COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

DATE:

October 26, 2004

   

SET TIME:

9:45 a.m.

   

BOARD MEETING DATE:

November 9, 2004

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

 

SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Waiving of Request for Proposal Process, Execution of an Agreement with EIP Associates for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Highland Estates Project and Authorization of an Appropriation Transfer Request (ATR) for the Agreement.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.

Adopt a resolution authorizing the waiving of request for proposal process and the execution of an agreement with EIP Associates for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Highland Estates Project.

   

2.

Adopt a resolution authorizing an appropriation transfer request (ATR) in the amount of $12,244 unanticipated revenue into Services and Supplies to cover the cost of the contract.

   

BACKGROUND

 

On July 27, 2004, the Board considered a request to execute an agreement with EIP Associates for preparation of an EIR for the Highland Estates Project, which involves a general plan amendment, rezoning, subdivision, and other approvals for a 66-unit residential development near the San Mateo Highlands. After testimony from the applicant’s counsel and representatives from the Highlands Community Association, your Board directed staff to conduct a public scoping meeting during the week of September 5, 2004, and return to your Board with a final scope of work, schedule and cost for approval on October 5, 2004.

 

The public scoping meeting was conducted on September 9, 2004, in the Highlands. Approximately 260 people attended, including four staff members and four consultant team members. This meeting provided public input on the EIR content. At the conclusion of the meeting, staff was presented with a document prepared by five local community associations. Additional information was also submitted the following week. All of this information was synthesized into the scope of work presented to your Board on October 5, 2004.

 

At the October 5, 2004 meeting, your Board requested that EIP Associates prepare a matrix clarifying what issues had been included within the revised scope of work prepared by EIP Associates. EIP Associates has prepared the matrix as requested, which has been included as an Attachment to this report.

 

DISCUSSION

 

EIP Background

 

EIP is a full-service planning and environmental firm with 35 years serving both public and private clients throughout California, and has successfully completed over 7,500 environmental studies. To date, only a small number of the EIRs that EIP has prepared have been legally challenged, and the majority of those challenges resulted in the adequacy of the document being upheld. Ted Adams is a senior project manager with over 30 years of experience who has received awards from the Association of Environmental Professionals and the American Society of Landscape Architects for outstanding environmental and planning documents.

 

Key Issues

 

Under Mr. Adams’ supervision, EIP Associates has prepared the revised scope of work for the EIR, reflecting the input received at the scoping meeting. EIP has also prepared the requested matrix clarifying if issues of concern have or have not been included within the revised EIR scope. The matrix lists the issues of concern, a statement as to whether or not the information has been included within the scope of the EIR and a short discussion where appropriate. Some of the key issues are discussed below followed by options for Board action.

 

Geology and Specifications for Geotechnical Studies

 

A major area of contention involves the level of geotechnical review to be performed at the EIR stage of the current project. The issue highlights a tension between the requirement to prepare an EIR with an adequate level of detail (and specifically to allow the Board, as the decision maker, to certify the environmental document as adequate in its discussion of potentially significant impacts), and the recognition that detailed geotechnical investigations are most often done at the project design stage. The HCA has retained Cotton, Shires and Associates (“Cotton”), Consulting Engineers and Geologists, to review the geotechnical investigations to date. In a letter dated September 8, 2004, Cotton proposes that the following additional investigations should be performed: (1) a geotechnical feasibility study of a secondary route for fire safety; (2) subsurface exploration, to a depth of approximately 50 feet, for the proposed multi-story building proposed for Lot 27; (3) supplemental slope stability analysis based on the additional subsurface exploration; (4) an update of the seismic ground-shaking conditions anticipated at the property; (5) clarification of geotechnical design measures necessary for safe development of lots; and (6) geotechnical evaluation of the proposed sewer pipe alignment for serving Lots 7 through 14.

 

County Fire’s preliminary review indicates the proposed road B may not meet County Fire code and, in such event, mitigation would be required. Mitigation could include the provision of a secondary access road. EIP Associates would evaluate a second route for fire safety if a secondary access road is required, and the associated grading plan for the secondary access road is prepared by the applicant. EIP Associates has indicated they have sufficient data available at this time to determine if there will or will not be a significant geotechnical effect on the environment. EIP has indicated that additional test borings may be required in order to develop suitable mitigation to any potential significant impacts. If borings are required to be done, the borings would be completed by a qualified professional at the developer’s cost and the results would then be reflected within the DEIR. EIP has indicated that the additional cost to complete the required analysis of the additional borings would be approximately $6,000. This has been included within the contract. EIP Associates is proposing to review and document the slope stability analysis. If it is determined that supplemental slope stability analysis is necessary, the work will be completed and the results will be included in the DEIR. EIP will address the seismic ground shaking conditions anticipated at the subject property. EIP will include clarification of geotechnical design measures necessary for the safe development of the lots. EIP will also include a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed sewer pipe alignment.

 

Revised Fiscal Impact Study

 

A cost/revenue analysis was completed in 1991 and 1997 at the request of HCA. The purpose of the analysis was to determine what the fiscal impact of the project would be and was to be used as a companion document to the EIR. In summary, the analysis concluded that the project would not have an adverse fiscal impact on County government or the affected school districts. Economic or social effects of a project are not treated as significant effects on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a) states “Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.” On the other hand, the economic and social effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by a project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(b) states “Economic or social effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by a project.” Additionally, cost revenue analysis may be of interest to the Board in making a decision on aspects of the project other than environmental issues. Although a cost/revenue analysis was completed previously for informational purposes, EIP is not proposing to include a fiscal analysis in this scope of work, as it is not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

 

1991 Scope of Work

 

A major issue is whether or not the 1991 scope of work and comments received thereto was considered and evaluated in light of current circumstances, and included within the present scope of work. EIP Associates has reviewed the 1991 scope of work and, to the extent not already identified as issues in more recent comments, EIP has included the issues from 1991 within this current scope of work. The issues are included within the attached matrix. According to EIP Associates, the 1991 scope of work is listed as the last entry in the appendix for the matrix. In some cases, there was a repeat of comments and repeated comments have not been incorporated into the matrix.

 

Visual Impacts and Number of Photomontages

 

HCA has requested 30 photomontages and would like to provide specific viewpoints for consideration. They have also requested use of a 50mm lens and access to a 3-D model and electronic files. EIP has included ten photomontages as opposed to the thirty requested. It is EIP’s professional judgment that 10 photomontages will be sufficient for the Board of Supervisors to assess the potential visual impacts. EIP is proposing to use a 50mm lens as requested. EIP states they cannot provide electronic files of the photomontages because the work is copyrighted to the company providing the analysis, Square One. EIP will not be providing a 3-D model, as it is not a CEQA requirement, although the applicant could provide this if the Board desired to have a 3-D model.

 

Land Use/Density/RM Zoning/General Plan/Housing Element

 

Another major issue concerns the zoning history of the project. The proposed project would require a rezoning of the property to allow substantially increased density. With the exception of an analysis of the project’s consistency with the City of San Mateo’s General Plan (discussed below), the scope of the EIR will include a discussion of the points raised by the HCA. Rezoning of the property is a legislative act, entirely within the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. The HCA, in discussing the zoning history for the property, asserts that a “transfer of density rights” occurred at the time that development of the existing apartment building was approved in 1958. While there does not appear to have been any formal “transfer of density rights” that would preclude a rezoning now, the history of zoning actions is relevant to the determination of whether any rezoning is appropriate. Upon initial review, the zoning history can be summarized as follows:

 

1.

Prior to 1958, the subject property, along with the property now developed with an apartment building was zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1/BD), allowing a minimum parcel size of 7,500 sq. ft., or approximately 6 parcels per acre.

   

2.

In a series of rezonings in early 1958, the apartment site was rezoned to R-3, allowing construction of the 68 unit apartment building, and the remainder of the site was rezoned to Residential Estates (R-E/BD), allowing 1 unit per 5 acres.

   

3.

In 1976, all but 12 acres of the subject property was rezoned from R-E/S-11, to Resource Management (RM) allowing density at a rate of 1 unit per 5 to 40 acres, depending on the results of a constraints analysis on the property.

 

If the history is correct, it reflects a policy decision that was a legislative matter and would not be binding on the current Board of Supervisors.

 

EIP Associates is proposing to include a discussion of the items requested by the community, including a discussion of the trail use of the site and is requesting some information from the community related to the trail use in order to evaluate this issue. EIP is not proposing to conduct a new survey of the property, as this information is already available.

 

Construction Impacts Analysis and Measurements

 

The Community is concerned with the construction impacts that will result from the project and want to be sure that an analysis of those impacts is included within the scope of the EIR, including an analysis of the construction traffic impacts, noise impacts, and air quality impacts. EIP is proposing to include most items requested. There was a request to have a noise study conducted by an acoustical consultant; however, EIP’s technical personnel are qualified to conduct the noise impact analyses. Regarding air quality impacts during construction, construction related emissions will be quantified to the extent feasible and will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the BAAQMD.

 

Constraints Mapping

 

CEQA does not require constraints mapping, but could be included at the Board’s option. Constraints mapping provides a method to help evaluate and explain, in a visual fashion, areas that are optional for locating development. Constraints mapping can show, for example, the location of proposed development in relation to prevailing slopes on the property and sensitive habitats areas. The level of detail in constraints mapping at the EIR stage will, of course, depend on the level of detail available at the time environmental review is completed. EIP is not proposing to do this at this time.

 

Hydrology and Drainage/Impact on creeks

 

EIP is proposing to include most items requested with the exception of conducting groundwater flow studies. EIP is proposing to qualitatively assess groundwater contributions and potential changes in flow characteristics, and impacts on hydrology, water quality, groundwater recharge and landslide/erosion potential.

 

Biology and Biological Studies Requested by CDFG and USFWS

 

Another issue of concern includes the biological impacts. The community references a 2003 study prepared by Thomas Reid and Associates, which indicated that suitable habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog is present and suggests a protocol level survey is needed. EIP indicates that protocol surveys for sensitive species are not required, and the basis for this is that previous on-site work included an evaluation of the habitat quality and, in general, the habitat was considered marginal to poor quality for sensitive animals. EIP will, however, be evaluating the site for sensitive species including an evaluation of the potential habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake. EIP is proposing to include an analysis of all remaining issues such as impacts to trees, management of the open space and impacts to marshy areas and creeks, as requested by the community within the scope of the EIR. This includes a review and analysis of all biological studies requested in scoping comments by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

 

Alternatives

 

Another major issue is whether or not the scope of the EIR will allow for the presentation of a Highland Community Association alternative as previously agreed upon. The HCA wanted to be provided with a timeframe for the community to present their alternative. EIP will include an evaluation of the Highland Community Association (HCA) Alternative. In order for this alternative to be evaluated within the EIR, the alternative will need to be presented to EIP during the preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR. More specifically, the alternative will need to be presented to EIP Associates by the end of the 8th week of preparation of the ADEIR. EIP Associates has indicated they need approximately 12 weeks to prepare the ADEIR. By submitting the alternative within the 8th week, this will allow EIP 4 weeks to analyze the proposed alternative. This issue appears resolved, and no further consideration or action is necessary at this time.

 

Other Issues

 

EIP is proposing to include a discussion of all relevant issues presented including the traffic impacts, air quality impacts, population and housing, public health and safety and cumulative impacts. The details of what each of those sections will include can be found in the matrix. The matrix also includes a list of items considered in preparing the matrix and scope of work. The list of items considered include, but are not limited to, the power point presentations, the bound comments book submitted by HCA, the 1991 scope of work and associated comments to the letter dated July 22, 1991, listing 87 items left out of the previous scope of work as well as individual comments heard at the scoping session. EIP did not review the speaker cards nor the recordings from the scoping session of September 9, 2004, although EIP was present at the scoping session and took detailed notes as well as was provided staff’s notes from the scoping session.

 

The HCA has also asked the County to apply the terms of an understanding that was reached in November 1997 between the parties and two members of the Board of Supervisors. The parties agreed to initiate mediation. If the mediation was not successful, the County agreed to release the prior 1998 DEIR in two parts. The first part was intended to be the DEIR scheduled for release in January 1998, and the second part was to include any alternative proposed by the HCA. The HCA had 60 days from the release of the first part or the termination of negotiations to submit a proposed alternative. It was further agreed that there would be a 90-day comment period running from the deadline of the submittal of the HCA alternative or upon release of the second part of the 1998 DEIR, whichever was later.

 

The parties are now addressing a new EIR. The draft scope of work provides the HCA with an opportunity to submit a proposed alternative by the 8th week of the contract schedule. This will allow the alternative to be included within the DEIR with appropriate analysis. It is also proposed to give a 90-day comment period running for the release of the new DEIR. The only difference between this approach and the 1997 agreement is that the new DEIR will be issued in only one part, which includes all alternatives instead of two parts. Separating the new DEIR into two parts would extend the environmental review process by at least four months to develop the new information and recirculate the documents for comments a second time.

 

BOARD OPTIONS

 

Although most items requested by the community will be included within the scope of the EIR, there are some differences between what EIP is proposing to include within the scope of the EIR and what the surrounding community is requesting be a part of the scope of the EIR. The Board may choose to direct EIP Associates to include these items if the Board feels the items necessary to properly evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project. They include:

 

1.

Preparation of a revised fiscal analysis.

   

2.

Preparation of additional photomontages.

   

3.

Preparation of a revised topographical survey.

   

4.

Preparation of a noise impact analysis by an acoustical consultant as opposed to preparation by EIP Associates.

   

5.

Preparation of a constraints map.

   

6.

Preparation of groundwater flow studies.

   

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

 

Staff recommends that the County now enter into an agreement with EIP Associates to complete the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in accordance with the revised scope of work.

 

EIP Associates has been involved with this project since 1991 and has previously prepared a Draft EIR for this project. They are the most suitable consultants to continue with the preparation of the Revised Draft EIR as EIP has prepared over 7,500 environmental documents. They are thoroughly knowledgeable of this project and the issues, and they have good technical expertise to analyze those issues. Thus, it is in the best interest of the County to waive the request for proposal process.

 

The services to be performed are described in the agreement. Major project tasks include the following:

 

1.

Development of four project alternatives to be evaluated, including a “No Action Alternative” and including an alternative proposed by the Highlands Community Association.

   

2.

Description of the environmental setting and impact evaluation, including evaluation of population and housing, traffic and circulation, public services, utilities, visual quality and community character, energy, cultural resources, public health and safety, geology, soils and seismicity, hydrology and water quality, vegetation and wildlife, air quality and noise.

   

3.

Delivery of a revised Draft EIR to be circulated for public review and comment for 90 days.

   

4.

Delivery of the Final EIR that includes responses to public comments.

   

5.

Attendance at key public hearings.

   

The resolution and agreement have been reviewed by County Counsel.

 

VISION ALIGNMENT

 

This agreement with EIP Associates keeps the commitment of redesigning our urban environment to increase vitality, expand variety and reduce congestion and goal number 12: Land use decisions consider transportation and other infrastructure needs as well as impacts on the environment and on surrounding communities. The agreement contributes to this commitment and goal since EIP Associates will be undertaking an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed development scheme to assess the potential impacts on transportation and the environment.

 

FISCAL IMPACT

 

The total obligation under this agreement is $288,860, which is funded by the developer, Chamberlain Group. The developer has already provided $276,616 towards the cost of the contract, which is included in the Planning and Building Budget for FY 2004-05. The proposed transfer will set up an appropriation for the balance of the contract amount ($12,244). The term of the agreement is from November 9, 2004 through December 31, 2006. There is no Net County Cost.

 

ATTACHMENT

   

A.

EIP Matrix of Issues