AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND
EIP ASSOCIATES

 
 
 

THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this _____ day of _______________, 20_____, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, hereinafter called "County," and EIP ASSOCIATES, hereinafter called "Contractor";

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code, Section 31000, County may contract with independent contractors for the furnishing of such services to or for County or any Department thereof;

 

WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that Contractor be retained for the purpose of performing services hereinafter described.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

   

1.

Exhibits.

   
 

The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein:

   
 

Exhibit A—Services

Exhibit B—Payments and rates

Exhibit C—Scope of Work

   

2.

Services to be performed by Contractor.

   
 

In consideration of the payments set forth herein and in Exhibit “B,” Contractor shall perform services for County in accordance with the terms, conditions and specifications set forth herein and in Exhibit “A.”

 

3.

Payments.

   
 

In consideration of the services provided by Contractor in accordance with all terms, conditions and specifications set forth herein and in Exhibit "A," County shall make payment to Contractor based on the rates and in the manner specified in Exhibit "B." The County reserves the right to withhold payment if the County determines that the quantity or quality of the work performed does not comply with the scope of services or if the services were not rendered in accordance with the standard of care in the Contractor’s industry. In no event shall the County’s total fiscal obligation under this Agreement exceed Two Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Dollars and No Cents, $288,860.

   

4.

Term and Termination.

   
 

Subject to compliance with all terms and conditions, the term of this Agreement shall be from November 9, 2004 through December 31, 2006.

   
 

This Agreement may be terminated by Contractor, the Director of the Environmental Services Agency or his/her designee at any time without a requirement of good cause upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other party. Upon receiving a notice of termination from the County, Contractor may continue to work solely for the purpose of completing discrete tasks and preparing documents for transmittal to County, but shall not begin any new tasks unless authorized to do so by the Director of the Environmental Services Agency.

   
 

In the event of termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, maps, photographs, reports, and materials (hereafter referred to as materials) prepared by Contractor under this Agreement shall become the property of the County and shall be promptly delivered to the County. Upon termination, the Contractor may make and retain a copy of such materials. Contractor shall be entitled to receive payment for work/services provided prior to termination of the Agreement. Such payment shall be that portion of the full payment which is determined by comparing the work/services performed to the work/services required by the Agreement.

   

5.

Availability of Funds.

   
 

The County may terminate this Agreement or a portion of the services referenced in the Attachments and Exhibits based upon unavailability of Federal, State, or County funds, by providing written notice to Contractor as soon as is reasonably possible after the county learns of said unavailability of outside funding.

   

6.

Relationship of Parties.

   
 

Contractor agrees and understands that the work/services performed under this Agreement are performed as an independent Contractor and not as an employee of the County and that Contractor acquires none of the rights, privileges, powers, or advantages of County employees.

   

7.

Hold Harmless.

   
 

Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless County, its officers, agents, employees, and servants from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description, brought for, or on account of: (A) injuries to or death of any person, including Contractor, or (B) damage to any property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging, (C) any sanctions, penalties, or claims of damages resulting from Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements set forth in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and all Federal regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended, or (D) any other loss or cost, caused by the negligence of Contractor, resulting from the performance of any work required of Contractor or payments made pursuant to this Agreement, provided that this shall not apply to injuries or damage for which County has been found in a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable by reason of its own negligence or willful misconduct.

   
 

The duty of Contractor to indemnify and save harmless as set forth herein, shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code.

   

8.

Assignability and Subcontracting.

   
 

Contractor shall not assign this Agreement or any portion thereof to a third party or subcontract with a third party to provide services required by contractor under this Agreement without the prior written consent of County. Any such assignment or subcontract without the County’s prior written consent shall give County the right to automatically and immediately terminate this Agreement.

   

9.

Insurance

   
 

The Contractor shall not commence work or be required to commence work under this Agreement unless and until all insurance required under this paragraph has been obtained and such insurance has been approved by Risk Management, and Contractor shall use diligence to obtain such issuance and to obtain such approval. The Contractor shall furnish the Department/Division with certificates of insurance evidencing the required coverage, and there shall be a specific contractual liability endorsement extending the Contractor's coverage to include the contractual liability assumed by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement. These certificates shall specify or be endorsed to provide that thirty (30) days' notice must be given, in writing, to the Department/Division of any pending change in the limits of liability or of any cancellation or modification of the policy.

     
 

(1)

Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall have in effect during the entire life of this Agreement Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance providing full statutory coverage. In signing this Agreement, the Contractor certifies, as required by Section 1861 of the California Labor Code, that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement.

     
 

(2)

Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement such Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability Insurance as shall protect him/her while performing work covered by this Agreement from any and all claims for damages for bodily injury, including accidental death, as well as any and all claims for property damage which may arise from contractors operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by himself/herself or by any sub-contractor or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. Such insurance shall be combined single limit bodily injury and property damage for each occurrence and shall be not less than the amount specified below.

     
   

Such insurance shall include:

     
   

(a)

Comprehensive General Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$1,000,000

   

(b)

Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$1,000,000

   

(c)

Professional Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$1,000,000

         
 

County and its officers, agents, employees and servants shall be named as additional insured on any such policies of insurance, except for professional liability insurance, which shall also contain a provision that the insurance afforded thereby to the County, its officers, agents, employees and servants shall be primary insurance to the full limits of liability of the policy, and that if the County or its officers and employees have other insurance against the loss covered by such a policy, such other insurance shall be excess insurance only.

   
 

In the event of the breach of any provision of this section, or in the event any notice is received which indicates any required insurance coverage will be diminished or canceled, the County of San Mateo at its option, may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, immediately declare a material breach of this Agreement and suspend all further work pursuant to this Agreement.

   

10.

Compliance with laws; payment of Permits/Licenses.

   
 

All services to be performed by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, County, and municipal laws, including, but not limited to, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and all Federal regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Attachment “I,” which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving any Federal or County financial assistance. Such services shall also be performed in accordance with all applicable ordinances and regulations, including, but not limited to, appropriate licensure, certification regulations, provisions pertaining to confidentiality of records, and applicable quality assurance regulations.

   
 

In the event of a conflict between the terms of this agreement and State, Federal, County, or municipal law or regulations, the requirements of the applicable law will take precedence over the requirements set forth in this Agreement.

   
 

Contractor will timely and accurately complete, sign, and submit all necessary documentation of compliance.

   

11.

Non-Discrimination.

   

A.

Section 504 applies only to Contractor who are providing services to members of the public. Contractor shall comply with § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual shall, solely by reason of a disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in the performance of this Agreement.

   

B.

General non-discrimination. No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, ancestry, gender, age (over 40), national origin, medical condition (cancer), physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical condition, marital status, or political affiliation be denied any benefits or subject to discrimination under this Agreement.

   

C.

Equal employment opportunity. Contractor shall ensure equal employment opportunity based on objective standards of recruitment, classification, selection, promotion, compensation, performance evaluation, and management relations for all employees under this Agreement. Contractor’s equal employment policies shall be made available to County of San Mateo upon request.

   

D.

Violation of Non-discrimination provisions. Violation of the non-discrimination provisions of this Agreement shall be considered a breach of this Agreement and subject the Contractor to penalties, to be determined by the County Manager, including but not limited to:

   
 

i)

termination of this Agreement;

 

ii)

disqualification of the Contractor from bidding on or being awarded a County contract for a period of up to 3 years;

 

iii)

liquidated damages of $2,500 per violation;

 

iv)

imposition of other appropriate contractual and civil remedies and sanctions, as determined by the County Manager.

     
 

To effectuate the provisions of this section, the County Manager shall have the authority to examine Contractor’s employment records with respect to compliance with this paragraph and/or to set off all or any portion of the amount described in this paragraph against amounts due to Contractor under the Contract or any other Contract between Contractor and County.

   
 

Contractor shall report to the County Manager the filing by any person in any court of any complaint of discrimination or the filing by any person of any and all charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission or any other entity charged with the investigation of allegations within 30 days of such filing, provided that within such 30 days such entity has not notified Contractor that such charges are dismissed or otherwise unfounded. Such notification shall include the name of the complainant, a copy of such complaint, and a description of the circumstance. Contractor shall provide County with a copy of their response to the Complaint when filed.

   

E.

Compliance with Equal Benefits Ordinance. With respect to the provision of employee benefits, Contractor shall comply with the County Ordinance which prohibits contractors from discriminating in the provision of employee benefits between an employee with a domestic partner and an employee with a spouse.

   

F.

The Contractor shall comply fully with the non-discrimination requirements required by 41 CFR 60-741.5(a), which is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.

   

12.

Retention of Records.

   
 

Contractor shall maintain all required records for three (3) years after the County makes final payment and all other pending matters are closed, and shall be subject to the examination and/or audit of the County, a Federal grantor agency, and the State of California.

   

13.

Merger Clause.

   
 

This Agreement, including the Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the sole Agreement of the parties hereto and correctly states the rights, duties, and obligations of each party as of this document's date. Any prior agreement, promises, negotiations, or representations between the parties not expressly stated in this document are not binding. All subsequent modifications shall be in writing and signed by the parties.

   

14.

Controlling Law.

   
 

The validity of this Agreement and of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereunder, the interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

   

15.

Notices.

   
 

Any notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be deemed to be properly given when deposited in the United State mail, postage prepaid, or when deposited with a public telegraph company for transmittal, charges prepaid, addressed to:

   
 

In the case of County, to:

San Mateo County Planning

Environmental Services Agency

455 County Center, Mail Drop PLN122

Redwood City, CA 94063

   
 

In the case of Contractor, to:

EIP Associates

353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000

San Francisco, CA 94111

   

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their duly authorized representatives, have affixed their hands.

   
 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

   
   
 

By:

 
   

President, Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County

   
 

Date:

 

ATTEST:

 
   
   

By:

   
 

Clerk of Said Board

 
   

EIP Associates

 
   
   
   

Contractor’s Signature

 
   
   

Date:

   
   

Exhibit “A”

 
 

In consideration of the payments set forth in Exhibit “B”, Contractor shall provide the following services:

 

Contractor shall complete the preparation of an enrivonmental impact report for the Highland Estates project. A complete Scope of Work is included in Exhibit C.

 
 
 

Exhibit “B”

 

In consideration of the services provided by Contractor in Exhibit “A”, County shall pay Contractor based on the following fee schedule:

 

County will pay Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt of a monthly invoice from Contractor itemizing the work done and using the billing rates indicated in Exhibit C.

 

In no case shall the total amount payable under this contract for the work indicated in Exhibit C exceed $288,860 without prior written consent of County in the form of an amendment to this Agreement.

 
 

EXHIBIT C

 

SCOPE OF WORK

 

HIGHLAND ESTATES EIR PROJECT

 
 

Work Program

 

The work program outlined herein includes consideration of the verbal scoping comments as presented at the community EIR scoping meeting noted above and written comments as presented in the document entitled Comments on the scope of work for the Environmental Impact Report for the Highland Estates Development Proposal, September 9, 2004 as submitted by the Highlands Community Association, Baywood Plaza Homeowners Association, Ticonderoga Townhomes Association, Polhemus Heights Homeowners Association, and the Baywood Park Homeowners Association. Emphasis in EIR preparation will take into account those comments and questions that can assist the project decision makers (i.e., the San Mateo County Planning Commission and San Mateo County Board of Supervisors respectively), in making an informed decision on the project as required under Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines.

 

Our Work Program entails the following specific tasks to enable an orderly progression of the study and overall project management.

 

Task 1. Prepare Administrative Draft EIR

 

Task 2. Prepare Draft EIR

 

Task 3. Participate in Meetings and Public Hearings

 

Task 4. Prepare Responses to Comments and Final EIR

 

Task 5. Prepare Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

 

Task 1. Prepare Administrative Draft EIR

 

A revised Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) will be prepared for the project in full compliance with current CEQA requirements (EIR Guidelines amended as of December 1, 2003). At completion, 10 copies of the ADEIR will be printed for Planning and Building Division review prior to preparing the Draft EIR for public and agency review. Maps, graphics, tables, and charts will be developed to clearly depict the project and environmental information and conclusions contained in the EIR. The work program described below steps through each of the sections contained in the 1998 Draft EIR and outlines the work that will need to be completed in order to bring the document up to date to reflect current environmental conditions, the project as revised and regulatory requirements.

 

INTRODUCTION: This section will be revised to document the series of meetings between the project sponsor and Highlands Community Association and other community groups (HCA, mediation process) that have occurred since the 1998 Draft EIR was completed. This information will go under the title Meetings and Workshops currently located on pages 5 and 6. Other information regarding the Notice of Preparation, EIR scoping, the discussion of cumulative impacts and alternatives will need to be revised to reflect current conditions and events in preparation of the EIR under the revised project proposal and as requested by the community.

 

1.

SUMMARY: The Summary section will be revised to reflect all other revisions contained in the body of the revised Draft EIR. This includes item 1.3, Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved, 1.4 Major EIR Conclusions, Table 1-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation, Alternatives, Required Approvals and any other technical matter considered necessary to be included in the Summary section.

   

2.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This section will require revisions to reflect the current project proposal, including the discussion of Project Scheduling. New graphic materials will be developed to reflect the revised site plan and architecture of the residential units, including exterior appearances, height, bulk, mass and other details as available regarding site architecture, building layout and building configuration. The proposed building footprints on individual lots will be illustrated, i.e., the location of each proposed residential unit on each lot will be indicated through the inclusion of site plans as prepared by the project planners and architects.

   
 

The distinction between “condominium” and “townhouse” or “townhome” form of development and ownership under California law will be explained. The Project History discussion is not proposed to be amended or updated because this was a separate document from the EIR prepared for informational purposes only. Further revisions to the Project Description section of the EIR will be made as necessary to accurately reflect the current project proposal.

   

3.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

   

3.1

Social/Cultural Issues

   
 

Relationship to Plans and Planning Policy

   
 

This will be a new section for the EIR. It has not been determined whether the Highland Estates project as currently proposed would be consistent with the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the San Mateo County General Plan inclusive of all updated General Plan Elements including Visual Quality, General Land Use, Housing and Natural and Man-Made Hazards, and other elements.

   
 

This portion of the EIR will provide a consistency analysis of the Highland Estates project with respect to the applicable goals, objectives and policies of each Element of the General Plan. A matrix format is planned to be established with the relevant General Plan goals, Objectives and/or policies noted in the left hand column with a project consistency analysis provided in the immediate right hand column. Any potential inconsistencies identified will be rectified through the appropriate mitigation measures to the extent reasonably possible. Although each technical section of the EIR will address impact and mitigation issues as explained further herein, for comprehension, all General Plan issues related to the Highland Estates project will be documented in this section of the EIR and will set the stage for further environmental review in subsequent sections of the EIR.

   
 

As requested at the community scoping meeting of September 9, 2004, this section will also include a review of the provisions of the San Mateo County General Plan Land Use Map site land use designation and County Zoning Ordinance for an assessment of the degree of compliance of the project with the stipulations as enumerated in Sections 6321 – 6326.4, San Mateo County Zoning Regulations: Resource Management Development Review Criteria (RM/DR). The objective will be to determine which zoning regulations would be met and/or where non-conformity may exist.

   

3.1.1

Land Use: A discussion regarding zoning will be added (this subject is also discussed in Section 2, Project Description). A discussion on RM and R-E/SS-107 zoning will be added to indicate the impact of development density possibilities under each zoning designation. There appears to be much confusion regarding the issue of “density transfer” and the transfer of development rights and what has transpired in the past on the project site regarding this issue. Accordingly, the record will be reinvestigated and the history of transfer of development rights documented. Correspondence provided indicates that density transfers have already occurred in the area, with such actions dating back to the 1950s.1 In addition, the precedent setting potential for growth under the proposed rezoning of the project site will be evaluated (see also Growth Inducements below). Any “development bonus” that may exist under current RM zoning as referenced in comments from the community will be clarified. The environmental impacts of increased density will be assessed in terms of land use compatibility as well as other overlapping issues (i.e., traffic, noise, air quality, visual quality, etc.).

   
 

Neighborhood trail use of the project site, inclusive of that portion proposed for dedication as open space, will be explained. It is understood that the HCA will be able to provide information concerning this issue. The project sponsor’s proposal for, and feasibility of, preservation and dedication of the open space portion of the project and management of the open space will be also be documented. Alternatives for open space dedication and management will be investigated.

   
 

Although the proposed project is not an annexation proposal, reference to the City of San Mateo Sphere of Influence will be documented. Further discussion will be provided regarding General Plan policies regarding construction within the Sphere of Influence as applicable. Any potential land use impacts will be identified and mitigation measures provided to the extent required and practicable.

   

3.1.2

Population and Housing: The Population and Housing section will be strengthened to provide an understanding of the context of planning for housing in the county as requested at the September 9 scoping session. This EIR section originally was based on ABAG’s Projections -96 and will be updated to Projections 2004. Statistical data regarding housing units constructed, income levels and population growth will be amended as well to reflect current and projected conditions. The requirements for low and moderate income housing by the County will be documented as relates to the project as proposed. Need for the project with respect to the provisions of the General Plan Housing Element will be discussed as appropriate to the provisions of the Housing Element. The discussion will include implications for the rezoning of RM lands as documented in the Housing Element. How the project would assist the County in meeting its low and moderate income housing goals will be noted as applicable. The County’s updated General Plan Housing Element will be included in the analysis (see also the discussion above entitled Relationship to Plans and Planning Policy). Also, the project’s relation to compliance with ABAG’s “Smart Growth” principles will be addressed.

   

3.1.3

Traffic and Circulation: This section will require an update as described in the DKS letter attached (September 20, 2004). It is noted that the Cumulative Developments list as presented in EIR Table 3.1.3-6 will also be updated in order to reassess traffic impacts from cumulative development (see endnote #2 regarding additional information on cumulative development and the assessment of cumulative development impacts). Table 3.1.3-6 listed seven projects that were either approved, under construction or undergoing occupancy that would generate more than 5,000 daily vehicle trips, some of which could affect traffic conditions in the project area. Intersection levels of service are expected to have changed during the past six years which will also need to be documented in the assessment of project impacts. Safety concerns for elementary schools children will require a re-examination, and retail use of the Crystal Springs Shopping Center may have changed the demand for parking at the Center. These were critical concerns of the Highlands Community Association during the earlier EIR scoping process and will be reassessed in preparing the revised Draft EIR.

   
 

In addition, the proposed vehicular entrance on Ticonderoga Drive will be assessed with respect to impacting the existing residents with access off Ticonderoga Drive to the south. This includes issues relating to vehicular speed, sight lines for safety, with a discussion of necessary mitigation for identified impacts and the timing of implementing mitigation measures, including who is responsible for implementing the mitigation measures (see discussion under Task 5 below regarding the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).

   
 

Traffic construction impacts will be identified, including off-haul routes, construction traffic as affects the operation of local streets and safety, construction parking, street maintenance, staging areas and related matters. DKS will also conduct 24-hour roadway counts on the surrounding streets in seven key locations (refer to the DKS letter and scope of work attached dated September 20, 2004 for additional information regarding roadway capacity and safety).

   

3.1.4

Public Services: Current conditions regarding the provision of police services, fire protection services including fire protection and hazards during construction, and public school enrollments will require reexamination in order to bring this information up to date. Impacts and mitigation measures regarding any increases in demand on public services to the community including school enrollments and/or the need for new police or fire equipment and personnel will be reevaluated in light of the revised project and any public service changes or changes in standards. In addition, state requirements regarding school development impact fees have changed which will be documented. Fire protection access with respect to the revised site plans will be assessed for adequacy.

   

3.1.5

Utilities: Water, sewer and solid waste disposal conditions will be updated to reflect the current capacities and abilities of the utility providers to service the project as revised. Impacts and mitigation measures may or may not change depending on current conditions of the Setting. The mitigation of sewer transmission capacity impacts (Polhemus line) will be updated and expanded upon. Mitigation measures will be specific as to timing and implementation (see also the discussion under Task 5 below regarding the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). This section will also be expanded to include the provision of energy from PG&E. PG&E’s ability to serve the project will be documented, along with an update of the current situation regarding energy generation, transmission and local service provision. Energy conservation measures will be developed for the project as necessary with respect to any identified energy impacts, as well as a description of the requirements of the State’s Title 24 energy conservation standards. (Drainage is included under item 3.2.2 below, Hydrology and Water Quality.)

   

3.1.6

Visual Quality and Community Character: This section of the EIR will be revised to reflect the current proposal. Photomontages will be prepared for the project. Ten photomontages were prepared for the 1998 EIR and ten photomontages are projected to be prepared for the revised project EIR. The work plan for photomontage preparation prepared by Square One Productions (September 20, 2004) attached includes costs for preparing additional photomontages on a per-photomontage basis if additional photomontages are requested beyond the ten photomontages included in the work program and cost estimate.

   
 

Hartmut Gerdes of Square One Productions and Ted Adams of EIP Associates will meet with Highland community representatives on-site to determine the most appropriate vantage points for preparing the photomontages. Other items to be discussed are anticipated to include the field of view, and photomontage material that may be salvaged from the 1998 EIR for presentation in the revised EIR. As requested by the community, a 50 millimeter focal length lens will be used to photograph the views for which the photomontages will be prepared. Potential impacts to existing residences, including potential view obstruction, will be considered in the analysis.

   
 

Tree removal will be analyzed and appearances described and documented in the photomontages. It is understood that new cross-sections through the project site have been prepared by the project sponsor for use in preparing the Visual Quality and Community Character section of the revised Draft EIR. Changes to the building architecture as previously documented in the 1998 Draft EIR, including physical configurations and design appearances, will be considered in the analysis. The current grading plan will be factored into the analysis to describe appearances in alteration of land form both during and after construction. How the architectural style of the proposed residences would exist with the architecture of the Eichler designed structures currently located throughout the project area will be evaluated. Building plans, elevations and design appearances as presented by the project sponsor and designers will be illustrated in the Project Description portion of the EIR and cross referenced through the Visual Quality section as necessary. Height and bulk relationships, inclusive of community concerns respecting existing building structures in the area will be documented. Remedial treatment of the landscape, inclusive of tree plantings as proposed, will be explained and presented on the photomontages as noted above.

   
 

Cross-sections through the project site as developed by the project designers as indicated above will be presented in the EIR for informational purposes and for the assessment of potential obstruction of views (including regional panoramic views) to existing residents, inclusive of residences and roadways surrounding the proposed areas of construction. The length, width, height and appearances of proposed retaining walls will be documented with visual impacts assessed. Any potential sense of the loss of privacy by area residents will be explained. Potential nighttime lighting effects will be explained with mitigation provided as required. A 3-D model of the project is not part of the workscope for preparing the EIR, but a model of the project may be prepared by the project sponsor as arranged with community residents. The hilltop structures on Lots 5 and 6 will be assessed for visibility impacts as would be viewed from surrounding locations and any county General Plan policies regarding hilltop building will be documented. Site appearances during construction will be documented (see also the discussion above regarding photomontage preparation).

   

3.1.7

Energy: This section will be deleted from the EIR as an individual section. The discussion of energy consumption and mitigation with respect to energy consumption, will be included under item 3.1.5, Utilities, as noted above with PG&E’s more recent energy supply and demand data.

   

3.1.8

Cultural Resources: This section will be reviewed and updated to reflect the current CEQA Guidelines regarding cultural resources. Mitigation measures will be augmented to protect the possibility of discovering cultural resources on the project site during construction.

   

3.1.9

Public Health and Safety: This section will require amendments as needed to reflect any changes in the Noise, Air Quality and/or Traffic analysis sections. In addition, existing regulatory information regarding the use, handling or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes will be updated. The subject of safety of school children through increased traffic and construction will be updated based on the revised traffic analysis. Construction impacts will also be amended as determined through the amended air quality and noise analysis, and other technical subject areas as amended (noise and air quality sensitive receptors will be identified). Refer also to items 3.1.3, Traffic and Circulation, 3.2.4, Air Quality and 3.2.5, Noise for further information.

   

3.2

Physical/Biological Issues

   

3.2.1

Geology, Soils and Seismicity: This section of the EIR will be updated to reflect the existing conditions on the project site and the currently proposed site plan. All existing and new soils and geotechnical material generated for the project and submitted to the County will be consulted during the analysis. The County geologist will be contacted regarding concerns and any desired additional and/or new geotechnical information about the current proposal.

   
 

The updated section will address geologic, soils, and seismic concerns, as expressed by members of the community, the County Geologist, and the County Planning Staff, in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Several specific steps will be followed in the preparation and presentation of this information.

   
 

Impact Significance Criteria for the geologic, soils, and seismic issues related to the currently proposed project will be established with the assistance of the County. These criteria will be based on the geotechnical questions in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and additional project-specific community or County concerns.

     
 

Previously prepared soils and geotechnical information for earlier proposals on the site dating from the 1990s will be reviewed for relevancy and incorporated in the current evaluation as appropriate. Supporting documentation and regional information from such agencies as the County of San Mateo, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the California Geological Survey, the United States Geological Survey, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service will be researched for recent updates and included in the current evaluation.

     
 

The latest site topography, test borings, and geotechnical feasibility studies (September 17, 2002 prepared by Lowney Associates) will be evaluated with respect to the current project proposal.

     
 

EIP’s California Registered Geologists will visit the project site to make observations related to the existing condition of ground surface materials, slopes, erosion features, soil slips, landslides, bedrock exposures, and the location of springs and water courses. This will include confirming whether surface changes have occurred on the project site in the recent past. The information will be used in conjunction with the geotechnical reports to relate the proposed site plan to County policies, codes, and ordinances that would govern development at the site.

     
 

All potential impacts and mitigation measures will be reevaluated based on the Impact Significance Criteria and the current site plan. Potential project impacts and measures to mitigate them will be updated as appropriate. Reference to the American Society of Testing and Materials and to the San Mateo County General Plan, Building Code, and Hillside Development Ordinance requirements and citations will reflect regulations currently in use in the County that deal with slope stability, soil erosion, foundation support, and seismic resistant construction. The updates will create substantial changes in the mitigation measure language because many of the concerns identified for previously proposed projects at the site are now regulated directly by the County’s Building Code. To assist in this portion of the work, EIP Associates has retained the expert services of Dr. Robert H. Wright, CEG, of Geomatrix Consultants, Inc, who was involved in preparation of the project EIR at an earlier date. Dr. Wright will continue as a subconsultant to EIP Associates in preparing the revised EIR (see attached letter dated March 18, 2004).

     
 

The community has expressed a number of specific concerns related to soil, seismic, topographic, and geologic conditions at the site and on adjacent properties, and to the investigation of those conditions for the purposes of planning, environmental review, permit applications, and site development. These concerns can be grouped into 15 categories.

   
 

Slope stability, landslides, mud flows

 

Drainage and erosion

 

Foundation support

 

Surface and subsurface soil and rock material types and depths

 

Pile driving and construction vibration

 

Seismic groundshaking

 

Springs and groundwater

 

Cut heights and fill depths

 

Road locations

 

Retaining walls

 

Excavation plans and volume take-off

 

Unique landforms

 

Scope of investigations

 

Effects of investigation

 

Mitigation for identified impacts

     
 

Each of these areas of concern will be addressed in the revised EIR, including the County’s requirements and policies for dealing with them and the regulatory framework governing development where the noted soil, seismic, topographic, and geologic conditions exist.

   

3.2.2

Hydrology and Water Quality: As background information, increasing the amount of impervious surfaces, without instituting mitigation measures, would change hydrology by increasing storm event runoff rate and amount, which leads to higher peak stream flow rate, duration, and possibly flood flow depth, and decreased groundwater recharge. Additionally, development of impervious surface area and storm drain systems often provides a more directly connected pathway for surface pollutants to enter waterways. Other project induced alterations of surface drainage could include: altering stream courses, grading operations that change the landscape (slope and topography) and possibly alter subwatershed delineations, addition or removal of drainage channels or subsurface drainage networks, vegetation removal and revegetation effects, groundwater recharge through lawn watering and other nuisance flows, temporary construction operations effects, and others. Finally, changing the land use (e.g., native vegetation compared to residential development) would change the characteristics of constituents of concern leaving the area, including both the type of COCs and the amounts.

   
 

Some potential project modifications of site characteristics may actually decrease surface runoff (e.g., flattened slopes by grading and installation of subsurface drain fields) and others may increase surface runoff (e.g., impervious area and installation of storm drain systems). Consequently, in order to best understand potential project related impacts, a descriptive model will be developed to incorporate changing conditions compared to baseline (existing) conditions. Without adequate stream flow data, however, there will be no mechanism to calibrate the model. Standard models, for example, HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS, can be adequately applied to assess relative differences due to project impacts. It is considered that there is sufficient available information to populate these models to compare relative impacts.

   
 

Impacts associated with changes in hydrology would be considered potentially significant if they result in changes in stream geomorphology (e.g., bankfull width, sinuosity, scour, bed load, and others), contribute to biological impacts (e.g., riparian habitat impacts, fish passage impediments, degraded food supplies, and others), affect groundwater supplies (reduced recharge or increased consumptive use beyond ‘safe yield’), create hazardous slope stability conditions, or cause on- or off-site flood hazards.

   
 

Impacts associated with changes in water quality would be considered potentially significant if they result in erosion and siltation, increase in annual COC load to a water body, or contribute to degradation of a water body based standards and criteria identified in the applicable Basin Plan, local regulations, or total maximum daily loads.

   
 

The impacts analysis will address potential project effects on hydrology and water quality during both the construction and post-construction phases. This will include addressing both infrastructure design impacts, flood impacts, and water quality storm event conditions. The hydrologic character of the study area will be described from maps, bulletins and reports produced by various federal, state and local agencies within the region. The County Department of Public Works and flood Control District will be one source for locating additional information about the site. If possible, information will also be obtained from investigations by private firms working in the vicinity. Other potential sources include the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division; Regional Water Quality Control Board; count Flood Control District; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

   
 

Contact will be made with the responsible agencies to discuss their concerns identified in the responses to the NOP regarding the potential effects of construction and operation of the project at the site. Specific issues identified by the process will be addressed in the analysis. Proposed drainage control measures will be examined by EIP’s hydrologist and discussed with the County Department of Public Works and Flood Control District. Mitigation proposed as part of the project will be evaluated. Relevant government regulations will be reviewed including those of the County, the Regional Water Quality Conbtrol Board, and the state. If further safeguards appear necessary, they will be identified and scrutinized to achieve optimum protection for the surface waters and groundwater in the site vicinity, while protecting the downstream areas from the effects of flooding. Mitigation measures will be considered on the basis of practicality and cost-effectiveness. The analysis will include:

   
 

A determination of impact to the quantity of natural flows into Polhemus and San Mateo Creeks.

     
 

An assessment of water quality impacts using EPA and state data, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data where available and other referenced data.

     
 

A discussion of siltation impacts, using Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards.

     
 

Mitigation measures, as needed, to prevent the capacity of existing ditches from being exceeded, and

 

An evaluation of replacement plantings (native or non-native) with respect to erosion potential.

     
 

For both existing and with-project conditions, the analysis will include:

   
 

A determination of receiving water body designated beneficial uses and water quality standards and criteria (RWQCB).

     
 

Modeling to assess water elevation, peak flow, flow amount, and flow duration at no more than seven locations to be identified in consultation with County staff. These locations will include major culverts and storm drain systems.

     
 

Models developed to assess the NPDES C.3. provisions design storm (water quality standards impact), 25-year (infrastructure and utilities design storm), 100-yr (flood event), and site area mean annual runoff (water quality load impact).

     
 

Baseline and project conditions annual COC load and C.3. provisions design storm concentrations.

     
 

Assessment of two post-construction BMP scenarios for mitigation of water quality impacts and suitability for site conditions and constraints.

     
 

Recommendation of design conditions for mitigation of hydrologic impacts (e.g., detention, revegetation for erosion control, increased infiltration).

     
 

Comparison of baseline with project and project plus mitigation conditions on hydrology and water quality (including sediment transport and siltation).

     
 

In performing this analysis, the following assumptions and conditions are implied:

   
 

A drainage report or current drainage design diagram is available from the project engineers. This information would include changes to surface and subsurface drainage patterns such as: extent of surface drainage system, drainage routing after grading, implementation of infiltration features and location, percent impervious areas, and catchment delineations.

     
 

Receiving water body flow characteristics (25-yr and 100-yr storm event flow rate and water elevation) are available for locations upstream and downstream of the project area.

     
 

Storm events will be modeled using a standard Type II storm hydrograph for the 25 year and 100 year 24-hour storm events for the region.

     
 

Seepage contributions will be qualitatively assessed based on topo maps, potential existing drainage plans, County information, and other sources. EIP will work with the County to determine an acceptable quantification of seepage amounts and identification of locations.

     
 

Use of Caltrans method for runoff coefficient and time of concentration determinations is acceptable. Where applicable, coefficients and parameters identified in the Off-site Storm Drainage Report for Highland Estates (Brian Kangas Foulk, 1997) would be considered adequate for this analysis.

     
 

Soil infiltration and physical properties will be determined based on soil survey data. If available, other, more site specific data may be used.

     
 

Analysis will include HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS for 25-year and 100-year hydrology and hydraulics assessment, and Simple Method for C.3. provisions analysis and annual COC load.

     
 

Water quality events will be modeled using the volume and intensity conditions identified in the C.3. provisions of the NPDES General Permit.

     
 

Water quality loads will be modeled using the Simple Method and mean annual rainfall for the region.

     
 

Any necessary cross-sections and other physical data will be measured off of topographs.

     
 

Characteristics of structures and utilities (e.g., existing culverts), as identified in the Off-site Storm Drainage Report for Highland Estates (Brian Kangas Foulk, 1997) would be considered adequate for this analysis.

     
 

Receiving water bodies for impacts analysis will be limited to Polhemus and San Mateo Creek. If there are potentially significant geopmorphological or hydrologic impacts to unnamed tributaries, intermittent, and/or ephemeral drainages they will also be discussed.

     
 

If available, NPDES database values for similar land use within the region will be used to determine potential COC concentrations in stormwater. Where not available, values from the compiled national database will be used. Only parameters for which either local/regional or National NPDES database data for residential land use are available will be used.

     
 

Potential BMP effectiveness will be determined based on performance as identified in the National BMPs’ database for the state of California, for a similar regions. If this information is not available or insufficient, literature and other reference values will be used. If wet ponds, dry ponds, or swales are incorporated into the design, function efficiency will be evaluated using P8 Urban Catchment model (Walker, 2000).

     
 

Wastewater will be conveyed through a functioning sanitary sewer system to an off-site treatment facility.

     
 

A separate water supply evaluation will address water supply issues and will not be a part of the hydrology and water quality discussion.

     

3.2.3

Vegetation and Wildlife: Field inspections will be necessary to validate existing conditions on the project site and to identify any changed conditions that may affect the biological conclusions contained in the April, 1998 Draft EIR as further noted below. Because the status of some Federal and State listed species has changed, appendices A, B, C and D regarding species lists, sensitive species and plant communities will be checked and updated in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

   
 

The first step in preparation of an updated discussion of biological resources will be to conduct a complete review of reports from historic survey work including vegetation maps, the 1998 ADEIR, current natural resource databases, the proposed development plan and open space management plan. Letters of community concern regarding biological resources on the site will be submitted to the appropriate study participants for review. It is noted that Thomas Reid Associates, Environmental Consultants, completed a biological and resource survey last year and submitted a report of their findings dated June 9, 2003. This information will be reviewed in preparing the revised EIR.

   
 

Although both the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have already commented on the project in separate September 2004 emails, a follow-up letter will be submitted by EIP biologists requesting any additional concerns. Also within this process will be the establishment of a project level Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS will contain all spatial data related to the project including: sensitive species occurrence records from the vicinity; layout of lots, house sites, and roads; habitat maps; local soils data; and tree survey data if it is available electronically. Additionally, species occurrence information collected by EIP will be incorporated into the GIS as appropriate.

   
 

Once the background information has been reviewed and compiled a wildlife biologist and botanist will conduct a thorough site reconnaissance. Field work will include the following efforts:

   
 

Because survey work conducted by Thomas Reid Associates in 2003 indicates that the vegetation has not changed significantly since the 1998 DEIR was prepared, EIP will update and refine the vegetation map prepared by The Habitat Restoration Group (1989). This effort will require the old habitat map to be digitized into the GIS. This work will then be field verified. The result will be the most accurate map possible that incorporates any changes that have occurred in vegetation series nomenclature or occurrence since 1998. Also, working with EIP’s geologist, the botanist and wildlife biologist will identify areas likely to support serpentine soils and grasslands.

     
 

Once the vegetation has been mapped, a site visit by EIP’s botanist during the appropriate season will evaluate the potential for sensitive plant species to occur. This survey event will focus on those areas slated for development and habitat capable of supporting sensitive plants and will utilize information within existing databases and previous field work. All botanical work will be conducted during the blooming season for the appropriate plants.

     
 

Within this same time frame a wildlife biologist will survey the property to evaluate the potential of the site to support sensitive animal species. As with the botanical work, the focus will be on those areas slated for development and habitats capable of supporting sensitive species. Previous work determined that the site did not contain any habitat that was suitable for the California red-legged frog or the San Francisco garter snake. Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game indicate otherwise. In order to put this issue to rest, the EIP biologist will evaluate the habitat within the project site to support these species.

     
 

The wildlife biologist will include any serpentine soils and grassland areas within survey work. This habitat has the potential to support sensitive species such as Edgewood blind harvestman, bay checkerspot butterfly, mission blue butterfly, and others. Specific surveys were conducted in 1990 and 1991 for habitat capable of supporting bay checkerspot butterflies and it was determined that the host plants were not present at sufficient densities to support this species. Based on the new botanical work, EIP will review this conclusion. If host plants for sensitive butterfly species are present in sufficient densities to support a population of this species, the wildlife biologist will make a special effort to determine if any sensitive butterfly species are using this habitat.

     
 

The previous biological section of the EIR identified seven potentially significant impacts that ranged from the loss of oak woodland habitat to impacts on nesting birds and the introduction of non-native plants. The current proposed project involves the construction of 26 single-family homes and a 40 unit condominium development within the project site. This action could have effects on biological resources of the area and while many of these will likely be similar to those identified in the previous EIR, the acreages associated with each vegetation series will be different. Also, because western leatherwood has been identified within one of the proposed lots, there will be an impact to sensitive plants that was not specifically identified before. Additionally, the dedication of the remaining acreage into permanent open space could also have effects on biological resources and will also be evaluated. This process will include identification of:

   
 

The number of trees to be removed including an analysis of this action in relation to the County’s Significant Tree Ordinance.

     
 

Impacts to sensitive habitats such as Northern maritime chaparral, valley needlegrass grassland, wetlands, and riparian areas.

     
 

Impacts to sensitive plants such as western leatherwood.

     
 

Impacts to sensitive animal species including raptors, butterflies, amphibians, and dusky-footed woodrats.

     
 

Impacts to wildlife movement resulting from habitat fragmentation.

     
 

Cumulative impacts to biological resources in relation to this project and other known projects within the area.

     
 

The effects of the open space management plan on local biological resources.

     
 

CEQA requires the development of feasible mitigation measures to offset for the effects of a project. Once impacts to sensitive species and habitats have been identified, EIP’s botanist and wildlife biologist will work to develop complete mitigation measures intended to mitigate for biological impacts as completely as possible. When possible, mitigation measures will contain specific actions to be taken, acreages to be preserved or restored, and success criteria that will allow for the evaluation of implementation.

   
 

The vegetation and wildlife scope of work has been developed and includes following assumptions:

   
 

Development plans and data will be provided electronically in either AutoCAD or GIS compatible format using an established national georeferencing datum (a check with BKF project engineers indicates that AutoCAD files for the project are available)

     
 

The vegetation map referenced in the 1989 report from The Habitat Restoration Group is available and relatively accurate.

     
 

Full site access is available.

     
 

Protocol surveys for sensitive species are not required. Comments submitted in September 2004 by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been reviewed. While both of these recommend protocol level surveys for plants and animals, previous on-site work included an evaluation of habitat quality and although the conclusions of this work conflict somewhat, especially in relation to the California red-legged frog, in general habitat is of marginal to poor quality for sensitive animals.

     

3.2.4

Air Quality: Substantial changes to the air quality environment have occurred since the Draft EIR was completed in 1998. Ambient air quality conditions have changed, the attainment status of the region for national ambient air quality standards of ozone is in the process of changing, and new plans are now in place for attaining national and state ambient air quality standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has revised its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document and the models used to evaluate potential air quality impacts have also changed. Therefore, the air quality section will require substantial revisions and updates. The specific actions are discussed below.

   
 

The regulatory environmental affecting the project site will be discussed, along with specific regulations affecting development and operation of the proposed project. Agencies that have jurisdiction over various aspects of air quality within the area include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the BAAQMD, and the County of San Mateo.

   
 

The existing regional and local air quality conditions affecting San Mateo County and the project site will be described based on information published by the ARB and the BAAQMD. Sources of pollution within the air basin and close to the project site will be described along with nearby land uses that may be sensitive to air quality impacts (i.e., residences and schools). Localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) will be quantified for intersections in the project vicinity that are subject to congestion.

   
 

The potential impacts associated with daily construction activities and then the operational characteristics of the project will be evaluated following the methods recommended by the BAAQMD in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Consistency of the proposed project with the 2000 Clean Air Plan will be evaluated by determining whether the project implements applicable transportation control measures from the Plan. Construction-related impacts will be evaluated based on the potential for the construction activities to generate substantial amounts of fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions. This will include construction trucks traveling on Cobblehill Place. The potential for these emissions to negatively affect nearby sensitive uses will be discussed and mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts, and may exceed the recommendations of the BAAQMD. The average daily emissions that would be generated by the proposed land uses when completed and occupied will be quantified and compared to the thresholds of significance recommended by the BAAQMD. Mitigation measures will be identified for potentially significant impacts, and their effectiveness will be quantified to the extent feasible. The potential for construction-related or operational activities at the project site to generate toxic air contaminants including the generation of diesel exhaust will be evaluated. Future localized concentrations of CO will be quantified for intersections in the project vicinity that would subject to congestion with the addition of traffic generated by the project.

   
 

Cumulative air quality impacts will be assessed following the methodology recommended by the BAAQMD.

   

3.2.5

Noise: The noise section of the EIR will address the impacts of the project on background noise levels and the population’s exposure to physically or psychologically damaging noise levels. The noise analysis will be based upon approximations of noise levels and associated changes in the ambient noise level that are likely to occur based on implementation of the proposed project.

   
 

The environmental setting discussion will briefly summarize the nature of sound and groundborne vibration, and will introduce acoustical terms that relate to the noise analysis. Relevant local noise standards and guidelines – including those established in the Noise Element of the San Mateo County General Plan – will also be summarized. Potentially vulnerable existing noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences and schools) will be identified.

   
 

Existing noise levels in the project area were based on tests completed in 1991. Therefore, current daytime and daily noise levels should be measured and modeled to reflect current conditions. Existing ambient daytime noise levels will be measured at up to eight locations within and around the proposed project site to identify representative noise levels at various locations. These locations will be identified on a map. The daytime noise levels will be measured using a Larson-Davis Model 814 precision sound level meter, which satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The daytime noise levels will be monitored when the Highlands Elementary School and the College of San Mateo are in session. Noise would be characterized in terms of:

   
 

Leq, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

     
 

Lmin, the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time and

     
 

Lmax, the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.

     
 

Existing 24-hour noise levels will be calculated for the various roadway segments in the project vicinity using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and current traffic counts from the traffic study prepared for the project. The model will calculate the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. Vehicle nose energy rates in the FWHA model will be modified to incorporate rates utilized by Caltrans, which better represent vehicle noise levels in California.

   
 

The most recent noise maps from San Francisco International Airport and San Carlos Airport will also be reviewed to determine whether airport noise has expanded to include the project area.

   
 

Noise levels generated during construction will be estimated based upon anticipated construction schedules, techniques and building types, including grading, installation of roads, construction of wood-frame structures, installation of building exterior and interior finishes, and installation of landscaping. The potential for construction noise impacts on nearby noise-sensitive land uses – both existing uses and project uses – will be characterized by quantifying anticipated noise levels (e.g., based on distance). Likewise, the EIR will evaluate the potential groundborne vibration levels that occur during construction and be experienced at nearby sensitive uses. The potential for project grading to change the natural noise attenuation of the project vicinity will be discussed.

   
 

The analysis of operational noise impacts will address future noise levels within the project site and at sensitive uses in the project vicinity. Future noise levels within the project site will be calculated for the roadways around the site. The noise levels at various locations within the site will be compared to County standards to ensure that the proposed land uses are planned and located appropriately from a noise perspective. Future noise levels along the roadway segments in the project vicinity will be calculated to determine whether traffic generated by the project causes a substantial increase in noise at off-site locations. The potential for other operational impacts will be described qualitatively.

   
 

For any impacts that exceed significance thresholds, feasible mitigation measures will be identified, which may include modification of construction techniques or hours, changes in project design or layout, or provision of temporary or long-term barriers to noise transmission.

   
 

Cumulative noise impacts will be assessed by comparing existing noise levels with noise levels in the future with the development of the proposed project and others in the vicinity using the latest traffic information and the most recent cumulative project list provided by the County.

   

4.

GROWTH INDUCEMENTS: This section will require corrections for ABAG’s more recent projections for growth in San Mateo County and some text additions regarding indirect growth resulting from development. In addition, this section will be bolstered to provide a discussion regarding RM (Resource Management) rezoning and any precedent setting nature this rezoning (should the rezoning be approved) could have respecting subsequent rezoning and growth on county lands currently in the RM District.

   

5.

UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS: The lead-in paragraphs to this section will require amendment to reflect the current CEQA Guideline language respecting unavoidable significant adverse impacts. This section will be updated as required to reflect the current proposal.

   

6.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT: This section will be revised to include a No Project Alternative, a new Reduced Density Alternative, an Existing Zoning Alternative (No Project and Existing Zoning Alternatives to be separate alternatives), and other alternatives as determined appropriate to mitigate any identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts. It is anticipated that the Mitigated Project Alternative will be dropped from consideration in favor of an alternative to be presented by the HCA for consideration. The HCA may submit an alternative for analysis at any time during preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR.

   
 

The discussion of alternatives will be updated with reference to the project proposal as described in the 1998 Draft EIR and conclusions regarding environmental impacts derived at this time respecting the revised project proposal. This work program assumes that no significant changes to zoning in the project area have occurred during the last six years that would otherwise affect the alternatives analysis.

   
 

For comprehension, upon completion of the alternatives analysis, a foldout matrix will be developed to allow a side-by-side comparison of the impacts and mitigation measures of the project as originally proposed with each of the alternatives evaluated. In this way, the Environmentally Superior Alternative may be readily presented to the reader.

   
 

“Constraint” mapping is not envisioned in the analysis of alternatives or for inclusion in the EIR. Such mapping exercises are normally prepared during the project site planning stage, prior to detailed design. The project as proposed represents the end stage of project planning on behalf of the project sponsor and is the submittal for which the EIR is being prepared. The EIR analysis of potential project impacts could lead to recommendations for changes in project site planning or design through the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. These mitigation measures would either supplement or take the place of various site planning decisions that occurred with or without a constraint mapping exercise.

   

7.

IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES: This section will be reviewed and updated as necessary to reflect the findings of the Draft EIR as revised respecting the current project proposal.

   

8.

REPORT PREPARATION: This section will be amended to reflect current staffing on the project EIR.

   

Task 2. Prepare Draft EIR

 

After the Planning and Building Division has reviewed the Administrative Draft EIR, EIP will incorporate responses to the County’s comments and prepare the Draft EIR for printing, submittal, and review by agencies and the public. We anticipate that printing at least 100 bound copies of the Draft EIR will be necessary for distribution by the County. EIP will send a screen-check copy of the Draft EIR to the County for inspection prior to printing, if requested.

 

Task 3. Participate in Meetings and Public Hearings

 

The work program calls for periodic meetings with the Planning and Building Division during the course of EIR preparation. Four meetings are planned during preparation of the Administrative Draft, Draft, and Final EIRs at regular intervals. It is recommended that the first meeting take place shortly after project inception. This meeting would focus on:

 
 

Defining data needs and obtaining any necessary information.

     
 

Determining the approach to addressing cumulative development impacts.2

     
 

Reviewing the number and character of project alternatives to be addressed in the Alternatives section of the EIR.

     
 

Reviewing the proposed schedule.

     
 

Discussing other issues as determined necessary.

     

During preparation of the ADEIR, the second meeting is proposed to occur after substantial work on the document has been completed. This meeting would focus on describing impact findings to date, proposed mitigation measures, scheduling and other items as considered necessary.

 

The third meeting is proposed to occur after completion of the Administrative Draft EIR to review County comments on the Administrative Draft EIR prior to preparing the Draft EIR for publication. The fourth meeting is proposed to occur at the close of the Draft EIR comment period to review and determine the overall approach to responding to all comments received from the public and agencies on the Draft EIR. We have also allowed for a meeting with the HCA to allow for a discussion of alternatives and selection of an alternative as presented by the HCA for analysis in the EIR.

 

The County will advertise for and conduct public hearings on the Draft EIR.  At the public hearings, EIP’s Project Manager will be available to summarize and explain the document, and respond to questions and issues raised at the hearings. EIP subconsultant and project staff will also attend the public hearings to respond to or explain particular issues of importance. Two hearings are planned for the Planning Commission and one hearing is planned for the Board of Supervisors after the Final EIR is prepared unless the County determines otherwise.

 

Task 4. Prepare Responses to Comments/Final EIR

 

EIP will respond to comments on the Draft EIR received at the public hearings and letters of comment received during the 90-day agency/public review period. EIP will then prepare an Administrative Draft Responses to Comments document.  Responses to comments will be numbered and keyed to the list of comments, with pages of responses following each letter of comment for ease of use.  For comprehension, any necessary revisions to the Draft EIR as contained in the Responses to Comments document will be indicated through the use of underlines for added material, and strikeouts for deleted material.

 

After the Planning and Building Division’s review of the Responses to Comments document, EIP will amend the document as necessary and print and deliver 100 bound copies to the County for distribution. A screen-check review copy of the Final EIR will be submitted to the County for inspection if requested, before approval of the document for final printing.

 

Task 5. Prepare Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

 

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared for the proposed project based on the findings of the 1998 Draft EIR. The Program will be amended as necessary and updated to reflect the mitigation measures as contained in the revised Draft EIR for the 66 unit project. This Program will be prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which the Planning and Building Division will review. The Program will identify each mitigation measure for a significant environmental impact and will specify the following:

 
 

Performance criteria and standards necessary for the mitigation to be successful.

     
 

Responsible parties for implementing the mitigation measures.

     
 

The frequency of monitoring as applicable and maximum period of time for implementation.

     
 

The frequency of reporting the outcome of monitoring activities.

     
 

Those responsible for verifying the success of the mitigation measures, and sanctions to be imposed for noncompliance with required mitigation measures.

     

Ten (10) copies of the Administrative Draft Program will be submitted to the Planning and Building Division for review. After review of the Administrative Draft Program EIP will revise the Program as necessary in response to comments. Although EIP will prepare the Program, the actual monitoring activities will be undertaken by a separate entity under contract to either the project sponsor or County. Worksheets/follow-up forms for implementing the mitigation measures will be provided. Twenty-five copies of the Program will be produced and delivered to the County. One single-sided reproducible copy of the Program will also be provided at this time.

 

Schedule

 

Figure 1 illustrates the schedule for preparation of the Highland Estates revised EIR. The Administrative Draft EIR is anticipated to be completed within 12 weeks after EIP receives authorization to proceed (it is noted that plant surveys will need to be conducted in the spring). Given the lengthy period of time since the last Notice of EIR Preparation was issued (May, 1991), the schedule also assumes that the County will reissue the Notice. Following the Planning and Building Division’s review of the Administrative Draft EIR (three weeks are assumed in this case), three to four weeks would be required to prepare the Draft EIR for printing and distribution. Assuming about 200 comments would be received on the Draft EIR requiring responses, about three to four weeks would be required to prepare the Administrative Final EIR. The Final EIR would be available for the Planning and Building Division to distribute two weeks after Planning and Building Division comments on the Administrative Final EIR are received (three weeks are assumed for County review of the Administrative Final EIR). Please note that the schedule provides for a 90 day agency/public review period of the Draft EIR as requested by the HCA, rather than 45 days as is the norm under CEQA.

 

It should be noted that if the project is delayed due to circumstances beyond our reasonable control, or if decisions are made about the project that change the project description or alternatives, the EIR schedule could be adversely affected. However, we believe that the schedule presented herein represents an optimum balance between timeliness and the need for a thorough, comprehensive, and defensible EIR.

 

Cost Estimate

 

Figure 2 illustrates EIP’s cost estimate, by task, to prepare the Highland Estates revised EIR. Total costs through preparation of the Final EIR are estimated to be a maximum of $288,860. Please note that we have included the preparation of ten photomontages as requested in the cost estimate (i.e., photomontage preparation costs are not itemized separately from the budget). This cost includes $175,210 through preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR (Task 1), and $25,030 to prepare the Draft EIR (Task 2); $18,990 for participating in meetings and attending public hearings (Task 3); $29,470 to prepare the Responses to Comments and Final EIR (Task 4); and $3,240 to prepare the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Task 5). Printing and other direct costs are estimated at $22,042 and contingency work items amount to $14,878, for a total project cost of $288,860 through preparation of the Final EIR as indicated on the attached spreadsheet (Figure 2).

 

All costs include subconsultant fees; field inspections, data searches and data review; project administration; and printing and related expenses. Please refer to supporting attached correspondence from our subconsultant, Square One Productions which includes options for additional photomontages beyond the ten photomontages prepared as the base scope of work and included in the cost estimate.

 

Factors that could increase the scope of work and estimated cost include in-depth analysis of key issues in addition to those identified in this work program; changes in the project or scope of work requiring reanalysis or rewriting of report sections; revising or updating the Project History discussion as a separate document; preparing a new economic analysis if so requested; comments on the Administrative Draft and Administrative Final EIRs requiring more staff time than budgeted (one round of County staff comments is budgeted for on the Administrative Draft and Administrative Final EIRs); public/agency comments on the Draft EIR requiring more time than budgeted; significant deficiencies in available data requiring new and original research; or printing additional copies of the Draft and Final EIRs. These items can be renegotiated, if required.

 

Our cost estimate is valid for 90 days from the date of this submittal.  All work is proposed to be performed on a time-and-materials, not-to-exceed basis upon the completion of contract negotiations and the submittal of monthly billings. EIP labor costs are based on our standard hourly billing rates, a schedule of which is attached.

1 Letter from Thomas L, Frankel, Thomas Frankel Properties, to Marcia Raines, Director, Environmental Service Agency, County of San Mateo, September 9, 2004.

2 A “list based” approach rather than a “general plan” approach to the assessment of cumulative impacts is envisioned. This is because there are a number of projects within the immediate project area with potentially direct impacts on the community as expressed at the September 9 scoping session that are of concern to the community. The cumulative development list will be developed with the assistance of county staff. This will allow for the assessment of environmental impacts with respect to current development and reasonably foreseeable future development coupled with the Highland Estates project. Each technical section of the EIR (i.e., Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, etc.) will include a discussion of cumulative development impacts.