HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04071992 - 1.106 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
4.1
CCx)s'ta
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON � �JIJU
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � � �� "`J
DATE: March 171 1992
SUBJECT: Amendment of Contractual Services Agreement for 2845-RZ Environmental
Impact Report - E1 Sobrante Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZE the Director of Community Development to -execute the
amended contractual agreement to complete the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report for 2845-RZ (Silkstone Hill) . .
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicants for the project, Starker E1 Sobrante:.',La.nd;
Inc. and Harish Sinhal, has already committed the `necessary..
additional funding for the EIR costs ($19 , 720. 00) .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The County is processing a request to rezone the 7 . 6 acre site from
Single Family Residential (R-10) to Planned Unit Development (P-1) .
The property consists of descriptive parcels located on a private
road off of Sobrante Avenue, in the E1 Sobrante area. (Parcel
#430-200-008 , -011, -012) (ZA: H-6) (CT 3601)
The environmental impact report was under preparation when it
became evident that it would be extremely difficult to develop the
site as originally proposed due to steep-oak covered hillside
conditions.
Further preparation of the EIR was held in abeyance pending a
decision of the applicant of whether or not to continue the
project.
Recently the applicant decided to redesign the proposal and
complete the EIR process. Staff then requested a bid from the
environmental consultant (Environmental Collaborative of R' hmond)
to complete the EIR.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND A ION OF B RD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
.SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE /SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED- 4fe�o �
cc: Community Development Department !!
Public Works Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Auditor-Controller THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND C UNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
2 .
With the additional monies needed to complete the EIR the total
spent will rise over the $21, 999 maximum for staff approval, thus
requiring the Board's authorization to allow the Director of
Community Development to sign the contract amendment agreement.
Staff has every confidence that with this amendment the EIR for
2845-RZ (Silkstone Hill) will be completed and be processed for the
eventual review and Board certification.
Attached Exhibit "A" shows scope of work for amended EIR.
• APPENDIX A 1- 06
ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE
CONSULTATION • DOCUMENTATION • RESTORATION
127 Western Drive • Pt Richmond,CA 94601 • (415)236-2361
16 January 1992
P - FEIR Silk Stone Hill ESo.CCC
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Attn: Mr. AI*-6eresford
SUBJECT: Proposal to Prepare the Focused Environmental Impact Report
on the Revised Silk Stone Hill Project (County File #2845-RZ)
El Sobrante, California
Dear Art:
ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE is please to provide this proposal to revise the
Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the above project, and to complete
preparation of the Draft and Final EIR. Our original proposal was submitted to the County in
February of 1990, and provides a detailed discussion of the your major tasks involved in
completion of the environmental document for the project. These include: 1) preparation of the
Administrative Draft EIR; 2) preparation of the Draft EIR; 3) attendance at Public meetings; and
4) preparation of the Final EIR.
As you know, we had essentially completed the Draft EIR and were prepared to circulate the
report to the public when the applicant was approached by the County and chose to redesign
the project in an attempt to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the original approach
to development. The project design has since been modified by Michael Wcldemar �
Associates and a revised development plan was submitted to the County in October of 1991.
Provided below is a discussion of the revised scope and modified cost for completion of the Ei R
on the revised project plan.
SCOPE
The scope identified in our original proposal provides a detailed description of each task and
the approach to the environmental analysis. Unfortunately, much of the our original
Administrative Draft EIR (Task 1) must be revised to reflect changes in the project, and to
confirm conditions in the surrounding area, particularly with regard to traffic and circulation.
While much of the setting discussion most likely has not change for the site or surrounding area,
the discussion of potential impacts and mitigation will require substantial revision for each of the
environmental issues of concern. Changes will also be require to the repos: Summar/ (Chapier
1), project description (Chapter 2), planning considerations (Chapter 3), overview of projac-L-
impacts and mitigation (Chapter 5), and portions of the alternative discussion (Chapter 6).
Both our subconsulting transportation engineer and hydrologist will be involved in preparati01
of the revised document. As I indicated to you last week, the County Public Works Dep&rtment
has informed Mark Crane (our subconsulting transportation engineer) that the traffic counts and
Mt. rt Beresford
16 January 1992
Page 2
analysis:must be completely revised due to changes in conditions along Appian Way. A
detaik?d scope-and cost for the revised Traffic and Circulation section is attached (Attachment
1). This includes an optional analysis of the perceived impact of project traffic on the living
environment of Sobrante Avenue and Argyle Road using the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) methodology developed by Goodrich Traffic Group. I've also asked Dave
Harland wiftbuesta Engineers (our subconsulting hydrologist) to review his impact discussion
and runoff calculations from the original report, and confirm that the recommended mitigation
measures are still applicable.
COST
The total basic fee through preparation of the Draft EIR (Task 2) is estimated not-to-exceed
$15,025.00. As an optional item, the traffic analysis will include use of the TIRE methodology
at an estimated cost of $500.00. With this optional item, the total cost through preparation of
the Draft EIR is estimated at $15,525.00. Attachment 2 consists of a detailed cost estimate for
each task-.in the work program, with rough estimates provided for preparation of the Final EIR
and attendance at public hearings.
As stated in our original proposal, due to the potential controversy associated with the project,
the time spent preparing the responses to comments is difficult to estimate and would preferably
be done after receipt of comments on the Draft EIR. Similarly, the need for subconsuitants to
attend public hearings on the Draft EIR is difficult to predict. Rough cost estimates for
preparation of the Final EIR and attendance at public hearings are provided below, assuming
a moderate level of comments on the Draft EIR with no additional technical analysis and no
need of subconsultants at scheduled public hearings. Services beyond those specified above
or in=our original proposal to the County would be billed on a time and materials basis or as
negotiated with the.County. Specific instances which would require additional charges include,
but are=not limited to, attendance at public hearings beyond the number specified, and time
spent in excess of the total number of hours allocated for responding to comments.
Task Fee
Prepare ADEIR $13,425.00
With Optional TIRE Traffic Analysis 500.00
Prepare Draft EIR 1,600.00
Attend Public Hearings 620.00
Prepare Final EIR 3.575.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED BASIC COST $19,220.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST WITH OPTIONAL ANALYSIS $19,720.00
Mr. Art Beresford
16 January 1992
Page 3
1 khava.iattampted to keep costs associated with completion of the environmental document to
arf'absoltite:minimum: This includes relatively low estimate of the number of hours involved in
revising:text,ta the:administrative report (part of the not-to-exceed estimate), a reduction in the
Bost-of,pimparing lh&i Draft.EIR, -and use-of my 1990 billing rates ($50.00 per hour) which were
im effe hen"nai-proposal;:was originally submitted to the County in February of 1990.
[:am-av^ailable 3o.-discuss any aspect of the above or our original proposal to the County. I can
be- reachedr-by telephone at (510) 236-2361. Feel free to give me a call if you have any
questions or would like to suggest revisions to the scope or cost for completion of the
environmental document.
Sincerely, .:. .. -- .
ENVIRONMENTAL' COLLABORATIVE
- i
J"-os Martin
Principal
Mr. Art Beresford
16January 1992
Page 4
oave
s-� $�c;'` 1't'I?p•. .1:.t'. t>r�w��}`G'�('i. :"�i e; �' -.rrtc. .. .`.. _ .
ATTACHMENT 1
SCOPE AND COST OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Mr. Aft Beresford
16 January 1992 CRANE TRANSPORTATION cRoUp
Page 5
SILK STONE HILL EIR - REVISED
SCOPE OF SERVICES
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The proposec). scope is based upon my conversations with Mitch Avalon
in the county Public Works Department and upon our conversation
regarding the two-phase cumulative analysis approach. Due to the
significant construction that was taking place along Appian Way
during the field work stage of the initial project analysis, County
Public Works feels that all traffic counts should be redone to
reflect post-construction conditions. They are expecting volume
levels now to be higher and/or trip distribution patterns to be
changed versus what was surveyed for the previous study.
1. A field visit will be made to the site area by a registered
traffic engineer to document existing local area circulation
conditions. particular emphasis will be placed on surveys of
existing conditions along Argyle Road and Sobranto Avenue.
2. AM and PM peak period traffic counts will be conducted at the
following locations-,
Appian Way/Rancho Road
Appian Way/Manor Road
Appian Way/Argyle Road
Appian Way/Valley View Road
Appian Way/Sobrante Avenue
Appian Way/San Pablo Dam Road
Argyle Road/Andrew Way
Sobranto Avenue/Circle Drive
Sobrante Avenue/Valley View Road
Pedestrians and bicycle riders will also be counted at each
location.
3. Trrp .generation and distribution projections will be made for
the proposed project. Project traffic impacts will be determined
on the roadways near the site, at the intersections listed in scope !
item #Z, and on Interstate 80 in the E1 Sobrante area. Analysis of
project traffic impacts will be conducted assuming access to
Sobrante Avenue only. _`4 •
4. 'Two cUui* ative analysis scenarios will be analyzed. scenario
if will -look at the iinpacts due solely to a project roadway
connection to Andrew Way" (and potential use of the project's
private roadway as-, 'through route connection from Andrew Way to
Sobrante Avenue) . These impacts will be produced by a
redistribution of 'existing local area traffic, a redistribution of
project traffic to the second access, and new traffic to be
produced by those few additional units that would be located along
the project access drive connecting to Andrew Way. scenario 02
Will examine the circulation impacts due to a project access
connection to Andrew Way as well as due to development of all other
known or proposed developments in the area.
5. Proposed internal circulation will be examined in detail.
Particular attention will be paid to the implications of the
i
internal street system first serving as a private street system
(With one access connection to Sobrante Avenue) and then serving as
public Streets (with a second connection to Andrew Way) .
Additional widening may be required to bring private street curb-
to-curb widths up' to public street standards.
6. Impacts at project access points will be analyzed.
7. Measures will be recommended to mitigate any significant
impacts due to the project or cumulative traffic.
option* 1.
The perceived impact of project traffic on the living
environment of Sobrante Avenue and Argyle Road residents will be
determined using the Traffic Infusion' *on Residential Environment
(TIRE) 'methodology developed by the Goodrich Traffic Group.
ost O.f _Services '
The above scope of services can be completed for a fee not to
exceed $7.,800.00. This fee includes attendance at no public or
staff_ meetings. It aiso .;includes 5 hours,,response-to-comments
JF
optional, item #2 could be completed for a fee not to exceed
$500.00-1
...
a
I .
. i
Mr. Art Beresford
_-:1 6 January1992 . .:... .. .::
_... a $.-
ATTACHMENT 2
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
Mr. Art Beresford
16 January 1992
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 2
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
TASK 1: REVISE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Chapter 3 16 hrs.
Chapter 4
Land Use 8 hrs.
Traffic and Circulation Crane 7,375.00
Optional TIRE Methodology Crane 500.00
4 hrs.
Visual Quality and Aesthetics 8 hrs.
Biotic Resources 16 hrs.
Hydrology and Drainage Questa 650.00
2 hrs.
Utilities 2 hrs.
Chapter 5 4 hrs.
Chapter 6 8 hrs.
Project Management 16 hrs.
Graphics 20 hrs.
Wordprocessing 20 hrs.
Total Firm Hours 124 hrs.
Total Basic Labor 13,225.00
Expenses 200.00
TOTAL COST, TASK 1: 13,425.00
Total Labor, Optional Item 500.00
TOTAL COST, WITH OPTIONAL ITEM 13,925.00
TASK 2: PREPARE DRAFT EIR
Revise ADEIR 24 hrs.
Graphics 4 hrs.
Wordprocessing 8 hrs.
Total Firm Hours 36 hrs.
Total Labor $1,500.00
Expenses 100.00
Mr. Art Beresford
16 January_ 1992
Page 10
TOTAL COST, TASK 2 $1,600.00
TASK 3: ATTEND PUBLIC HEARINGS
Attend two.Public Hearings 12 hrs.
Total Firm Hours 12 hrs.
Total Labor $600.00
Expenses 20.00
TOTAL COST, TASK 3 $620.00
TASK 4: .:PREPARE FINAL EIR
Responses to Comments 40 hrs.
Crane 5 hrs. 475.00
Questa 4 hrs. 300.00
Graphics 8 hrs.
Wordprocessing 20 hrs.
Total Firm Hours 68 hrs.
Total Labor 3,475.00
Expenses 100.00
TOTAL COST, TASK 4 $3,575.00
TOTAL FIRM HOURS, TASKS 1, 2, 3, AND 4: 240 hrs.
TOTAL BASIC COST, TASKS 1, 2, 3, AND 4: $19,220.00
TOTAL COST WITH OPTIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS: $19,720.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH COUNTY $22,694.00
TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT $19.320.97
TOTAL UNUSED AMOUNT REMAINING FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT $3,373.03