of use thereof, arising
out of each accident or occurrence. Consultant shall furnish evidence of such
coverage, naming Public Agency, its officers and employees as additional
insured, and requiring 30 days written notice of policy lapse or cancellation.
8. Payment. Public Agency shall pay Consultant for professional services
performed at the rates shown in Appendix C and per schedule set forth in
Appendix B (Payment Schedule) attached hereto, which include all overhead and
incidental expenses, for which no additional compensation shall be allowed. In
no event shall the total amount paid to the Consultant exceed the payment limit
specified in Sec. 1(e) without prior written approval of the Contra Costa County
Community Development Director. Consultant's statement of charges shall be
submitted in accordance with Appendix B. Payment will be made within thirty
(30) days after receipt of each statement.
9. Status. The Consultant is an independent contractor, and shall not be
considered an employe of Public Agency.
10. Time of Completion. Unless the time is extended in writing by Public
Agency, Consultant shall complete all services covered by this Agreement per
Appendix A (Schedule of Submissions) .
11. Record Retention. Except for materials and records, delivered to Public
Agency, Consultant shall retain all materials and records prepared or obtained
in the performance of this Agreement, including financial records, for a period
of at least three years after Consultant's receipt of the final payment under
this Agreement. Upon request by Public Agency, Consultant shall make such
materials and records available to Public Agency at no additional charge and
without restriction or limitation to State and Federal governments at no
additional charge.
12. Documentation. Consultant shall prepare and deliver to Public Agency at no
additional charge the items described in Appendix A to document the performance
of this Agreement and shall furnish to Public Agency such information as is
necessary to enable Public Agency to monitor the performance of this Agreement.
13. Ownership of Documents. All materials and records of a finished nature,
such as final pans, specifications, reports, and maps, prepared or obtained in
the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property
of Public Agency. All materials of a preliminary nature, such as survey notes,
sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, prepared or obtained
in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to
Public Agency at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on
their use.
-2-
0
14. Extra Work. Any work or services in addition to the work or services
described in Appendices C and D shall be performed by Consultant according to
the rates or charges listed in Appendices C and D. In the event that no rate or
charge is listed for a particular type of extra work, Consultant shall be paid
for the extra work at a rate to be mutually agreed on prior to commencement of
the extra work. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to compensation for
extra work unless a written authorization or change order describing the work
and payment terms has been executed by Public Agency prior to the commencement
of the work.
15. Termination by Public Agency. At its option, Public Agency shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement at any time by written notice to Consultant,
whether or not Consultant is then in default. Upon such termination, Consultant
shall , without delay, deliver to Public Agency all materials and records
prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, and shall be paid,
without duplication, all amounts due for the services rendered up to the date of
termination.
16. Abandonment by Consultant. In event that Consultant ceases performing
service under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to
completing all of the services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall ,
without delay, deliver to Public Agency all materials and records prepared or
obtained in the performance of this Agreement, and shall be paid for the reason-
able value of the services performed up to the time of cessation or abandonment,
less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which Public Agency
incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment.
17. Breach. In the event that consultant fails to perform any of the services
described in this Agreement or otherwise breaches this Agreement, Public Agency
shall have the right to pursue all remedies provided by law or equity. Any
disputes relating the performance of this Agreement shall not be subject to
non-judicial arbitration.
18. Compliance with Laws. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall
comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulation,
whether federal , state or local in origin.
19. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable or transferable in
whole or in part by Consultant, whether voluntarily, by operation of law or
otherwise; provide, however, that the Director of Community Development may
allow consultant to sub-contract that portion of the services for which
Consultant does not have the facilities to perform. Any other purported assign-
ment, transfer or sub-contracting shall be void.
20. Endorsement on Plans. Consultant shall endorse all plans, specification,
estimates, reports and other items described in Appendices A, C and D prior to
delivering them to Public Agency.
21. Patents and Copyrights. The issuance of a patent or copyright to
Consultant or any other person shall not affect Public Agency's rights to the
materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement.
Public Agency reserves a license to use such materials and records without
restriction or limitation, and Public Agency shall not be required to pay any
additional fee or royalty for such materials or records. The license reserved
by Public Agency shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of
execution of this Agreement, unless extended by operation of law or otherwise.
22. Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, save and hold harmless Public
Agency and its officers and employees from any and all claims, costs and
liability for any damages, injury or death arising directly or indirectly from
or connected with the services provided hereunder, due to or claimed or alleged
to be due to negligent or wrongful acts of Consultant or any person under its
control , save and except claims or litigation arising through the sole negligence
or sole willful misconduct of Public Agency, and will make good to and reimburse
Public Agency for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys fees, Public
Agency may make by reason of such matters and, if requested by Public Agency,
will defend any such suits at the sole cost and expense of Consultant.
-3-
23. Heirs, Successors and Assigns. Except as provided otherwise in Section 20
above, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the heirs,
successors, executors, personal representatives and assigns of the parties.
Attachments
Appendix A - Schedule of Submissions
Appendix B - Payment Schedule
Appendix C - Original Scope of Services
Appendix D - Revised Scope of Services including Cost/Payment Rate
Form approved by Counsel Counsel
12/85
3/87
-4-
APPENDIX "A"
Consultant shall prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and County guidelines for the project
specified in 1(c) of this Agreement. The report shall be prepared in the format
specified by the County. The administrative draft shall be double spaced and
suitable for duplication by office copier methods.
The consultant shall prepare the report in an "administrative draft" form
initially and submit ten (10) copies for Community Development Department
review. The "administrative draft" shall be submitted by Consultant to the
Community Development Department no later than ninety-two (92) calendar days
after the date Consultant is authorized by the Community Development Department
to proceed with preparation of the report, unless approval of extension of such
deadline is given by the Director of Community Development. After the Community
Development Department reviews and comments on the draft, the Consultant shall
revise the administrative draft report in accordance with such comments and
submit one camera ready copy suitable for duplication and distribution of the
"circulation draft" for review and acceptance by the Community Development
Department. The "circulation draft" shall be submitted by Consultant to the
Community Development Department no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after
return of the edited administrative draft to Consultant by the Community
Development Department unless approval of the extension of such deadline is
given by the Director of community Development. The final draft EIR with
responses to comments shall be submitted no later than twenty-one (21) calendar
days after receipt of all comments by the consultant.
Consultant shall as part of the contractual obligation assist County in the
preparation of responses to comments on the draft EIR for the purpose of
producing a "Final EIR" for the project. Preparation of responses to all
comments presented to the Hearing Body on the circulation draft EIR are the
responsibility of the Consultant.
Assistance of County staff required by the Consultant in the gathering of data
to complete this report shall be limited to the supplying of source documents on
County premises. No compiling of data will be done by County staff. All other
County staff support effort will be limited to that specifically enumerated
below:
None.
Unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department, all work
products shall be submitted in an 8-1/2" x 11" format.
APPENDIX B
PAYMENT & SCHEDULE
County shall pay Consultant for professional services performed as follows:
1. For preparation of the Environmental Impact Report a fee not to exceed 1(e )
above.
(a) The first installment of twenty percent (20%) of the fee noted in 1(e)
above shall be paid to the consultant as a retainer fee upon execution
of this contract.
(b) The second installment of thirty percent (30%) of the fee noted in
1(e) above shall be paid after receipt of the Administrative Draft.
(c) The second installment of thirty percent (30%) of the fee noted in
1(e) above shall be paid after the Director of Community Development
receives and finds acceptable the Circulation Draft.
(d) The third installment of ten percent (10°x) of the fee noted in 1(e)
shall be paid after the Director of Community Development receives and
finds acceptable the response to comments as are required and the
final draft EIR.
(e) The balance of the fee shall be paid after final acceptance of the
Environmental Impact Report by the appropriate decision-making body.
2. The fees specified above include all overhead and incidental expenses for
which not additional compensation shall be allowed. In no event shall the
total amount paid to the Consultant exceed the fee limit specified in
Section 1(e) without prior written approval of the County.
c:Payment.RD
.4r
APPENDIX C
I. INTRODUCTION
Duncan & Jones is pleased to respond to the Request for Proposal
(RFP) from the County of Contra Costa to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed Alamo Springs project on the
former Gailyndel Farms horse training facility. The project, as
indicated in the descriptive report dated January 8 , 1990, would
require a General Plan Amendment, rezoning, possible annexation,
tentative map and Final Development Plan and approvals to change
the currently designated use of the 148-acre site to a single-
family residential planned development consisting of 101 lots
ranging from a minimum of 10, 000 square feet to a maximum of 4 . 6
acres. A total of 88 acres is proposed for retention in permanent
open space. We and the other members of our consulting team are
familiar with the current planning context and character of the
site, the issues presented by the proposed project, , and the gen-
eral character of information and studies available for the eval-
uation of this project. We believe we can meet and satisfy all of
the objectives and requirements expressed by the County. Our firm
recognizes the need for timely completion of this program, and is
prepared to meet the schedule presented in this Proposal.
The basic approach of the work program would be to prepare a ful-
ly adequate EIR, which addresses in detail all impact areas iden-
tified by the County in the Initial Study, as modified by any
comments received on the Notice of Preparation as being most sig-
nificant for evaluation and assessment. The EIR will also examine
other areas of potential impact, in compliance with the require-
ments of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well
as, state and local guidelines. .
The major issues to be addressed in the EIR include the safety of
the proposed project in light of geotechnical conditions present
at the site, the visual impact of the proposed project as viewed
from Interstate 680 , Stone Valley Road, Danville Boulevard and
neighboring homes, the local impacts of additional noise which
would result during construction, and the adequacy of the pro-
posed project' s design standards. Particular attention will be
' 1
I
I. INTRODUCTION
directed to the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project, with
design elements evaluated for consistency with the adopted goals
, and policies of both the Town of Danville and County of Contra
Costa. The impact topic areas include the following: the impacts
'of the project upon the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan, the
Danville 2005 General Plan and the Contra Costa County General
,Plan; the evaluation of compliance with Town and County land use
ordinances and policies; the traffic and circulation impacts of
the project on the adjacent and subregional roadway network; ef-
fects of the project on the existing or programmed capacities and
capabilities of services, facilities and utilities, including
fire and police protection services, wastewater disposal, drain-
age and hydrology, water supply facilities; schools and parks ,
including an evaluation of which jurisdiction is best able to
meet the future demand for services and facilities generated by
residents of the project area; the air quality and acoustical im-
pacts stemming from grading, construction and development; the
potential for exposure of residential areas to risk from any haz-
ardous conditions in the area; the visual impacts associated with
development of the site and potential urban design aspects in-
sofar as these can be identified at this preliminary stage of
project design; and, a comparison of these impacts for each of
the alternatives to be identified for evaluation.
A maximum of three alternative scenarios will be defined for com-
parative evaluation. These will include the "No-Project" alter-
native resulting from projected buildout in accordance with the
existing General Plan designations and current zoning classifica-
tions, .and two contrasting scenarios, including an alternate
location.
This Proposal is submitted by the firm of Duncan & Jones, in af-
filiation with Parker & Associates, Visual Simulation and Design
Consultants; Questa Engineering Corporation, Civil/Environmental
Engineers; Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. , Acoustical Engineers; and
Donald Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist (Air Quality
Analyses) .
2
I. INTRODUCTION
DUNCAN & JONES , Urban and Environmental Planning Consul-
tants, would serve as the prime consultant and would be
responsible for evaluating all areas not addressed by their
affiliate consultants. In addition, Duncan & Jones would
provide overall management and coordination of the EIR
study, both in the evaluation process and in interactions
with the project staff and ,the public, and would ensure both
consistency in report preparation and satisfaction of all
CEQA requirements.
Duncan & Jones has extensive experience in the preparation
of EIRs for all types of projects , including residential
subdivisions; mixed-use developments; institutional, office,
industrial , and commercial projects ; General Plan amend-
ments; and downtown redevelopment projects. In addition, the
firm has prepared MEIRs for several of the General and Spe-
cific Plan programs it has conducted. Duncan & Jones also
has many years of experience in the preparation of plans
ranging from Specific Plans for relatively small areas to
General Plans for cities and counties. Issues of planning
policy, long-term use and cumulative impacts have been im-
portant elements in many of these planning efforts. Duncan &
Jones has prepared a number of EIRs for the County of Contra
Costa, including an EIR on a proposed congregate care facil-
ity in Alamo, and has substantial experience in conducting
EIR analyses on a variety of projects in the central County.
These include the Preston Ranch DEIR for the Town of Moraga,
the EIR for the Town of Moraga, and the San Ramon Valley
Community Medical Center for the City of San Ramon.
■, PARKER & ASSOCIATES, Visual Simulation and Design Consul-
tants, has provided environmental analysis for a wide range
of public agencies and private clients. Projects include an
analysis of the Moraga Country Club grading plan, the Contra
Costa County Land Fill in Pittsburg and the GWF Power Plants
in Contra Costa County. The firm has worked with Duncan and
Jones on several previous EIRs, including the visual analy-
sis of the N.M.E. Medical Center in San Ramon for the EIR.
3
I. INTRODUCTION
■ QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION is a civil/environmental
engineering firm providing government and private industry
with consulting services in all phases of hydrology, water
resources development, and wastewater engineering. Questa
staff have specialized experience in wastewater facilities
planning, infiltration/inflow studies, drainage and flood
evaluation, and evaluation of toxic waste hazards.
Questa's chief environmental engineer, Mr. Norman Hantzsche,
has worked extensively over the past 12 years in the water
resources field, including six years with the State and
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the remainder in
private consulting in Northern California. On the proposed
EIR, Mr. Hantzsche, along with Mr. David Harlan and Mr .
Peter Martin, will be responsible for evaluating the storm
drainage, wastewater disposal, and water supply aspects of
the project.
Questa has experience in assessing, monitoring, and design-
ing remedial action for toxic/hazardous materials contamina-
tion. The firm has served as principal engineering consul-
tants for investigation of underground chemical leakage at
XIDEX, Verbatim, and DYSAN Corporations in Sunnyvale. Numer-
ous investigations of known or possible causes of under-
ground chemical leakage have been conducted at various in-
dustrial sites in the Bay Area. Questa also provides assess-
ment of contamination potential for various real estate com-
panies and lending institutions.
■ ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. , Acoustical Engineers, . would be
responsible for reviewing and reevaluating on-site noise
A measurements, defining the noise environment in the vicini-
ty, and evaluating the impacts of construction, vehicular,
and other noise generated by the project upon uses abutting
the site and the road network serving it . Mr . Illingworth
has substantial experience in acoustical studies and evalua-
tions, and has conducted such studies for residential, com-
4
I. INTRODUCTION
mercial , and industrial projects in the vicinity of the pro-
ject site.
■ DONALD BALLANTI provides consulting services to planners,
engineers and architects in meteorology, air quality, and
climatology, and has prepared more than 150 climate, air
quality impact and air quality planning studies, and would
be available to assist in the project evaluation. Clients
have included government agencies, private developers, plan-
ning and research firms and transportation engineers. Mr.
Ballanti has conducted studies on a wide range of projects,
including traffic-generated air pollution, sun shading
analyses, wind-flow around buildings and terrain, natural
ventilation studies of structures, wind impact studies on
pedestrian comfort, and sand and dust transport and deposi-
tion studies. Mr. Ballanti has been designated a "Certified
Consulting Meteorologist" (Certification No. 264 ) by the
American Meteorological society.
In many EIR projects a disproportionate amount of time and effort
tends to be devoted to data collection activities. The purpose of
the EIR as an aid to decision-making could perhaps better be
served by a more thorough analysis of existing data, together
with greater attention to evaluating project alternatives, devel-
oping mitigation measures and ensuring that the printed products
of the study are concise, readable and clearly presented, making
appropriate use of illustrative graphics. We would propose to
utilize to the greatest extent possible information available
from the County and the applicant, and other agencies concerned
with the project area. We would make every effort to minimize
duplication of effort and reduce the costs of generating data
which may be obtainable from existing sources.
This Proposal is organized in four sections. Following this In-
troduction, Chapter II describes the scope of work, including the
tasks to be undertaken and the products that will result from the
evaluation. Chapter III presents the management and administra-
tive aspects of the program. Information on the qualifications of
the Consultant Team, and a list of relevant projects and client
references are included as Chapter IV of this Proposal.
5
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
This Chapter outlines the methodology the Consultants would fol-
low in preparing the EIR on the proposed Alamo Springs project.
Our approach would be to concentrate our efforts on the most sig-
nificant impact areas, as defined in the Initial Study Checklist
or revealed by subsequent investigations during the initial
phases of the evaluation.
The study design we propose to follow can be summarized under
four "Task" headings . The first three of these Tasks are not
separate or distinct, and there may be overlaps among work items.
Task 1: Clarify Issues for Study, Define Alternatives and Pro-
gram Procedures.
Task 2 : Analyze Existing Conditions and Describe the Setting;
Evaluate Impacts of Project and Alternatives, Identify
Mitigation Measures.
Task 3 : Prepare Draft EIR.
Task 4: Prepare Final EIR.
TASK 1: CLARIFY ISSUES FOR STUDY, DEFINE ALTERNATIVES AND PRO-
GRAM PROCEDURES
The first task of the Consultants will be to meet with the joint
project staff to ensure that the project is adequately defined,
in order to meet the County ' s expectations for the content and
character of the EIR evaluation, and to outline the approach and
procedures required for defining appropriate alternatives to the
revised project for comparative evaluation. This meeting will
also serve to clarify the nature of the issues to be addressed in
the study, to define the basis for the Draft EIR, and to finalize
6
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
the Consultant Team' s scope of work, the schedu:e for the pro-
ject, and the respective roles and responsibilities of the
participants . Once this initial task is completed, the Consul-
tants will commence a reevaluation of the prior work relating to
baseline investigations and analyses of existing conditions ,
using both existing data and primary data gathering efforts, in-
cluding investigations on-site and in the vicinity.
The specific tasks in this phase are as follows:
■ Consult with the joint project staff (and perhaps with rep-
resentatives of the project proponent) at one initial brief-
ing/scoping meeting. This will ensure that the project to be
evaluated in the Draft EIR is defined in full and accurate
detail, and to reach agreement on the approach to be taken
in defining alternatives to be addressed in the Draft EIR,
and the major issue areas on which the EIR will be focused.
■ Identify the schedule and procedures for interaction between
the Consultants and the project staff, and ensure that
respective responsibilities and milestone events are clearly
defined and recognized.
■ Discuss with project staff the character of each of the is-
sues identified for study and clarify the scope and detail
of analysis required in each topic area . Determine if
additional issues have been recognized as requiring evalua-
tion, or if the breadth of assessment should be further mod-
ified. In particular determine the procedures to be followed
in obtaining any additional technical assistance that may be
required from DKS Associates and Berlogar Geotechnical Con-
sultants.
The tasks to be addressed include the following:
■ The location, type and current status of pending or anti-
cipated public improvements, private development proposals,
or other planning considerations relevant to the proposed
1
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
project site., and the cumulative impacts and service demands
likely to be generated by development of this type.
■ The extent of growth and change likely to be induced by im-
plementation of the project, and by other potential develop-
ment proposals in the vicinity, within the context of the
County ' s and the Town of' Danville ' s current policy frame-
works and regulatory mechanisms.
■ The existing conditions on portions of the circulation sys-
tem, and the extent to which the proposed project may de-
grade the level of service available. It will be desirable
to review with the project staff the adequacy of the DKS As-
sociates report on the Alamo Springs Draft Traffic Study,
and to define any remaining issues and topics to be ad-
dressed.
■ The geotechnical issues affecting the site, and the adequacy
and extent to which the Berlogar report (dated April 31
1990) provides a full and adequate appraisal of the sig-
nificance of these hazards. Any further specialized analyses
or testing required in the EIR should be identified and pro-
visions made for them to be addressed by Berlogar for in-
corporation in the EIR.
■ The effects and significance of the project on adjacent land
holdings and land uses, particularly the visibility of the
proposed development from public streets and other vantage
points in the area.
■ The visual and aesthetic effect and characteristics of the
project in terms of its overall design, configuration ,
1 landscape character and other aspects of the proposed devel-
opment.
■ The demands likely to be placed by the project on public
services, facilities or utilities, including storm drainage,
waste water disposal , water supply, solid waste disposal ,
8
III. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
fire and police protection, school facilities, the mainte-
nance of public roads and other improvements, and their im-
plications. The effects of modifying the current Sphere of
Influence boundaries with the Town of Danville and the local
school district will be considered and the scope of neces-
sary evaluation in the subsequent EIR will be discussed with
project and LAFCo staffs. . .
t The potential or risk that hazardous/toxic materials from
prior use of the site may impose impacts on proposed uses on
the project site or in adjacent areas.
M The impacts likely to result from the project and construc-
tion activity associated with it, relative to the noise en-
vironment.
The air quality conditions affecting, and affected by, the
project.
Review with project staff the character and sources of any new
information which may be of assistance in evaluating land use,
zoning, improvement plans of service-providing entities or as-
sessment districts, development plans, and any other plans or
EISs/EIRs which pertain to the site and its vicinity, and relate
to the issues defined for evaluation. These will include the cur-
rent content of both of the Town's General Plan and the County' s
Draft General Plan, the regulatory controls and procedures used
by the County and other agencies (including LAFCO, or federal ,
state, regional or other jurisdictions) , and the overall planning
context of the project site.
Verify the availability, accuracy and currency of existing data
relating to the issues to be addressed. Define in initial form
any information deficiencies concerning existing conditions, for
discussion and resolution by the Consultant Team and the project
staff.
9
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
Review with project staff the procedures for any citizen partici-
pation in the EIR process, and the overall schedule and process
to be followed in completing the EIR.
'Finalize the Consultants ' scope of work with the County.
TASK 2: ANALYZE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DESCRIBE THE SETTING;
EVALUATE IMPACTS OF PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES, IDENTIFY
MITIGATION MEASURES
In this phase of the program, the, Consultants will prepare a com-
plete analysis of the existing conditions and setting within
which the proposed project must be evaluated. Data will be com-
piled and evaluated for each of the issue topics defined, and
clarified in Task 1 as having significance. while sources of ex-
isting data will be utilized, it has been assumed that some addi-
tional primary data-gathering and on-site investigations will be
necessary.
Another objective of this phase of the work program is to compare
the project as proposed to the existing conditions , and to
evaluate the potential impacts that would result. Based on these
findings, feasible Mitigation Measures which are intended to min-
imize identified adverse impacts will be defined and described.
The focus of this phase will be on analyzing the effect of util-
i'zing the site in accordance with the Project Application and
comparing its potential impacts with those likely to result from
the defined alternatives to the Project. The analyses will be
presented in jargon-free text and illustrative graphic form, so
that the materials are readily usable by decision-makers and mem-
bers of the public alike. Maximum use will be made of the pre-
vious site evaluations conducted, which will be incorporated by
reference.
An important task in this phase of the program will be to prepare
as comprehensive a description as possible of the physical char-
10
I
• II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
acter of the development proposed in relation to the site and
setting, for inclusion in the Draft EIR. The alternatives defined
for comparative evaluation will also be fully described and quan-
tified for inclusion on the Draft EIR. The "No-Project" Alter-
native will be evaluated in terms of the retention of the site in
its present General Plan and Zoning status. Two other alterna-
tives to the Project will be defined and described in terms of
contrasting uses and development of the area in question, includ-
ing an alternative site location.
Each Mitigation Measure will be rated in terms of its apparent
effectiveness in reducing the impact to a less than significant
level, and its practicality and feasibility. Each measure will
also be categorized with respect to the entity having the capa-
bility for its implementation, as a basis for defining the me-
chanisms for achieving appropriate mitigation. The scope of work
in this phase of the program is described below by major issue
topics.
Proiect Setting and History
o Describe the location of the project and illustrate with ap-
propriately scaled maps.
i Document the history of planning determinations and policy
formulations relating to the site and criteria and deter-
minations used by the project proponent in initiating the
GPA application.
i Review established policies of the County of Contra Costa
and the Town of Danville, to which the project must conform,
to define the extent of consistency with such policies.
Community Development and Land Use
10 Within the Study Area as defined, prepare a quantified des-
cription of the current patterns of land use and community
development, and the land supply conditions.
11
1
i
• II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
i
acter of the development proposed in relation to the site and
setting, for inclusion in the Draft EIR. The alternatives defined
for comparative evaluation will also be fully described and quan-
tified for inclusion on the Draft EIR. The "No-Project" Alter-
native will be evaluated in terms of the retention of the site in
its present General Plan and Zoning status. Two other alterna-
tives to the Project will be defined and described in terms of
contrasting uses and development of the area in question, includ-
ing an alternative site location.
Each Mitigation Measure will be rated in terms of its apparent
effectiveness in reducing the impact to a less than significant
level, and its practicality and feasibility. Each measure will
also be categorized with respect to the entity having the capa-
bility for its implementation, as a basis for defining the me-
chanisms for achieving appropriate mitigation. The scope of work
in this phase of the program is described below by major issue
topics.
Project Setting and History
■ Describe the location of the project and illustrate with ap-
propriately scaled maps.
■I Document the history of planning determinations and policy
formulations relating to the site and criteria and deter-
minations used by the project proponent in initiating the
GPA application.
■ Review established policies of the County of Contra Costa
and the Town of Danville, to which the project must. conform,
to define the extent of consistency with such policies.
Community Development and Land Use
■', Within the Study Area as defined, prepare a quantified des-
cription of the current patterns of land use and community
development, and the land supply conditions.
i
11
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
■ Utilize available sources of data to characterize existing
and projected demographic, employment, and housing charac-
teristics for the vicinity.
■ Review the potential for future development and growth in
the vicinity based on current or proposed zoning, General
Plan designations, or other determinations. Update the des-
cription and quantification of the cumulative project con-
text and assumptions , based on information from project
j staff and from the Danville and County General Plans.
j
■ � Review the susceptibility of the surrounding area to possi-
ble future changes in land use patterns resulting from or
induced by the proposed project, and any effects it may have
upon future development related to current local planning
procedures, regulatory mechanisms, service delivery or in-
frastructure capacity constraints, or environmental consid-
erations.
■ I Evaluate and quantify the probable future changes in land
use and activity patterns in the Study Area likely to result
from development of the project site as proposed. These may
include conflicts with the established development policies
j (spatial and temporal) of the County and the Town, changes
in neighborhood character or in housing stock conditions,
shifts in the location of development demand (with possible
j adverse effects on the service delivery systems and infra-
structure) , changes in the jobs/housing balance, and an ex-
cess supply of certain types of facilities, floor space or
j development, resulting in the decline of existing estab-
lished areas.
■ Evaluate the impacts generated by the project and the alter-
native scenarios affecting community housing demand/supply,
j jobs/housing balance, and the extent, type and distribution
of industrial, office, commercial or other activity.
_ 12
I
II. 41TUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
1
■ Identify the character and extent of properties that may be
subject to change induced by the project, and the resultant
physical and environmental consequences and impacts on the
f vicinity. Evaluate the effects of possible opportunities
foregone that might result.
1 ■ Define and describe possible methods or devices for mitigat-
ing possible adverse impacts that are revealed.
1 Land Use Impacts
■ ■ Based upon the possible growth- or change-inducing effects
i of the project, together with the types of land conversion
likely to take place in the area independently of the pro-
ject, identify the probable overall changes in land use and
activity patterns, and describe the qualitative and quanti-
tative character of change in the Study Area over time, with
and without the project.
■ ■ Evaluate the impacts of the changes associated with the pro-
ject and the alternative scenarios on existing and designat-
ed activities in the vicinity.
1
■ Review the relative advantages and disadvantages , con-
straints and opportunities of the different scenarios on the
overall pattern of activities and land uses in the area, and
indicate the extent to which the current policy framework
might require modification to accommodate the changes in de-
velopment likely 'to be produced. Assess the desirability of
such modifications versus retention of the existing policies
as a basis for guiding growth and development for the next
10-15 years and beyond.
■ Identify mitigation measures or implementation devices that
might moderate or minimize the apparently more severe or ad-
verse effects of projected land use changes.
i 13
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
Traffic and Circulation
Any additional tasks specified as necessary for the traffic and
circulation studies for the EIR will be carried out by DKS Asso-
ciates Inc. The work scope will include the following:
■ Consult with project staff to ensure that the traffic and
circulation effects of the proposed project are fully
evaluated in the April 11 report. The format, methodology,
and information to be included in the DEIR relating to traf-
fic and circulation will be defined with project staff par-
ticipation and concurrence.
■ Review and revise as necessary the previously-conducted
analyses of existing traffic volumes, geometrics, traffic
controls, and land use data on all streets that will be im-
pacted by traffic generated from the Project site and other
related adjacent parcels.
■ Review and revise as necessary the DKS report as it relates
to existing operational conditions of the Study Area in
terms of peak hour levels of service at intersections, and
other appropriate measures of effectiveness, using current
and existing studies and data as a basis.
■ Develop any necessary revisions to the list of approved and
pending projects and probable cumulative development
throughout the area by year 2005.
■ Review the revised site plan to identify possible on-site
impacts of the project. This evaluation would include the
proposed circulation system, and access and egress locations
on to the adjacent roadways.
■ Following analysis of the potential impacts of the revised
project with and without the addition of approved and pend-
ing cumulative development in the area, a set of measures to
mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed project
r14
r
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
I
would be prepared. Measures would be developed for implemen-
tation of the project.
Geotechnical Considerations
■ With project staff, review the April 3 Berlogar report to
determine what additional geotechnical studies are required
i
to fully evaluate the safety of the proposed project site.
Special attention will be directed to possible effects of
the Loma Prieta earthquake on-site, safety hazards associa-
ted with the pond on the property, effects of several small
landslides to the south of the access road and the problems
associated with removing the existing fill and replacing it
to engineered fill standards (and any effects this might
j have on future swimming pool construction on the individual
lots) . Information from the initial Berlogar report and from
subsequent studies will be included in the DEIR.
Vilual Simulation/Site Analysis
I
Computer modeling of the project for the purposes of producing
perspective photomontages includes:
■ Houses and grading per applicant' s submittal .
■ Applicant's plan showing currently allowed development -
in the absence of General Plan and zoning amendments.
i
■ Ii Mitigated alternative plan.
Photomontages consisting of 20" x 30" color photographs .mounted
on 3/16" illustration board with a computer-generated transpar-
ency simulating the massing and layout of the proposed project
and the alternatives as follows:
■ I Distant views including views from Roundhill Estates North
and Via Romero in Alamo (east of Interstate 680) and from
one other view determined from computer modeling (3 mon-
15
i
_ I
I
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
tages) .
■ Middle distance views including views from Roundhill Golf
and Country Club development and from along Danville Boule-
vard (in Danville and in Alamo) (3 montages) .
■ Nearby views including views from E1 Pinto Road and from
selected adjoining residences showing effects of grading and
access roads (2 montages) .
I
I
A visual sensitivity map based on an on-site survey of sight
limes and surrounding development. This "Visual Access Map"
Will show the limits of the areas of high, medium and low visual
sensitivity based on visibility from off-site. This plan will be
drawn on a background supplied by the applicant.
i
Review and critique of the General Architectural Design Guide-
lines with specific emphasis on:
■ � Architectural style: Possible limitations on the variety of
styles within the neighborhood setting; contextual and his-
toric precedent in the Danville/Alamo area ; limiting the
vocabulary of materials, colors, and textures; roof shapes,
i forms and slopes.
■ � Bulk, height and coverage criteria: Suggest limitations on
building height, number of stories, floor area ratios and
lot size.
■ Site development guidelines: Critique and suggest revisions
for style and design of street lighting, signage and fencing
types and heights.
■ Planning style: Suggest design concepts that will create a
sense of "neighborhood" , of gateways and nodes, and that
will establish a continuity of architectural style as it re-
lates to lotting patterns.
I
I
16
I
I
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
Comparison of proposed project to applicant 's alternative site
plan showing possible plan without General Plan and zoning amend-
ments.
Create a schematic alternative/mitigated site plan incorporating
environmental analysis recommendations (11" x 1711) .
Create computer montages depicting the schematic site plan alter-
native on 4 of the photographs to demonstrate the visual effects
of the suggested mitigation measures (4 montage overlays) .
Public Services, Facilities and Utilities
I
■ ' From interviews with responsible officials in service-pro-
viding entities, and from published or unpublished materi-
als, evaluate the current demands and projected future capa-
bilities for storm drainage , wastewater collection and
treatment, water supply, fire protection, police protection,
school and park facilities, road and other maintenance re-
quirements, solid waste/refuse disposal , and other poten-
tially affected services.
■ I Identify new or revised information on any currently pro-
grammed changes or expansion in the capacities and levels of
service provided by responsible entities, as a basis for
evaluating their adequacy in meeting the demands generated
by the proposed project and associated, induced or cumula-
tive development in the Study Area.
■ Identify, evaluate and quantify the effects of the project
and of project alternatives upon public services and facili-
ties, maintenance of roads and other infrastructure, on fire
and police protection, schools and park facilities, and on
I other provisions.
■ Verify the current and anticipated capacity of the service-
providing entities and facilities, and evaluate the impact
1 I of the project in the context of other future demand induced
17
I
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
ISI
I - by the project, or likely to occur independently of the pro-
ject.
ro-ject.
■ Define a range of possible mitigation measures that appear
capable of alleviating any significant adverse effects, and
1 assess each measure for effectiveness , practicality and
overall equity. °
■ Conduct interviews with representatives of the service-pro-
viding departments and agencies, (including general govern-
ment, police and fire protection, and other service depart-
ments) to determine needed revisions in the previous esti-
mates of ongoing costs for providing services to the pro-
posed project.
Storm Drainage and Runoff:
� ■ Inventory existing drainage conditions and facilities
in the Study Area, and review and evaluate the current
drainage patterns and runoff estimates, and the status
of the present drainage system, including the size, ca-
pacity and location of main storm drains, unimproved
sections, and outfall location(s) .
■ Evaluate existing runoff quantities for the project
site and immediate surrounding areas. Current and past
1 flooding problems in the vicinity of the site will be
identified and described. Any existing water quality
I
problems or issues in the area will be identified.
1 ■ Estimate impacts of increased runoff quantities genera-
ted by the proposed development including any hillside
' grading activities. These projected flows will be eval-
uated with respect to the capacity of the drainage fa-
j cilities in the area. The needs for improvement of ex-
- i
isting drainage facilities and installation of addi-
tional drainage systems to accommodate the proposed
project will be evaluated. This may include considera-
1 ii 18
1
I
i
II. 41TUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
tion of major channel improvements, alternative outfall
locations and on-site detention of runoff, if appropri-
ate.
■ Identify any flooding hazards associated with the pro-
ject site and evaluate the potential impacts of flood-
ing on the proposed land uses as well as the possible
change in flooding conditions due to the project. The
quality of runoff from the site will be assessed in
terms of its impacts on receiving waters.
■ Evaluate the potential for drainage and water quality
impacts due to construction-generated erosion. The need
for specific erosion control measures will be assessed.
Waste Water Collection, Treatment and Disposal:
■ Inventory and describe the features of the existing
sanitary sewage system, and identify and review the
status of the existing collection system within and ad-
jacent to the Study Area, including the size, capacity
and location of sewer lines.
■ Identify available capacity in existing sewage facili-
ties, including main collection lines, pump station(s) ,
treatment or disposal facilities serving the general
I project area. This will include a review of the Central
i
1 Contra Costa County treatment facilities.
I` ■ Identify and analyze any current or recent capacity
' limitations and/or problems in collection, treatment or
disposal facilities, and discuss planned improvements .
■ Estimate the sewage loadings from the proposed develop-
Iment .of the project area, including allowance for in-
filtration and inflow, if expected. These loadings will
�- be compared with available capacities in the present
Isystem. This will include a review of the recent evalu-
.I i
I19
I
7-
i II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
# i
ation of the collection system, treatment facilities
and disposal capacity conducted by the Central Contra
Costa sanitary district and the applicant' s engineers.
■ Identify mitigation measures as required to minimize
i
impacts on sewage treatment operation, including: con-
tributions to upgrading or expansion of existing treat-
ment and/or collection facilities.
Water Supply:
N ■ Estimate water supply demands associated with the pro-
ject. This will consider all water use requirements and
fire protection needs.
■ Evaluate the adequacy of the supply systems as well as
the availability of water. Any requirements for expan-
sion of the existing water services storage and distri-
bution systems will be identified.
■ Current or recent problems with the water system, in-
cluding its adequacy to meet standards for fire-flows.
■ Identify mitigation measures, focusing primarily on any
_ needs for augmenting current water supplies and upgrad-
ing, extending or expanding existing water system, in-
cluding storage.
Emergency Services:
■ Describe the police and fire protection service systems
1 with respect to personnel, equipment and response times
to the project site.
■ Describe public safety issues and procedures related to
existing emergency response provisions.
20
f
` s s
• I II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
■ Identify the impact upon the police and fire service
systems that are likely to result from or be required
by the project.
■ Identify necessary additional personnel or equipment
required by these service providers as a result of the
project.
Iother Public Services:
` o Describe the characteristics and factors affecting the
existing facilities and available capacities of other
appropriate public service providers likely to be af-
fected by the project. Such facilities include nearby
schools , parks , solid waste disposal , and energy
facilities.
■ Identify and quantify the extent of demand for public
school facilities and services likely to be generated
by the proposed residential units in the project. Re-
view any estimates prepared by the affected School Dis-
trict(s) and confirm/revise the projections in relation
to proposed or probable buildout schedules.
(�1 ■ Evaluate any changes in the jurisdictional boundaries,
spheres of influence, etc. of school service providers.
1
■ Define necessary and appropriate mitigation measures to
meet school facility demand.
■ Estimate the character and magnitude of demand for
park, open space or recreational provisions generated
by the proposed project, and determine the extent to
which the facilities and areas it incorporates are ade-
quate to meet these demands.
I ■ Identify mitigation measures required to satisfy unmet
demands for park facilities or recreation services.
I 1�
21
I
I
,I II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
■ Assess the project 's impacts upon any additional ser-
vice providers identified as requiring study. Such im-
pacts might include the effects upon energy utilities,
solid waste disposal services and other service provid-
ers.
Noise
I Determining potential future noise impacts for this project re-
quires an evaluation of noise levels with respect to criteria de-
veloped by local and state governments. The criteria vary for
different types of land uses and noise sources.
■l County of Contra Costa and Town of Danville: The City ' s
General Plan include compatibility guidelines for new devel-
opments . They determine the compatibility of a particular
land use based on the noise exposure of the site.
■ State of California (Title 24 , Part 2 , California Adminis-
trative Code) : The State of California has developed acous-
tical criteria for multi-family residential dwelling units,
hotels, and motels in the State of California. When these
land uses are exposed to outdoor noise levels in excess of a
CNEL of 60 dB, an acoustical report must be prepared to show
how the design of the building will reduce interior noise
levels to a CNEL of 45 dB.
■ Measurement of Existing Noise Sources: Review any available
_ evaluations of the existing noise environment on and around
i the project site. It is anticipated that additional environ-
mental noise surveys and other work to establish baseline
conditions will be required. Noise measurements will be made
' on the site and along the streets serving the site . These
later measurements will provide baseline information against
which to assess the noise impacts generated by traffic added
' to these streets as a result of project development.
22
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
The potential noise impacts of the proposed project on ex-
isting land uses will be quantified. The potential increases
in traffic noise and the corresponding potential for adverse
community response will be analyzed in terms of available
traffic data and will represent the primary focus of the
work to be undertaken. The •potential for noise increases due
to the new development will be calculated. Finally, the
short-term construction-generated noise impacts on existing
residences adjacent to the project site will be assessed.
r
Mitigation of identified impacts could take the form of re-
visions to the road configuration, construction of sound
barriers, property line noise limits that could be included
in the CCC&Rs for the proposed development, and controls on
the construction process.
Air Quality
The major construction impacts related to the proposed project
would be due to equipment, vehicles and construction materials.
Emissions from equipment exhaust and windblown dust would be
identified. The potential for windblown dust or other construc-
tion impacts would be evaluated based upon prevailing wind pat-
terns, surrounding land uses, and the soils of the area.
The permanent air quality impact analysis would focus on two
scales : the local scale and the regional scale. The steps re-
quired to prepare the local scale analysis of carbon monoxide im-
pacts are:
■ I Prepare a description of the climate and meteorology of the
project area, historical air quality data, and current ef-
forts to attain and maintain the state and federal air qual-
ity standards.
1 ■ Identify all sensitive receptors for air pollutants in the
vicinity of the project.
- I
23
II
I
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
�. Perform microscale modelling of carbon monoxide levels near
intersections selected as having the greatest potential of
carbon monoxide problems, using the CALINE-4 computer model .
■ Compare predicted carbon monoxide concentrations with State
and federal standards and determine the significance of CO
impacts.
■ Discuss microscale effects within the project air basin, in-
cluding the effect of wood smoke on visibility and local air
quality.
The steps required to prepare the regional impact of the proposed
project are:
■ ! Prepare an analysis of regional changes in emissions due to
construction of the project for a future year based on
regional travel and speed data provided by the project
transportation consultant. The URBEMIS-2 computer program
i
would be employed.
I ■ Prepare an analysis of the project ' s relationship and con-
formity to the thresholds of significance recommended by the
IBay Area Air Quality Management District.
` The analysis of mitigation measures requires the following tasks:
■ Develop, together with the project transportation consul-
1 tant, mitigation measures for air quality impacts.
■ Suggest means of post-project monitoring.
Other Environmental Conditions
Archaeology and Cultural Resources:
` Recent information from Sonoma State University Anthropological
1 24
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
Studies Center has indicated that the site may be of moderate ar-
chaeological sensitivity, but no on-site analysis has been per-
formed. Archaeological field reconnaissance and preliminary his-
torical archival research are proposed through the following
tasks:
r Conduct preliminary archival research for the project site
in order to determine the location of any associated struc-
tures or other archaeological or cultural resource sites
which may once have existed -- physical evidence of these
resources may still exist but be obscured as a result of
i
more recent activities which have taken place at the project
site.
1 ■ 'i Conduct a field reconnaissance of the project site (with
particular attention to the stream area) in order to locate
any known resources and record any previously unrecorded
archaeological or historical sites.
01 Present findings along with maps showing the location and
surface extent of any archaeological or historical cultural
resources within the DEIR, which will state what adverse im-
pacts the project may have on any cultural resources and
will make mitigation recommendations.
Hazardous/Toxic Materials:
■ Review of available information on previous use and storage
of toxic materials on the project site. This review will in-
clude but not necessarily be limited to:
- County Agencies (Health Department)
' - San Ramon Valley Fire Department
- Town Offices
- Previous owners/managers
■ Evaluate and describe the known, suspected or possible exis-
tence of hazardous/toxic materials on the project site, and
25
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
the extent to which these materials may impact the develop-
ment of the project.
Impact Summary
In addition to the impact categories described above, the EIR
swill evaluate the project and the alternatives in regard to other
,summary impact headings as required by CEQA.
■ Cumulative Impacts: Consideration of proposed uses in con-
junction with possible future cumulative or induced develop-
ment of other sites in the vicinity, to provide a more com-
prehensive assessment of the project' s impacts on the local
environment.
o Short- and Long-term Impacts: Comparison between immediate
positive effects of project implementation (e.g. provision
of housing, increase in economic activity, etc. ) and possi-
ble longer-term opportunities which may be preempted.
1 Irreversible or Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Identification
of project-induced irreversible or unavoidable adverse im-
pacts. These may include more intensive use of the site, in-
creases in traffic congestion and associated impacts (e.g.
noise, air pollution) .
■I Growth-Inducing Impacts: The direct or indirect effects
fostered by the project, in terms of economic or population
growth, construction of additional housing, or required ex-
pansion of public facilities will be addressed. This section
is designed to assess project characteristics that encourage
Ior facilitate other activities that could significantly af-
fect the environment.
(■
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Components: The
overall character of the monitoring and reporting program
' called for by the mitigation measures identified as avail-
able for reducing the level of significance of impacts re-
I
I26
i
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
1
sulting from the project as proposed will be described and
defined, and the procedures for its implementation itemized.
Mitigation measures will be developed that appear to offer oppor-
1 (unities to lessen or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the
project and alternatives . These may relate to restrictions on
construction activity, phasing of development, scheduling of im-
pIrovements, and expansion of service capacities, among others.
We place considerable emphasis on defining realistic and practi-
cal mitigation measures directly linked to the identified im-
p!acts,
m-pacts, and scaled to the degree of significance they present .
Their scheduling implications and the allocation of responsibili-
ty for their implementation will be defined and described. Moni-
toring and reporting program requirements will be defined as de-
scribed above.
TASK 3: PREPARE DRAFT EIR, PUBLIC REVIEW
The objective of this phase is to produce a concise (not exceed-
ing 80-100 pages in length) and clear report identifying and
sum-marizing the most significant potentially adverse impacts of the
proposed project and the alternatives. It will also include ma-
terial identifying the persons and organizations contacted, and a
list of reference materials consulted. Figure 1 indicates a pre-
liminary format/organization for the Draft EIR text.
Each of the defined issue topic areas (e.g. Land Use Changes ,
Visual Impacts, Public Facilities and Services, etc . ) will be
1 discussed under the following headings : Setting (existing en-
vironment) , Impacts (with emphasis on the adverse impacts which
cannot be avoided if project/alternatives are implemented) , and
Mitigation Measures to minimize adverse impacts.
' 27
,I
Figure 1 •
PRELIMINARY FORMAT/ORGANIZATION OF DRAFT EIR
Proposed Alamo Springs Project
County of Contra Costa, California
Executive Summary - Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Mondoring/Reporting program
requirements
I. Introduction
A. Nature and Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
B. Content and Organization of the EIR
C. EIR Methodology and Review Process
11. Description of the Project
A. Location and Environs of the Project Site
B. The Project Site
C. Description of the Project, Relationship to Prior Applications
D. Identification of Cumulative Projects
(Chapters III through VIII address setting,impacts and mitigation measures tar each topic area.)
111. Planning Policy, Community Development and Land Use/Jurisdictional Context
IV. Traffic, Circulation, Parking and Access
V. Geotechnical Factors and Hazards
i VI. Visual and Design Considerations
IVII. Storm Drainage, Water Supply/Quality, and Wastewater
VIII. Other Public Services and Facilities
IX. Noise
I
X. Air Quality
XI. Other Considerations
1 XII. Overview of Evaluation
A. Unavoidable/Irreversible Adverse Impacts
B. Short-Term Use versus Long-Term Productivity
C. Growth-Inducing Impacts
1 D Cumulative Impacts
L Effects Found Not to be Significant
E Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
XIII. Alternatives to the Project
A: No Project
B. Reduced Intensity of Development
Cml Development of Alternative Site
XIV. Participants and References
A.� EIR Authors
B., Organizations and Persons Contacted
C. References 28
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
In most assessment projects we have undertaken, we have prepared
an Executive Summary, outlining in concise form the results of
the evaluation of major topic areas , and including mitigation
'measures and alternative. This has been included at the beginning
of the document. In these instances, references were provided as
a key to the pages in the body of the text containing more de-
'tailed discussion of each topical issue.
We would propose to incorporate discussion and evaluation of all
of the issue topics in an integrated form in one report, rather
than submit separate reports for some substantive areas (e. g .
traffic) . It may, however, be desirable to prepare some back-
ground technical support materials in the form of an appendix to
the Draft EIR if this is acceptable and would contribute to
greater coherence and public understanding.
The tasks in this phase are listed below:
■'I Prepare Administrative Review version of Draft EIR for sub-
mission to and review by the project staff, summarizing work
performed in Task 2 (completed within sixty-five (65) work-
days after definition of final scope. ) (Submit 10 copies. )
t Prepare Public Review version of Draft EIR reflecting any
corrections or comments of the staff (completed within a
maximum of ten (10) work days after comments from the pro-
ject staff are received) . (Submit one (1) camera-ready re-
producible copy. ) *
* The Consultants are also willing and able to undertake the
reproduction of all documents for public review, in the quan-
tities determined to be required, as a pass-through cost item.
1If the costs of all reproduction are to be included in the
'firm fixed-fee price, we will prepare and submit a revised
cost figure.
29
,
I
II. STUDY DESIGN OUTLINE
■ Attend up to a total of five (5) meetings with the Planning
Commission(s) , Board of Supervisors and/or other public
bodies. Provision for attendance at up to an overall total
of five (5) such meetings during the course of the program
is included within the fixed fee indicated in this Proposal .
The Consultants are prepared and willing to attend any addi-
tional meetings that maybe necessary for consideration on
the Draft or Final EIR on a time and expense basis.
TASK 4: PREPARE FINAL EIR
This phase will entail the compilation of public comments on the
Draft EIR, the preparation of responses to these comments, and of
additional and clarifying material if required by these public
comments.
The tasks in this phase are listed below:
■ Prepare the' Final EIR, which includes compiled and indexed
public comments, and the responses thereto, within no more
than fifteen (15) work days following authorization to pro-
ceed. (Submit one (1) camera-ready reproducible copy. ) *
■ ', Attend public meetings, as requested, with the Planning Com-
mission(s) , Board of Supervisors and/or other public bodies.
Provision for attendance at up to an overall total of five
(5) such meetings during the course of the program is in-
cluded within the fixed fee indicated in this Proposal. The
Consultants are prepared and willing to attend any addi-
tional meetings that may be necessary for consideration on
the Draft or Final EIR on a time and expense basis.
�I
* (see footnote on previous page)
30
i
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM
A'. COST ESTIMATE
Duncan & Jones, with its affiliate consultants, is prepared to
undertake the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report on
the proposed Alamo Springs proj'ect, as revised, through certifi-
cation of the final EIR for a fixed fee of $72,900. This budget
is based upon estimations of the labor and direct expenses which
we believe would be required to perform the work. The distribu-
tion of the budget among the members of the Consultant Team is
indicated in Figure 2, and by topic area in Figure 3 .
1 Figure 2
L DISTRIBUTION OF FEE BY CONSULTANT TEAM MEMBERS
EIR for Proposed Alamo Springs Project
County of Contra Costa, California
I
Duncan & Jones $28 , 200
Parker and Associates 33 , 600
Questa Engineering Corporation 7 , 150
Illingworth & Rodkin 2 , 150
Donald M. Ballanti 1 , 800
TOTAL FEE: $72 , 900
I
I�
This fixed fee includes provision - for attendance by the Project
Manager (Douglas Duncan) at up to an overall total of five (5)
public meetings/hearings. The initial Briefing Meeting with the
project staff is also included in the fixed fee. The Consultants
are prepared and willing to attend any additional public hear-
ing,s/meetings that may be necessary for consideration of the
Draft or Final EIR on a time and expense basis. The fixed fee in-
cludes the provision of ten (10) copies of the Administrative
Draft EIR. In the determination of the fixed fee, the Public
Review .version of the Draft EIR has been assumed to be submitted
to the County in the form of a camera-ready reproducible original
31
1
I
Ul
4J
Ul
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ta C
U O O O O LO O l[1 In LO O Ln O In O O O O aJ \ O
CO CO ri t0 N 111 t0 t0 M 'd' H M !n In ri r 01 C Ul •ri
14 . . . . . td ro {J
ro ON M v M v N ri ri ri M N ri i") N M M N aJ •r) to
4J N r H 'o fa
E-1 �} !A N {J LL
A O O
1En U H U
ro
O a) O Q ro ° G
U th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'CS U C •rl
C 0 O O 1n O ul In 0 m In O O O n 0 1n r a) -ri r~ f4
41 a) M ri ri r-I ri ri ri r-I M JJ O U a)
N W v> :1 U 4J C
'O a) O r i
>~ +J a) tr -ri
A O O tT C a-)
U a) W C
U ri ro
E fu
4-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o � �i C 4J ,r-i
U o o o 1n to u1 0 0 o u1 1n o u1 1n o ut o ro o m ro
W a) ro ul r O 1n H q. tD t0 M Cl O r IT KV O M N b is •ri a) W
r-)-ri 4-) . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ri O +J
-0 rlrl En OD O N M tl' M V N H r-I r-I M N H M N Mm O :1 r-4 -r-I 0 '»
yaw u v> cra 3 Q)
En -r1
W ro U C
tr ri m• a a
H •rC"i V t >r 4J fa ••
WQ >a $4 In N N %r in O O CCI � O t0 O O N O N O ri C: -ri04 .�
t� U] 10 O M n r M N N N t0 N N t0 q v M ro al :3 W
M 9+ O J x tu a) a) m A
CT i�7 .Q (aJ P � ro
h tn ro (0U C
43 .•. Cl (aF] .-. .a p4 r1 a) OPro a) z 4 La H
h A z ri 'O U)
x 0u a O A H � a >
, C
F3] (' -ri yJ O ri
O O w {J .a O U U fJ .a x
a0 D a) A -•-i to \ to a LS
>r .a ••i -ri 1-7 •H V V -H 4J O
)a 4J a > w \ 41 >. :j W C JJ x
'H 0 a A C ,� O O Rl m U a) 0 (aLa
O U) a) rl ri $4 D {4 rl -ri a L�
H
A W U hWro` mN'Jro ` 14H P � > a 4) V a
% 2 3J -HJA )1 •;4 .s
-I U
Fi 0 M W a of
0 WU °+ a) 4 o v (a
r-I 0 ot roi v
j O : Cl a) — W U •ri ..
V ON 0 Oi N -ri tT 4J a) N a) O ri
O a) U •d M W
ri
.0 a \ O U) W -ri w : 0) .N H
P4 U) O H O a) 47 N T1 A 't7 ri O O Ul
\ d 4 = is •ri in 0 O ro C +s ro a) a
Ul C > >a H =1 ro Ul ri 3i >~ C C .a
10 -H O O R; )4 U a) li U V a O 'O r- O H
O JJ A (0 a W % a) i~ Z •ri M a) O h --
-ri (o (o4 \ 3 Ot 4 a0 -ri a) Ul +J a) 0
4J -riC -PM ri a) a) — ri A C :j1 U •ri V Ul •a
1 Cd >.i 3a -4 10 tr (n ro h —4O a) i ro a)
N
r I 0 a) a) R ro >r U w U •a 4 'b -ri cn U) C
:1 aJ 1s Z O r. r4 -.i La >, U 0 A p. 10 U ro >r ro
f~ •ri r 4 \ •ri •ri N CL Es a ,J -ri 'q -- ro O r-i U
-ri 3i Q >i iJ (0 a) 04 a) >r w •ri t1 f-. F+ >+ Ul a) ro i~
i fA U \ 4J U Si aJ O 4 U H ri O H Ul C9 C Ul P C �
4J4.) -ri —1 A ro (nU 9 ro Ei M \ Q Q 1d to
U ri (. U C 'O 3 a) :54 C JJ
a) (VtT a) a to al P U tT a) O< �4 V •.i 1i ••
• C •ri r-I -1+ +) a) -ri >4 U) a) 3 v O a) h
.0 W N O 1 P O U) 4-) k a) -ri P 4 O a) p, 4J .a
0 -Ha) )i O P V cd COO 0 O •ri y) )-i a O O O
Lo > A a U Ii al 3 3 H W z Q 0 0 Z 0; z
32
I
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM
1
for reproduction in the quantities required. Duncan & Jones is
1 prepared to assume the responsibility of handling the report
reproduction on a pass-through cost basis , or is prepared to
revise the fixed fee quoted to reflect some assumptions on the
Iactual ultimate costs likely to be involved.
The fixed fee is predicated on the preparation of a Response-to-
I Comments document of average length and complexity, such as would
beirequired by the receipt of 10 to 15 letters, a total of 45 to
1 50 �discrete comments requiring response, and a Response section
totalling about 30 pages, and assumes a distribution of responsi-
bility by affiliates in proportion to their respective budgets .
If the volume and character of comments actually received sig-
nificantly exceeds these assumptions , provision should be made
1 for amendment of the fee, based upon estimates of the additional
J time and costs involved.
The fixed fee quoted is subject to discussion and negotiation in
relation to changes in the Scope of Work that may be determined
to be necessary or desirable. We are certainly prepared and will-
ing to engage in such negotiation if the County ' s requirements
can be better reflected. We have assumed that the project staff
would be responsible for the distribution of the documents
prepared by the Consultants.
B.1 STAFFING
The Consultant Team will be staffed by the following individuals,
whose qualifications and experience are described in detail in
Chapter IV of the Proposal . The senior staff persons identified
for participation in this project will be major contributors to
the study, and this commitment will be defined as a contractual
requirement. The hourly rates charged for each member of the team
are shown in parentheses following each name.
i
i
33
1
i
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM
DUNCAN & JONES, Urban & Environmental Planning Consultants
■ Douglas H.S. Duncan, AICP, ($75) Principal & Project Manager
■ John Courtney, ($50) Associate Planner
■ Andrew Young,. ($45) Associate Planner
PARKER & ASSOCIATES, Visual Simulation and Design Consultants
■ Dan Parker, ($100) Principal
I
QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Civil/Environmental/Agricultural
Engineers
■ Norman N. Hantzsche, ($100) Principal/Managing Engineer
Resources Engineer
■ I David Harlan, ($65) Civil Engineer
■ � Peter Martin, ($55) Environmental Engineer
I
ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. , Acoustical Engineers
■ Richard Illingworth, PE, ($90) Principal
■ l Richard Rodkin, PE, ($90) Principal
3
DONALD BALLANTI, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
i ■� Donald Ballanti, ($85) Principal
I
I
Each of these individuals is experienced in the preparation of
environmental impact documents and has substantial prior and cur-
rent experience in working together as a Consultant Team.
i
I
CI. PROGRAM SCHEDULE
Duncan & Jones is prepared to begin work on the EIR for the pro-
ject within five (5) working days from contract execution.
i
i
_ 34
i
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM
We propose to submit the Administrative Draft EIR within sixty-
five (65) work days following the definition of the final scope.
After review of the Administrative Draft EIR by the project
staff, and receipt of the comments , we intend to execute the
necessary revisions and produce the Draft EIR within a maximum
period of ten (10) work days. Following the required period for
public review and comment on the Draft EIR, we would prepare and
submit the Final EIR containing the compiled public comments, and
the responses to the comments, within no more than a fifteen (15)
workday period following receipt of authorization to proceed from
the joint project staff.
The ability of the Consultants to perform according to the pro-
posed schedule is contingent upon being provided with all avail-
able information pertaining to the revised project at the time of
the program start-up. Modification in the established schedule
should be permitted if information is not received from the
County or the Applicant in a timely fashion, or if major changes
are made to the project proposal after the EIR program has com-
menced.
i
I
i
i
i
35
r
i
. (( APPENDIX D
• UCS ii rCr�j
.,
DUNCAN & JONES
j P._t r, Urban & Environmental Planning Consultants
^r, � .t
2161 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley , California 94704 Telephone: (Area Code 415) 841-1101
July 31 1990
Mr. Robert Drake, Senior Planner
County of Contra Costa
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Ref. Proposal for EIR:
Alamo Springs Project
Our Ref: P-2485
Dear Mr. Drake,
We submitted a Proposal to prepare an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on the Alamo Springs project to Nancy Stoltz (Project Man-
ager, Alamo Springs Joint Project Review Office) on April 25,
1990 . Subsequent discussions with you and Ms. Stoltz indicated
that certain revisions in our original proposal would be needed.
The most significant change is in our selection of an affiliate
for the visual and design analysis portion of the EIR. In the
original Proposal, Parker & Associates, Inc. was identified as
the visual simulation and design consultants for this EIR, but we
have subsequently selected David L. Gates & Associates to conduct
these analyses. Additionally, Holman & Associates and Gary Beeman
have been added to our list of affiliates to conduct an analysis
of archaeological and wildlife habitats factors, respectively.
David L. Gates & Associates should replace Parker & Associates
in the original Proposal wherever reference is made to the lat-
ter. Holman & Associates, Archaeological Consultants, . and Gary
Beeman, Wildlife Biologist Consultant can be added to any list
of our affiliated consultants which appears in the Proposal .
Discussions last week indicated that the number of alternative
scenarios which will be defined would be expanded to four. The
options include the project site developed under current zoning
regulations using the existing access road, the project site de-
veloped with an alternate access road, the project site developed
under the proposed Contra Costa County General Plan, a mitigated
Robert Drake, Contra Costa County
July 3 , 1990
Page 2
alternative, and an alternate site. The paragraph on page 2 of
our original Proposal should be modified to reflect a new maximum
of four alternative scenarios.
On page 3 , the following description of the firm of David L.
Gates & Associates can be substituted for the paragraph which
addressed Parker &Associates:
■ DAVID L. GATES & ASSOCIATES, Urban Design/Land Planning/
Landscape Architecture Consultants, has provided project
review services for a number of Bay Area cities, including
the City of Walnut Creek and the City of Dublin. The firm
is typically asked to review major development proposals
and develop specific design recommendations which satisfy
goals for unique, variable environments while recognizing
the developer's concerns.
On page 5, paragraphs can be added to briefly describe the work
of Holman & Associates and Gary Beeman:
HOLMAN & ASSOCIATES, provides archaeological investigations
and analysis for Federal, State and local government agen-
cies. The principal, Miley Paul Holman, has been a Principal
Investigator or Project Director for archaeological/historic
excavations for the past 12 years, and has seven prior years
of archaeological experience as either a Crew Chief, Field
Investigator, or Laboratory Technician. Mr. Holman has had a
long association with the Department of Anthropology at San
Francisco State University, and is a member of the Society
for California Archaeology.
■ GARY A. BEEMAN, Wildlife Biologist Consultant, has conducted
wildlife studies throughout California, including field sur-
veys of the Alameda whipsnake, California tiger salamander
and red-legged frog in Contra Costa County. He is ,currently
a committee member of the Alameda whipsnake work group for
the California Department of Fish and Game.
On page 9, the following tasks to be addressed may be added to
the original Proposal:
■ The potential impacts of the project on any archaeological
or cultural resources which may be located on the site.
Robert Drake, Contra Costa County
July 3 , 1990
Page 3
■ The possible impacts on wildlife (particularly the "rare"
Alameda whipsnake) which may result from project develop-
ment.
Beginning on page 15 , the following information should be sub-
stituted for the original text dealing with Visual Simulation/
Site Analysis•
Orientation:
■ Attend an initial meeting with the joint project staff and
the consultant team to review the work program and establish
a schedule.
■ Obtain base data from the applicants and the joint project
staff including all ordinances, planning documents, base
maps, plans and maps potentially useful in preparing the
EIR.
Policy Review:
■ Review relevant planning documents including the Danville
and Contra Costa County General Plans.,. zoning ordinances,
minutes of any relevant public hearings, Planning Commission
meetings, etc.
■ Confirm policy interpretations with joint project staff.
Field Reconnaissance:
■ Conduct a site observation to identify areas of visual prom-
inence and spatial/natural features which will need to be
considered in evaluating the visual impacts of the project.
■ Prepare a photo inventory of the site and a key map.
■ Meet with the joint project staff and the consultant team to
review preliminary visual analysis and select viewpoints.
Photo Montage:
■ Prepare a computer model using proposed grading and housing
locations provided by the applicant.
Robert Drake, Contra Costa County
July 3, 1990
Page 4
■, Prepare 16" by 20" black and white photo montages of three
(3) selected views of the proposed project.
Project and Alternatives Visual Analysis:
N Prepare outline text of visual impacts of proposed Project
site plan (Final text by Duncan & Jones) .
Prepare 16" by 20" black and white photo montages for three
(3) alternatives for the project site from the three ( 3)
viewpoints used in the visual analysis of the proposed pro-
ject. (It is assumed that grading data used for the computer
model of the proposed project would remain the same. If any
grading changes are required in evaluating alternatives, the
model would need to be changed at additional expense) .
Entry/Access Study:
0 Prepare conceptual study of access to mitigate visual im-
pacts.
The proposed project design guidelines would be reviewed and
evaluated for appropriateness to the project setting as follows:
Landscaping:
i Evaluate the planned landscaping elements in relation to the
existing vegetation patterns on the project site.
■ Evaluate the appropriateness of the type of plants selected
for the project site with respect to use (screening, ground
cover, etc. ) .
Architecture:
il Evaluate the architectural character of the proposed project
with respect to the topography of the setting.
a Evaluate proposed residential development in terms of how
well colors and materials used will blend with the hilltop
environment.
�I
Robert Drake, Contra Costa County
July 3, 1990
Page 5
Other Design Concerns:
Evaluate proposed fencing, walls and entryway design charac-
teristics for appropriateness in the project setting.
i Evaluate any proposed CC&Rs which address design elements of
auxiliary structures permitted on individual lots.
On page 24, the following information should be substituted for
the Archaeological and Cultural Resources portion of the Other
Environmental Concerns section:
f
Conduct preliminary archival research for the project site
in order to determine the location of any structures or
other archaeological/cultural artifacts which may once have
existed.
Complete a field inspection of the project site to locate
any known historic sites identified during research, and
record any previously unknown historic or prehistoric sites
found during this field reconnaissance.
i
0 Present findings summarizing field and archival research,
and if sites are discovered, give a preliminary evaluation
of their importance. Recommendations will be made for the
further evaluation of any archaeological/cultural resources
which may be impacted by the proposed project.
,
Also within the Other Environmental Concerns section, the follow-
ing information related to wildlife habitat may be added:
Field surveys will be conducted to determine if the project site
contains areas which may be used as habitat for the Alameda whip-
snake and the red-legged frog. It would probably not be, possible
to determine whether the project site provides habitat for the
California tiger salamander during the period in which this EZR
is being prepared, because such surveys can effectively evaluate
tiger salamander habitat only in the months from November through
February. However, during the course of field surveys related to
the red-legged frog, it may be possible to find some evidence of
tiger salamander activity, which may provide a basis for comment
on the suitability of the project site as a potential salamander
habitat. The possible restriction of wildlife movement which may
result from the proposed development will also be addressed.
i
Robert Drake, Contra Costa County
July 3, 1990
Page 6
On page 31 of the original Proposal, Figure 2 should be changed
as follows:
Figure 2
DISTRIBUTION OF FEE BY CONSULTANT TEAM MEMBERS
EIR for Proposed Alamo Springs Project
County of Contra Costa, California
Duncan & Jones $31, 700
David L. Gates & Associates 18, 100
Questa Engineering Corporation 71150
Illingworth & Rodkin 2 , 150
Donald M. Ballanti 1, 800
Holman & Associates 11900
Gary Beeman 1. 500
I
TOTAL FEE: $64, 300
Figure 3 on page 32 will also be amended, and the revised Figure
3, is enclosed to replace the one in the original Proposal.
On page 34, delete "Parker & Associates" information and add:
DAVID L. GATES & ASSOCIATES, Urban Design/Land Planning/Landscape
I Architecture Consultants
0 David L. Gates, ($85) Principal
Linda Gates, ($55) Principal
HOLMAN & ASSOCIATES, Archaeological Consultants
0 Miley Paul Holman ($60) Principal
GARY BEEMAN, Wildlife Biologist Consultant
1i Gary Beeman ($60) Principal
On page 36, delete "Parker & Associates" and add "David L. Gates
& Associates, Holman & Associates and Gary Beeman to the list of
firms on the Consultant Team. Information on each of these three
additional firms is enclosed.
i
i
t
Robert Drake, Contra Costa County
July 3 , 1990
Page 7
i
I
We would look forward to assisting the County and the City of
Danville in undertaking preparation of the EIR for the Alamo
Springs project. Please feel free to contact me if you require
any further information or explanation.
Sincerely,
DUNCAN & JONES ('
Doug aVH. D , AICP
Principal
Enclosure: Revised Figure 3
Qualifications Information (Gates, Holman, Beeman)
/cc: Nancy Stoltz, Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, Inc.
vvvv
f
i
i
i
i
i
�I
i
I
a
v
z 00 V4 > > ZW1-3 :4 :40g0 V 0 �
x 0 H o K m@ K rt H• K P. o 5 0 At P rt G O K@ @ � @ H- Irt RN st+ G rt O V OY O K wX rt N O K O N w
y y O @ 0 rt E@ t1 O• NK r• @ rt � H• G
m K r- ct K r AI 10 tD to 0 K@ N z@ Q 0O rt O Or@ G @ :4a z 0 G r S+ >1 ct `. LQ HO 0) O 0 w 01 U r• w rt
O G @ : K w z 41 OF H O (D Y r H 0 �r G rt K 0 rt \ 0 to
r O N W @ U) 'C > K O 10 O r• set &d @ 'O (t) 0 rt > K H-
50
•5O r ON Q. r- x Q ct xf 5 10 K P. H- r r- 5
tv a tr 'C 0 O w R sy to t7 G 0 W at w Y \ :3 O z rt rt G
:j O O N N r- Q. H• O sr 0 N V 0 "C W O fD @@ r
G @ to AF tz O w t•F @ P. .. ..
m z K to G rt P. H- 0 \- 0 — ct x t7 rt Y -\ @ @ N iU H• rt
N t4 @ rt U! N (D 0 A) R+ w or ro E \ AI AI w
y y \ O @ N H• ct O m ft y•-- @ fD to tr rt o
ut z O G O W K R C-4 ^ y K N W G H K C O m
m 11
0u@F En rt '� o ¢. w Yoo a m (D $1 m0Hom It
P. N N @ O G 0 N � " U) 0 o
rct O 19 N K ,(D O rt F l- N 10 G G LQ rt
N M N tv @ F �� a O @ C} 10 N M G F ' 0
-. 0 iv C R7 r• an O N tTf C r W o
C7 O K As K C4 \ tri 0 . @ AI rt O
H t' 1-i K@ "' n v $rt O H. O W
uH+ Z ID 0) rrt• Q. t'� 1%�D Pi W 't3 C :J W
a0 •• rt N tr @ rt (A 'Cf 0 5 @ N @
0- 0 @ w r K O K r- @ Uf
w .. 1w K N@ 0 0 a Y O 0 'd qty
-
- HC O M P. N, M C 0 0 ;vw
•• Y w G ct O M G rt �+
0 r tZ N F'
O rt H• (} (1 H- t'� - F' GS G M
'C , M K 0 0 :n O N G rrt• E rt Fi
0a rw " H 0t7 0 4gy r — y sr+ MorpOt
O
= m O (D
z C-4 d d n O z
:3 sew N CL w Art t ti ti 4 0 U) 0
O z H FKS ►P
w r 0) O rta En f].
a t r.
K o m m � o N a Ow izS
n AF ' @ SD N P a P N w N N O1 N N N w a rn to O1 N G O 5 G! t4
P- r• "•.f r P d N O N O P O d O1 d P O O W 471 O O O rC W
ul
Z @ LO $I N @ to
N to H
O N :3 W W N CI
vs f) ~
ti ti 0
db r• wW fz to tow0awa� OD •a0Wwrnrn ,a. wtnd •atn 0toW
to til O O tv 4� 00000 •9om004nto000tototo000 KK
-- 0 O 0 K tr 0 0000000000000000000 µ�0
.. „ o rug@ AF@
o 0 ~' Q 0 o t7 rt r�
AF N O @ $1 r-
r rt O rt O G N Y X 0
@ O 0 �rt -4 N W Y Y Y Y Y 1.4
Y Y O @ rt'
CT r• @ ON O t71 O U1 O O� O O O UI to U1 UI In O UI O O O Z
YtR O r• 0 � O 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 d 0 0 0 @ O
Fl. VI
A/ G rt W:3 0Y �C N rt
UI
w N f En
[I1 O
sl 0 r rn Y rt
H- rt Y Y N 4% W Lnw Ui
O U2 O
W .P. •.7 Y ul .P Ut lO 0 Y d> w o% Ot Ut N Ot Y 03 Ut
K \ rt o 0000000 o to 0 U1 to U1 0 to 000 Ut 0
ON O 0000000000000000000 N
K rt
fy N
rt
w
0