The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.2 AwardContrSchaeferHeights . '. CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1994 A ward of Contract for Consultant Services for P A 94-028 Schaefer Heights General Plan Amendment EIR REPORT PREPARED BY: jff( Tasha Huston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3. Resolution A warding the Consulting Contract Contract for Consultant Services with WPM Map showing proposed amendment to study area EXIDBITS AlTACHED: Exhibit 1. BACKGROUND ATIACHMENT: Vicinity Map RECOMMENDATION: (;(vC' 1. :Jf ~~/ 2. Adopt Resolution awarding the Contract for Consultant Services to WPM Planning Team Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Contract Amend Study Area 3. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The Contract will not exceed $139,150.00 and is to be paid for by the project Applicants. DESCRIPTION: James Parsons, on behalf of Schaefer Heights Associates, Otto Schaefer, Jr., Robert J. Yohai, and Sal S. Zagari, the legal land owners, and Schaefer Heights, Inc., the applicant, requested a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch project in June of this year. On July 11, 1994, the City Council authorized the initiation of the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, defined the study area boundaries, and directed staff to prepare a consultant contract and other associated documents for City Council action. The initial study area covered approximately 452 acres along the north side of the Interstate 580 Freeway, west of the Dublin City Limit boundary. The site lies within Dublin I s Western Extended Planning Area and the Sphere of Influence (SOl). Staff and the identified planning consultant firm of WPM Planning Team, Inc. have prepared a draft scope of work proposal and agreement to prepare the General Plan Amendment study Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Schaefer Ranch project. A multi-disciplinary team of several consultants under WPM's direction has been proposed to work with the project applicants and the community in a collaborative manner to prepare the General Plan Amendment document and a comprehensive EIR, which will include a fiscal impact analysis and traffic impact study. The proposal has an anticipated work schedule covering approximately 7 months with a total cost not to exceed $139,150.00. Upon commencement of work by the EIR consultant, and as the General Plan Amendment Study proceeds, public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicants will likely submit applications for a Planned Development Prezone, Annexation, and ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Applicants Agenda/PA File Senior Planner project Planner ITEM NO. &2 CITV CLERK FILE ~ .-':.1",. ""'Y ..,'.1,;', ....,.....::',., /" . . Tentative Map, and the supplemental materials required for processing those applications, in order to provide additional information regarding the proposed project, and to consolidate some of the processing steps involved. Subsequent entitlement approvals for the project would include Site Development Review. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution award the contract for consultant services to WPM (Exhibit 1), and authorize the City Manager sign the agreement with WPM Planning Team, Inc. (Exhibit 2) after the project applicants have committed the funds needed to cover the total cost of the work scope. After the City Council defined the study area boundary in July, the project. applicants requested an amendment to the boundary which would increase the study area by approximately 50 acres to include property owned by Dennis and Laurie Gibbs. The subject parcel is located at the south-western border of the approved study area boundary, and lies between the Schaefer Ranch properties and the 1-580 Freeway. A roadway easement which provides the main access to the Schaefer Ranch property runs across the Gibbs property. It appears to be appropriate to include the Gibbs property in the General Plan Amendment Study for the following reasons: 1. The study area boundary line would follow property lines and create a regular boundary line on the south and west sides of the area 2. It is logical to include the Gibbs' property because it is contiguous property, and the City would have the opportunity to propose land uses that are compatible with the Schaefer Ranch land uses. When land use designations for the Gibbs property are coordinated with the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, compatibility, provision of services, and other issues could be addressed for this adjacent, contiguous property. 3. Construction of a future access road across this property would be necessary, and would involve the issues of transfer of easement rights from CalTrans, as well as the issue of future control and maintenance of the road. If the Gibbs property were not annexed, the issue of the City maintaining a private road located in the county's jurisdiction could become complex. Exhibit 3 (attached) illustrates the proposed amended boundary line. Staff will have a large scale map available at the City Council meeting to help illustrate the requested amendment to the study area. The land use designation for the Gibbs property is currently,being reviewed, and would be determined by the time EIR analysis is commenced. Staff recommends that the City Council amend the study area as requested. . . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ___________._____M_._~.__~__._~_.______________________________________________._____.~~_~_________________________~.__..-~ AWARDING A CONSULTING CONTRACT TO WPM PLANNING TEAM WHEREAS, Schaefer Heights Incorporated has applied for P A 94-028 Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 70-94, Initiating a General Plan Amendment Study for Schaefer Ranch; and WHEREAS, the consulting firm of WPM Planning Team is able to prepare the necessary Environmental Impact Report and coordinate a multi-disciplinary team of consultants in a timely and cost effective manner; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council award the proposed contract to WPM Planning Team; and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider said report and recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby award the consulting contract to WPM Planning Team. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 1994. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor City Clerk EXHIBIT 1 ATTEST: . . CONTRACT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _ day of 1994, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to a the "City"), and WPM Planning Team, Inc., a business whose address is 1200 "G" Street, Suite I~B, Modesto, CA 95354, and telephone number is (209) 522-4465, (hereinafter referred to as the " Consultant"). \V I T N E SSE T H: A. Consultant is qualified to provide, and experienced in providing, planning and environmental services and has offered its services for the purposes specified in this Agreement. B. In the judgment of the City, it is necessary and advisable to employ the services of Consultant for the purposes provided herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements and conditions contained herein, City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Services. Consultant shall diligently perform the services and furnish the materials, reports, drawings, and related materials as hereinafter set forth: a. Consultant shall perform all work described in Exhibit "A", Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. b. Consultant shall meet with the technical staff of the City, other pertinent agencies, and/or landowners as necessary to complete the scope of work outlined in Section 1 (a) above. 2. City Services. In order to assist Consultant in this work, City shall provide, if necessary, available information on file, necessary direction and document review within a reasonable time. 3. Staff. The Project Manager for Consultant shall be Dennis Dahlin. Consultant shall not replace Dennis Dahlin without prior approval of the City. 4. Sufficiency of Consultant's Work. All reports, drawings, and plans prepared for City shall be adequate and sufficient to meet the purposes for which they are prepared. 5. Ownership of Work. All reports, drawings, and plans completed or partially completed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall become the property of City. II 1 :\9309\CON1RACT.sH _EXHIBIT 2 . . 6. Terms. Time is of the essence. Consultant shall begin work immediately. The work as described in Exhibit "A", Scope of Work, shall be completed according to the schedule of Exhibit B. The days allowed in Schedule B may be extended to allow additional City review time or to receive necessary materials from the applicant. 7. Comoensation. For full performance of the services to be rendered pursuant to this contract for time and materials, the City shall pay the Consultant a total sum not to exceed $139,150.00. The City shall pay Consultant on a time and materials basis as set forth in attached Exhibit "C". Partial payment shall be made on a monthly basis in proportion to the percentage of work completed, upon receipt of Consultant's invoice and the approval of the Planning Director, in accordance with the City's schedule for processing invoices. Invoices submitted to City for payment must contain a brief description of work performed, including the work phase and task performed, the percentage of work completed in prior periods, and the percentage of work being billed in the current period. 8. Cham!:es. City may request, from time to time, changes in the scope of services to be provided by Consultant. Any changes and related fees shall be mutually agreed upon between City and Consultant and shall be the subject of a written amendment to this Agreement which may be signed on behalf of City by City Manager if the change in total compensation does not exceed 5% of$139,150. 9. Consultant's Status. In the performance of the obligations set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall have the status of an independent contractor and Consultant shall not be considered to be an employee of the City for any purpose. All persons working for or under the direction of Consultant are its agents, servants, and employees and are not agents, servants or employees of City. 10. Termination for Convenience of City. The City may terminate this Agreement at any time by mailing a notice in writing to Consultant that the Agreement is terminated. Said Agreement shall be deemed terminated as of the date specified in the notice and no further work shall be perfonned by Consultant. If the Agreement is so terminated, the Consultant shall be paid for that percentage of the work actually completed, based on a pro rata portion of the total fixed sum compensation described in Section 7 herein at the time the notice of termination is received. 11. Non-Assismabilitv. The Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any interest or obligation therein without the prior written consent of the City, and then only upon such terms and conditions as City may set forth in writing. 12. Indemnifv and Hold Harmless. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City and its officers and employees from and against all claims, losses, damage, injury, and liability for damages arising from errors, omissions, negligent or wrongful acts of the Consultant in the perfonnance of its services under this Agreement, regardless of whether the City has reviewed and/or approved the work or services which has given rise to the claim, loss, damage, injury or liability for damages. The City's acceptance of the insurance certificates required under this Agreement does not relieve the Consultant from its obligation under this paragraph. 13. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain in full force and effect at its own cost and expense the following insurance coverage: . . a. General Liability and Bodily Injury Insurance A comprehensive, general liability insurance for at least $500,000 combined limit for bodily injury and property damage and provide that the City, its officers, employees and agents are named additional insured under the policy. The policy shall state in writing either on the Certificate of Insurance or attached rider thereof that this insurance will operate as primary insurance for work performed by Consultant and its subconsultants, and that no other insurance effected by City or other named insured will be called on to cover a loss covered thereunder. b. Automobile Liability Insurance Automobile liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000 per person/per occurrence. and provide that the City, its officers, employees and agents are named additional insured under the policy. The policy shall state in writing either on the Certificate of Insurance or attached rider thereof that this insurance will operate as primary insurance for work performed by Consultant and its subconsultants, and that no other insurance effected by City or other named insured will be called on to cover a loss covered thereunder. c. Worker's Compensation Insurance Worker's Compensation Insurance for all of Consultant's employees, all in strict compliance with State laws, and to protect the City from any an all claims thereunder. - d. Professional Liability Insurance Professional liability insurance in the amount of $250,000. e. Certificate of Insurance Consultant shall complete and file with the City prior to the City's execution of this Agreement, and prior to engaging in any operation or activity set forth in this Agreement, certificates of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage(s) set forth above and which shall provide in writing that no cancellation, major change in coverage, or expiration by the insurance company will be made during the term of this Agreement without thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the effective date of such cancellation or change in coverage. 14. Notices. All notices herein required shall be in writing and shall be sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: TO CITY: City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 TO CONSULTANT: Rudolph R. Platzek - WPM 1200 "G" Street, Suite I-B Modesto, CA 95354 15. Waiver. In the event that either City of Consultant shall at any time or times waive any breach of this Agreement by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any other or succeeding breach of this Agreement, whether of the same or of any other covenant, condition or obligation. . ." 16. Attorney's Fees. The prevailing party in 'any action brought to enforce or construe the terms of this Agreement may recover from the other party its reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with such an action. 17. Scope of Aereement. This writing constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties relative to planning and environmental services for the project and, as provided in paragraph 8, modification hereof shall not be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by a written amendment signed by both parties to this Agreement. THIS AGREEMENT executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN By City Manager CONSULTANT By ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney . EXHIBIT A . WPM Planning Team, Inc. October 14, 1994 PROPOSAL 3: WITH STANLEY R. HOFFMAN ASSOCIATES AND TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE _,I'~III~lli11i~; ~;'i:;~IlI~I~ill ETR PREPARATION 0.0 Initiate Project 64 5140 180 5320 0.1 Scoping Meetings . 7/18/94 - Oakland - 160 miles 4 85 Platzek Mileage 340 40 380 . 7(2.9/94 . Dublin - 140 miles 4 85 Platzek Mileage 340 35 375 . 8/10/94 - Dublin . 140 miles 4 85 P1atzek Mileage 340 35 375 . 9(2./94 - Dublin - 140 miles 4 85 P1a1zek Mileage 340 35 375 . Community Meeting - 140 miles 8 85 Platzek Mileage 680 35 715 0.2 Prepare Draft Initial Study . Review Program EIR 4 85 Platzek - - 340 . . 340 . Prepare Sec. 5162 Checklist 2 85 PI atzek - - 170 - - 170 . Prepare Checklist Evaluation 4 85 Platzek . . 340 - - 340 . Consultation . City - Proponent 2 85 Platzek . - 170 - - 170 . Word Processing 6 35 Foit - - 210 - - 210 0.3 Prepare Work Scope/Proposal 18 85 Platzek - - 1530 - - 1530 0.4 Prepare(Execute Contract 4 85 P1atzek - - 340 . . 340 1.0 Chap. 1: Intro. and Project Description 34 1990 195 2185 1.1 Introduction 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 1.2 Project Description . Site and Vicinity Characteristics 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - . 75 . Proposed Development 0.5 75 Dahlin - - 37.50 . . 37.50 . Housing and Lot Characteristics 0.5 75 Dahlin - - 37.50 . . 37.50 . Project Objectives! Actions 1 75 Dahlin . . 75 - - 75 . Constraints/Opportunities 1 75 Dahlin - . 75 . . 75 1.3 Graphics: Setups - 7 Figures . City Setting 2 I 55 Schilling Repro 110 15 125 1 I :\930'l\9309.NB4 WPM Planning Team. Inc. October 14,1994 . EXHffirr A . Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE il~t:i:ifll~I;lillll'~. 2 55 Schilling Repro 110 15 125 2 2 8 2 2 4 4 . Site and Vicinity . Site Feature Names . Site Plan . Land Use Plan . Prelim. Tentative Map . Aerial Photo . Slope Analysis . Selected Site Constraints 2.0 Chap.2: Summary 15 2.1 Impacts and Mitigations Matrix 12 2.2 Alternatives 2 2.3 Controversies/lssues to Resolve 1 3.0 Chap.3: Socioeconomic EffectslFiscal' 17 3.1 Setting . Population . Employment . Retail Sales . Assessed Valuation . Housing Characteristics . lobslHousing Balance 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures . Conununity Socioeconomic Effects . Population Growth . Housing Stock . Affordable Housing . Employment . lobslHousing Balance . Sales Tax Revenues 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5' 55 Schilling Repro 55 Schilling Repro 55 Schilling Repro 55 Schilling Repro 55 Schilling Repro 55 Schilling Repro 55 Schilling Repro 75 Dahlin - . 75 Dahlin - - 75 Dahlin . - 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 75 Dahlin Cone 2 lID 30 140 110 15 125 440 15 455 110 15 125 lID 30 140 220 30 250 220 30 250 1125 . . 1125 900 . . 900 150 - - 150 75 . - 75 1275 27,350' 28,625' 75 520 595 75 130 205 75 130 205 75 130 205 75 350 425 75 130 205 75 2080 2155 75 520 595 75 350 425 75 350 425 75 130 205 75 130 205 37.50 130 16750 I ~30<J\9309-NB4 . EXHmIT A . WPM Planning Team. Inc. October 14, 1994 Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST EST 1M A TE _1~~~lrllli IIilill11i .... ..... .... . Property Tax Revenues 0.5 75 Dahlin Cone 37.50 130 167.50 . Competitive Commercial Impacts 2 75 Dahlin Cone 150 1040 1190 3.3 Fiscal Study 1 2 75 Dahlin Hoffman 150 21,1001 21,2501 4.0 Chap. 4: Land Use and Planning 70 5050 180 5230 4.1 Selling . Existing Land Use 4 85 P1atzek - - 340 . . 340 . Property Ownerships 2 85 P1alzek . . 170 - - 170 4.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measues . Consistency with Adopted Plans 8 85 Platzek . . 680 . - 680 . Sphere/Annexation Issues 4 85 P1alzek . . 340 - - 340 . Land Use Compatibility 2 85 Platzek - - 170 - . 170 . Agricultural Resources 4 85 P1alzek - - 340 - - 340 . Open Space 8 85 Platzek . - 680 - - 680 . Regional Trail Corridor 8 85 Plalzek - - 680 . . 680 4.3 Graphics: Setups - 11 Figures Existing Land Use 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 I . 3 180 . Ownership Patterns 3 55 Schlling Repro 165 15 180 . Sub-Regional Setting 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 . Dublin General Plan 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Western Extended Planning Area 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Spheres of Influence 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Agricultural Suitability 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Williamson Act Land 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Urban/Ag Relationships 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 30 195 . Open Space Plan 4 55 Schilling Repro 220 15 235 . Region! Trail System 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 , 3 1 :\9309\9309-NB4 WPM PlaMlng Team, Inc. October 14, 1994 . EXHmIT A . Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES ~ND COST ESTIMATE _lill~ilil;~ij! I~i~ji. 5.0 Chap. 5: Traffic and Clrcutation2 47 1905 17,4952 10,4002 5.1 Setting . Project Inilialion2 1 75 Dahlin TJKM 75 6502 7252 . Data Collection & Exist. Conditions2 1 75 Dahlin TJKM 75 9602 10352 . Travel Demand Forecast2 2 75 Dahlin TJKM 150 19202 207rr 5.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures . Future Impacts and Mitigations2 12 75 Dahlin TJKM 900 60002 69cx:t . Traffic Study Reporr - - . - . . TJKM . . 46302 46302 . TVTM Model Runs (2 @ $1000)2 - - . - . . TJKM . . 30002 3()()Q2 . Reproduction2 - - - - . - TJKM . . 2002 2cx:t 5.3 Graphics: Setups . 10 Figures . Roadway System 3 55 Schilling Repro ]65 ]5 180 . BikeffraiI System 2 55 Schilling Repro 1 to ]5 125 . Project Trip Distribution 4 55 Schiling Repro 220 ]5 235 . ADT - Project 4 55 Schilling Repro 220 ]5 235 . ADT . Cumulative 4 55 Schilling Repro 220 15 235 . Peak Hour . Project 4 55 Schilling Repro 220 15 235 . Peak Hour. Cwnulative 4 55 Schilling Repro 220 15 235 . Geometries . Project 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Geometries . Cwnulalive 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 6.0 Chap. 6: Visual and Site Design 43 1905 7465 10,370 6.1 Setting . Visual Contexl/Features 8 7S Dahlin miles/photos 600 50 650 . Methodology ] 75 Dahlin - - 7S . . 75 6.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures . Significance Criteria 1 7S Dahlin . . 75 - - 75 . Alteration of Landscape Character ] 75 Dahlin - - 75 . . 75 . Grading 8 t 75 Dahlin - . 600 - - 600 4 I :\9309\9309-NB4 . EXHffirr A . WPM Planning Team, 100. October 14, 1994 Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP / GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE _lill~.!I;;1 ill'. . Tree Removal 4 75 Dahlin . . 300 - - 300 . Fencing 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 . - 75 . Light and Glare 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 . Energy Conservation 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 6.3 Graphics: Setups - 11 Figures . Visual Features 2 55 Schilling Repro 110 30 140 . Offsite Visual Sensitivity 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 30 195 . Viewpoints 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Design Impact Areas 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 30 195 . Selected Mitigation Measures 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 30 195 . View of Site: Rodeo Park 1 55 Schilling CADP 55 3640 3695 . View of Site: 1-580 1 55 Schilling CADP 55 3640 3695 7.0 Chap. 7: Vegetation and Wildlife 19 1225 4605 5830 7.1 Setting . Plant/Animal Communities 1 75 Dahlin McGinnis 75 440 515 . Endangered[fhreatened Species 2 75 Dahlin McGinnis 150 440 590 7.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures . Significance Criteria 0.5 75 Dahlin McGinnis 37.50 100 137.50 . Grassland 0.5 75 Dahlin McGinnis 37.50 440 477.50 . Northern Coastal Scrub 0.5 75 Dahlin McGinnis 37.50 440 477 .50 . Coast Live Oak Woodland 0.5 75 Dahlin McGinnis 37.50 440 477.50 . Riparian/Stream 0.5 75 Dahlin McGinnis 37.50 440 477.50 . Aquatic Biomes 1 75 Dahlin McGinnis 75 440 515 . Wildlife Corridors/Habitats 1 75 Dahlin McGinnis 75 440 515 . Domestic Plants and Animals 0.5 75 Dahlin McGinnis 37.50 220 257.50 . Endangerednnrrearened Species 1 75 Dahlin McGinnis 75 660 735 7.3 Graphics: Setups .4 Figures . Plant/Animal Communities 3 I 55 Schilling Repro 165 30 195 5 1 :\930!1\9309-NB4 WPM Planning Team. Inc. October 14.1994 . EXHIBIT A . Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM I SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR . CEQA FINDINGS . GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE - [::[[':':I!lj!::lij:..::::~.j.l:I~~I:!~lltjllll!~~t~~~.;j:j~i;::.::j,!'i'.i::'ii.l.j:I:~: .Iil. .:!::'::'iil:l~ii:j!';:':. ::;:;: ;::;;: :::::: =:::::::: :~:;:::::::::::::;::' 11~llllllalil~illi! ijj'l~l~'d~i:i: :':':':':WPi\t">:':':" ":;:;::::\Riite~'::~::::!. ";;:;;;;:;;;:;:;:::::;::::.:::.:.:.:.:"':::::::::;;: .......... ....... .. ,. ....... .... ., .:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:".,:.:,:.:.;.:.;,:,;,;.: :.:. ~.:.: .;.;. ,,:.;. ;.;.:.:..: .:-:.:.: -:-:.:.:.:.~.:. :.:.:. .... .... . Stream Channel Alterations 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 30 195 . Areas of Vegetation Removal 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 30 195 . Typical Reconstructed Pond 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 8.0 Chap. 8: Public Facilities and Services 41 2955 6030 8985 8.1 Domestic Water Supply . Setting 1 75 Dahlin Greiner 75 1 ()(X) 1075 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1 75 Dahlin Greiner 75 2()(x) 2075 8.2 Wastewater . Setting 1 75 Dahlin Greiner 75 1 ()(X) 1075 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1 75 Dahlin Grein.er 75 2()(X) 2075 8.3 Solid Waste . Setting 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 8.4 Police Protection . Setting 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 . - 150 8.5 Fire Protection . Setting 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 75 Dahlin - . 150 - - 150 8.6 Parks and Recreation . Setting 2 75 Dahlin . - 150 - - 150 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 . . 150 8.7 Open Space . Setting 2 75 Dahlin - . 150 - - 150 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 75 Dahlin . . 150 - - 150 8.8 Regional Trail . Setting 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 f 75 Dahlin - - 150 . . 150 6 1 :\9309\9309-NB4 . EXHIBIT A . WPM ptanning Team, Inc. October 14, 1994 Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE _li:,i;rllj~ll\ a~!!'fu~~S~. fiiii.M:[:ii!i::!:i!~~i~I~~ 8.9 Schools . Setting 3 75 Dahlin - - 225 - . 225 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3 75 Dahlin - . 225 . - 225 8.10 Other SeIVices . Setting 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 . - 75 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 8.11 Graphics: Setups - 2 Figures . Water Supply Plan 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Wastewater Plan 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 9.0 Chap. 9: HydrologylWater Quality 10 630 3030 3660 9.1 Drainage . Setting 1 75 Dahlin Greiner 75 500 575 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1 75 Dahlin Greiner 75 1000 1075 9.2 Water Quality . Setting 1 75 Dahlin Greiner 75 500 575 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1 75 Dahlin Greiner 75 1000 1075 9.3 Graphics: Setups - 2 Figures . Watershed/Drainage Patterns 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Storm Drainage Plan 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 10.0 Chap. 10: Geology, Soils and Grading 21 1315 3665 4980 10.1 Setting . Site Conditions 1 75 Dahlin BGC 75 350 425 . Proposed Grading 2 75 Dahlin BGC 150 350 500 10.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures . Significance Criteria 0.5 75 Dahlin BGC 37.50 350 38750 . Mass Grading 1 75 Dahlin BGC 75 350 425 . Slope Stability 1 75 Dahlin BGC 75 350 425 . Erosion 0.5' 75 Dahlin BOC 37.50 350 387.50 7 1 :\9309\9309-ND4 WPM PlaMing Team, Inc. October 14,1994 . EXHffiIT A . Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE lii..iiiii:i::,:,:::':::"':i'i.i.i":T~;I:~~!:lt::I~1li~~~i:tt'.i:.:i.ii:iiij'::.::i:::i1:l'[.': illi~t'l. . ............... d. ,. 'l[lii!r!!!!!III!.!! .::-:':_~M'.:::..-. iiij:!~~~u'!~~i::: ..........'..............................,'..,."... .::iillllllllll(:::\::: ";:::!%.~.~/:::::!!: ....., . .. ...... .... .... ............ ....",.. ........... ...." ............... . Fill Settlement 0.5 75 Dahlin BOC 37.50 350 387.50 . Expansive/Corrosive Soil 0.5 75 Dahlin BOC 37.50 350 387.50 . Seismic Hazard 0.5 75 Dahlin BOC 37.50 350 387.50 . Excavation 0.5 75 Dahlin ROC 37.50 350 387.50 10.3 Graphics: Setups - 7 Figures . Area Geologic Map 2 55 Schilling Repro 110 30 140 . Regional Fault/Seismicity Map 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 . Prelim. Geologic Map 2 55 SchilIng Repro 110 30 140 . Landslide Hazards 2 55 Schilling Repro 1 10 30 140 . Other Geologic Constraints 2 55 Schilling Repro 110 30 140 . Grading Plan 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Landslide Mitigation Measures 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 11.0 Nolse3 11 685 60 745 11.1 Setting . Noise Context3 0.5 75 Dahlin - - 37.503 . . 37.5rr . Noise Levels3 0.5 75 Dahlin - - 37.503 - . 37.503 11.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures . Significance Criteria3 0.5 75 Dahlin - - 37.503 - - 37.5rr . Construction Noise3 0.5 75 Dahlin - - 37.503 . . 37.5rr . Highway and Street Noise3 2 75 Dahlin . . 1503 - - 15rr 11.3 Graphics: Setups . 2 Figures . Existing Noise Condilions 4 55 Schilling Repro 220 30 250 . Year 2010 Noise 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 30 195 12.0 Air Quality 6 450 2100 2550 12.1 Setting . Regulations 1 75 Dahlin Pollack 75 100 175 . Existing Conditions 1 75 Dahlin Pollack 75 300 375 , 8 1 :\930'1\9309- NB4 . EXHIBIT A . WPM Planning Team. Inc. October 14. 1994 Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE 12.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures . Significance Criteria 0.5 75 Dahlin Pollack 37.50 100 137.50 . Particulates 0.5 75 Dahlin . . 37.50 . . 37.50 . Construction Emissions 0.5 75 Dahlin . . 37.50 . . 37.50 . Regional Ozone Emissions 0.5 75 Dahlin Pollack 37.50 1200 1237.50 . CO Emissions 0.5 75 Dahlin Pollack 37.50 400 437.50 . Wood Burning Emissions 0.5 75 Dahlin . - 37.50 . . 37.50 . Global Wanning 1 75 Dahlin - . 75 - - 75 13.0 Energy Resources 5 375 - - 375 13.1 Setting3 1 75 Dahlin - . 753 - - 753 13.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures3 4 75 Dahlin - . 3003 . . 30& 14.0 Cultural Resources3 5 3353 30 3653 14.1 Setting3 1 75 Dahlin - - 753 - - 753 14.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures3 2 75 Dahlin - - 1503 - - 150' 14.3 Graphics: Setups - 1 Figure . Cultural Resource Locations3 2 55 Schilling Repro 1103 30 14ct 15.0 Other Environmental Issues ? 375 - - 375 15.1 Hazardous Materials3 . Seltinl 1 75 Dahlin - - 753 - - 753 . Impacts and Miligation Measures3 2 75 Dahlin . - 1503 . - 15ct 15.2 Other Potential Issues . Setting 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - . 75 . Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1 75 Dahlin . - 75 - . 75 16.0 Other Legal Requirements 6 450 - - 450 16.1 Unavoidable Significant Effects 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 . - 75 16.2 Short-Term UselLong- Term Productivity 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - . 75 16.3 Significant Irreversible Effects 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 16.4 Growth-Inducement I 9 1 :\9309\9309.NB4 '. ~ .-J'-", WPM Planning Team, Inc. October 14, 1994 . EXHIDIT A . Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR ~ CEQA FINDINGS ~ GPA ~ UNIFIED GP / GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE _ltjliiltllt;~'MI~~I!tI;m111j~.I;11 1!~liJ:Mtffir~l'l. liiliiiiiiiilil::liiiri:liiiilliijlm::::i::liiiiiil;11!:::;ii::::!!:~~~:mi~~~i!: :i::;ll11:iliiliii!: ::!~~~~t~~~ . Ind irect 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 . Expansion of Facilities 0.5 75 Dahlin . - 37.50 - - 37.50 . Improved Access 0.5 75 Dahlin - - 37.50 - - 37.50 . Other Potential Effects 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 17.0 Alternatives 53 4195 1590 5785 17.1 No-Project Alternative 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 17.2 Rural Residential Alternative 4 75 Dahlin - - 300 - - 300 17.3 Mitigated Plan Alternative . Prepare Concept Plan 24 75 Dahlin Team 1800 1500 3300 . FOlWard to City/Proponent 1 75 Dahlin Copies/UPS 75 30 105 . Attend Staff/Proponent Meeting 8 75 Dahlin - - 600 - - 600 . Prepare Revised Concept Plan 8 75 Dahlin - - 600 - - 600 17.4 Off-Site Alternative 3 75 Dahlin - - 225 - - 225 17.5 Evaluation of Alternatives 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 17.6 Environmentally Superior Alternatives 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 17.7 Alternatives Not Considered 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 17.8 Graphics: Setups . 2 Figures . Rural Residential Alternative 2 55 Schilling Repro 1 10 30 140 . Mitigated Plan Alternative 2 55 Schilling Repro 1 10 30 140 18.0 Cumulative Impacts 23 1645 30 1675 18.1 Cumulative Projects 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 18.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures . CUmulative Traffic 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - . 75 . Cumulative Water Supply 6 75 Dahlin - - 450 - - 450 . Cumulative Wastewater 4 75 Dahlin - - 300 - - 300 . Cumulative Public Service 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 . Cumulative Air Quality 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 Cumulative: Other Issues 2 I 75 . Dahlin - - 150 - - 150 10 1 :\9309\9309-NB4 . EXHffiIT A . WPM Planning Team, Joe. October 14, 1994 Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE lIS,il;ii,lllllli. 18.3 Graphics: Setups . 2 Figures . Cumulative Sites 3 55 Schilling Repro 165 15 180 . Tn-Valley Traffic Zones 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 19.0 MitIgation Monitoring 33 2155 - - 2155 19.1 Mit Monitoring Reconunendations 24 75 Dahlin - - 1800 - - 1800 19.2 Master Mitigation Measures List 1 75 Dahlin - - 75 - - 75 19.3 Word Processing 8 35 Foit - - 280 . - 280 20.0 ADEIR - DEIR Preparation 84 3900 . - 3900 20.1 Synthesis and Editing: ADEIR 24 75 Dahlin - - 1800 - - 1800 20.2 Word Processing . ADEIR Document 48 35 Foit - - 1680 - - 1680 . ADEIR Revisions 12 35 Foit - . 420 - - 420 21.0 ADEIR . DEIR Printing 28 1080 2665 3745 21.1 ADEIR Printing . City:15 copies @ $25 each 2 35 Foit Printer 70 375 445 . Proponent: 4 copies @ $25 each 1 35 Foit Printer 35 100 135 . Binding and Delivery 3 35 Foit UPS 105 15 120 21.2 DEIR Printing . Offset Printing - 7 Figures 5 55 Schilling Printer 275 390 665 . City: 60 copies @ $25 each 4 35 Foit Printer 140 1500 1640 . Proponent: 10 copies @ $25 each 1 35 Foit Printer 35 250 285 . Binding and Delivery 12 35 Foit UPS 420 35 455 22.0 ADEIR . DEIR Meetings 40 3000 245 3245 22.1 2 Staff Meetings (280 miles) 8 75 Dahlin Mileage 600 70 670 22.2 3 Public Meetings (420 miles) 24 75 Dahlin Mileage 1800 105 1905 22.3 2 Other Meetings (280 miles) 8 75 Dahlin Mileage 600 70 670 23.0 Response to Comments: DEIR4 NolillCluded4 Dahlin Team Not includcd4 Not included4 . 4 Not included I 11 I :\93<m>309.NB4 WPM Planning Team, Inc. October I:t, 1994 . EXHIBIT A . Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE ,i:'::~!,;,!,\::::,:'~::",:i:iii:,':!,,[~~IM~~~t:,111Iji~~~t~~:..:,,:l:,..:,:!,::li,,!,::::..\::~~: $!~~~"!~~ltIIlll~ .lililliii:,'i"ii':I'il,i. ...... . ..... .klll!liB::\j\!li' ,. .,............ ,.. . Ijlj:jll!liiii:~~I;!!li m~':I,;:lii :.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:,..:.;.:.:.:.:. ::::~~I1JrJ!~:: :.:,:.::::::::;::::.::. :.:::=:::::=:.:.::::;::':. .., ........ .", ,. '.' .~.:.:.:. 24.0 FEIR Preparation 48 2480 . - 2480 24.1 Revisions to DEIR 20 75 Dahlin - - 1500 - - 1500 24.2 Word Processing . Response to Comments 24 35 Foit - - 840 - - 840 . Revisions to DEIR 4 35 Foit - - 140 - - 140 25.0 FEIR Printing 22 870 2075 2945 25.1 FEIR . Offset Printing - 7 Figures 5 55 Schillin Printer 275 390 665 . City: 60 copies @ $25 each 4 35 Foit Printer 140 1500 1640 . Proponent: 6 copies @ $25 each I 35 Foit Printer 35 150 185 . Binding and Delivery 12 35 Foit UPS 420 35 455 SUBTOTAL: Em 750 48,510 78,990 127,500 CF,OA FINDINGS PRF,PARATION 26.0 CEQA Findings Document 60 3780 2S 3805 26.1 Findings of Fact - Impacts 16 75 Dahlin - . 1200 - - 1200 26.2 Findings of Fact - Alternatives 4 75 Dahlin . - 300 - - 300 26.3 Findings of Fact -Growth Inducement 4 75 Dahlin - - 300 - - 300 26.4 Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 75 Dahlin - - 300 - - 300 26.5 Word Processing 8 35 Foit - . 280 - . 280 26.6 Print Draft Findings Document . City: 6 copies @ $8 each 1 35 Foit Printer 35 - - 35 . Proponent 6 copies @ $8 each 1 35 Foit Printer 35 . - 35 . Binding and Delivery 2 35 Foit UPS 70 10 80 26.7 Phone Review wI City Attorney 8 75 Dahlin - - 600 - - 600 26.8 Revise Draft Fmdings Document 6 75 Dahlin - - 450 - - 450 26.9 Print Final Findings Document . City: 20 copies @ $8 each 2 35 Foit Printer 70 - - 70 copies @ $8 , 35 Foit . Proponent: 4 each 1 Printer 35 - - 35 12 1 M309\9309-NB4 . EXHffiIT A . WPM Planning Team, Inc. October 14, 1994 Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT EIR - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE !!:',!:\::':':'~:':':.:!:..!~.::.i:.i!:!oc~~~'!M~~~I:r!'!llli~~j,i~::i:i:"~:!'!:!'.:..!.!!!!.!."I!'::::: ~,~il". .il;;i!ili:lll~;I\!;!!l;li! .!l!l:::!::mm:l':j!::~. :11111\11111111;1111. !lii:I~IIJI~!: .......... ......... .......................,','.'.................... .. .... . ............",.......... . .... ... .... ....... . Binding andDelivery 3 35 Foit UPS 105 15 120 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PREPARATION 27.0 Schaefer Heights GPA Document 77 4,355 720 5,075 27.1 GP/GPA Policy Issues 8 75 Dahlin - - 600 - - 600 27.2 GP/GPA Text Changes 8 75 Dahin - - 600 - - 600 27.3 GPA Graphics: Setups - 3 Figures . w. Plan Area L.UJCirc. Map 8 55 Schilling Repro 440 30 470 . GP Extended Plan Area Map 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 . Development Potential 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 . Constraints Map 1 55 Schilling Repro 55 15 70 27.4 Consu Italians wi City Attorney 8 75 Dahlin - - 600 . - 600 27.5 Revise GPA - if needed 8 75 Dahlin - - 600 - - 600 27.6 Word Processing . Admin. Drafl GPA 12 35 Foit . - 420 - - 420 . Revise Admin. Draft GPA 4 35 Foit - - 140 . - 140 . Revise Draft 2 35 Foit - - 70 - - 70 27.7 GPA Printing . Admin. Draft GPA: 4 copies $5 each 2 55 Schilling Printer 110 20 130 . Draft GPA: 60 copies $5 each 3 55 Schilling Printer 165 300 465 . Final GPA: 60 copies $5 each 3 55 Schilling Printer 165 300 465 . Binding and Delivery 8 3S Foil UPS 280 25 305 IJNTFfED GP / SCHAEFER RANCH GPA MAP PREPARATION 28.0 Unify GP/SH Map Graphic 28.1 Digitize SH GP A onto GP MapS 12s 5S Schilling - - 6605 - - 66lY 28.2 High Resolution Negative 4 55 Schilling Repro. 220 30 250 28.3 Cronoflex Mylar6 26 55 Schilling Repro. 1106 806 1906 28.4 Layout and Coordination 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - . 150 28.5 Consultations wi City Stafr 2 75 Dahlin - - 150 - . 150 13 1 :\93W\9309.NB4 WPM Planning Team. Inc. October )4.1994 . EXHIBIT A . Continued PROPOSAL 3: With Stanley R. Hoffman Associates and TJKM SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROJECT Em - CEQA FINDINGS - GPA - UNIFIED GP I GPAs SUMMARY SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COST ESTIMATE ,:~:'j:i::::I:~.:il:.iii:::::i:iif~l!ili~I~:t,i!III~~,.iti:i'i::.ii.:.:!i:::!i;'!,i:i:':::i.:iizl~!M~~lti~~li !i:.:\\:\j\i>>1!::j:::i.\\.ill:li\j...!:!..'!!:!ii:\i\i~.:II\\~\.:.!.!!:!~~!I:I~\iij!i\j;ji:I~'!'!I!::::!'i~~W!iJ~~ .:.::;:::: :::.:.:.:.".. ',' . ,;.:-: .:-:.:.:.:.: .:. ..: .;-:'...':.;.: . :::.:. :::::: ::~;:-:;:':.::: : ::::::: :::: :~:::~'. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-':':':': .:. .::.: .:,:.::: ::::::: ::::::: .:'. :,': :', ': '-':':':".':' ::: :.::::;::~~.:.:::.:::::.:::.: .:.:.:. :':~.:::.:. ::: ::::::::: ::.: ::.:.;.:.:. ;.; ::.::::.:.:.:.' . 29.0 Print Unified GP Maps 29.1 Graphic Setup for Color Printing 3 55 Schilling 165 165 29.2 24 x 36 GP Map - Color Printing Option 1: Color Plotting 7 27 55 Schilling CAD Sol. Il07 1(XX)7 Il107 Option 2: Color Offset Printing 6 55 Schilling Printer 330 1650 1980 29.3 Delivery areolar GP Maps 2 35 Foit UPS 70 25 95 30.0 Optional: Mounted Color GP Map 30.1 Color Graphic Setup 188 55 Schilling Repro. 9908 3308 13208 30.2 Color Plotting 48 55 Schilling Repro. 2208 608 2808 30.3 Mounting: Foam Case Board 18 55 Schilling Repro. 558 358 908 30.4 Delivery of Mounted GP Map 38 35 Fait Mileage 1058 358 1408 SUBTOTAL: UNIFIED GP I SH MAP 298 1,6358 1,1358 2,7708 TOTAL COST: RIR _ CEOA FINDINGS - GPA -lINIFTF.D GP I SCHAEFER RANCH GPA MAP Subtotal: EIR 48,510 78,990 127,500 Subtotal: CEQA Findings 3,780 25 3,805 Subtotal: GPA 4,355 720 5,075 Subtotal: Unified GP I Schaefer Ranch GPA 1,6358 1,1358 2,7708 Map TOTAL 58,2808 80,8708 139,1508 14 1 :\9309\9309-NB4 . EXHmIT A . WPM Planning Team, Inc. October 14, 1994 Footnotes: 1. See Exhibit A-I: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates proposal for detail of Stanley R. Hoffman Associates Scope of Services which is the binding Scope of Services. 2. See Exhibit A-2: TJKM proposal for detail of TJKM Scope of Services which is the binding Scope of Services. 3. The source of information for these environmental topics shall be the Western Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Final EIR. No original field work or quantitative analysis will be performed. 4. Since the number of comments and the level of response can vary widely, it is difficult to predict and provide a fixed fee for Task 23.0. Prior to undertaking Task 23.0 Resporne to Comments: DEIR the consultant will estimate the time and materials cost for preparation of response to comments and will report that estimate to the City. Task 23.0 work will not be initiated by the consultant and his subconsultants until the City notifies the consultant to proceed and complete Task 23.0. Actual costs of this task will be carefully recorded. At the conclusion of this task, an amendment to the contract will be made, based on this actual cost. 5. Assumes Unified GP/East Dublin GPA Map disc will read into WPM's CAD and will require only minimal cleanup. Also assumes applicant or City will provide full size to scale Schaefer Ranch GP A Map. 6. WPM to provide one full size (scale to be determined) unified General Plan Map mylar to City (no copies). 7. Cost for color printing assumes Option 1: Color Plotting. 8. Cost for optional Task 30.0 Mounted Color GP Map not included in total cost. 15 1 :\930?\9309-NB4 . . EXHIBIT A-I Stanley R. Hoffman Associates Scope of Services , OCT-14-1994 15:45 OWEN HITCHCOCK P.02 . . Attachment 1 CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER HEIGHTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HOUSING MARKET AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SCOPE OF WORK BACKGROUND The Schaefer Heights project is proposed for a 452-acre parcel north of the 1-580 freeway and Schaefer Ranch Road. The area is proposed for annexation to the City of Dublin. The project would include 452 housing units, with a mix of duplexes and single family detached units, and a small commercial center. The City is concerned that the project provide sufficient revenues to pay for City services provided to the project, and has directed that a fiscal impact analysis be included in the EIR. This scope of work includes a housing market study and a detailed fiscal impact analysis for the City of Dublin. If the project is annexed to the City of Dublin, Alameda County will continue to receive certain revenues from the project, and will be responsible for provision of countywide services, such as courts, health and welfare, to project residents. A fiscal analysis of the project impacts on Alameda County is included in the scope of work as an optional task. The scope of work also includes discussion of mitigation under CEQA for fiscal shortfalls, or necessary additions to public services and facilities. The mitigation discussion will include identification of appropriate financing mechanisms for public facilities and infrastructure. Also included is an analysiS of impacts on local public schools, including pupil generation, existing capacity, facility requirements and costs and implementation options. TASK DESCRIPTIONS Task 1 Housing Market Study This task will consist of a housing market study to provide estimates of housing value and absorption. The study will not be a detailed marketing plan, but will be designed for use in the planning process and for preparation of the fiscal analysiS. At the outset of the study a competitive market area for Schaefer Heights will be identified, based on local housing characteristics and the Schaefer Heights residential product mix. Data on recent absorption and pricing of competitive units within the market area. The amount of future development represented by existing active projects will also be identified. Additional residential development potential within the market area will be identified from project information from local planning departments. 1 OCT-14-1994 15:45 OWEN HITCHCOCK P.03 . . A housing demand analysis will be conducted, based on anticipated growth in the market area, as well as employment growth and commuting panerns. Finally, based on the recent absorption trends, competitive supply and projected demand, pricing and annual absorption rates for the Schaefer Heights residential product types. a Task 2 Estimation of City of Dublin Revenue and Cost Factors ThiS task will involve the estimation of publiC service requirements, cost factors and revenue factors for the City of Dublin. The estimation will involve case study interviews with key City staff and review and analysis of the current City budget. The following cost categories will be analyzed: . Public works, including street maintenance and sweeping, traffic signal operation and maintenance, and other publiC works maintenance Police patrol and investigative services Fire protection and emergency services Animal control Parks and recreation Library Citywide general government costs . . . . . Cost estimates will be for annual operations and maintenance costs and will be based on an analysis of required salaries, benefits, supplies and services, and department administration requirements for service provision. The following information will be developed in the process of revenue estimation: . Taxable value of property, by land use type, including secured value of land and buildings, and unsecured value of trade fixtures and equipment Total property tax increment generated and property tax increment accruing to the City of Dublin, under the estimated transfer of property tax between Alameda County and the City of Dublin upon annexation of the property Sales and use tax from potential commercial development on the site Sales and use tax from residential purchasing power Business license tax from potential commercial development on the site Revenues from other agencies, including vehicle license fees and state gasoline tax Charges for current fees and services Other recurring revenues, including utility franchises, traffic fines, interest, and miscellaneous revenues . . . . . . . All revenue factors will be expressed as annual factors, and will be expressed in terms of per capita, per household, per assessed valuation, or other appropriate basis. 2 OCT-14-1994 15:45 OWEN HITCHCOCK P. ()4 . ". Task 3 land Use Analysis and Project Descdption A statistical description of the proposed project land uses and infrastructure, on a phased year-by-year basis, will be prepared. Residential development by type, price and year will be specified on the basis of the market study conducted as part of this scope of work. The nature of the small commercial development will also be specified and an estimate of its phasing will be made. The project description will include residential densities and nonresidential floor area ratios, population and employment generation factors, and property valuation assumptions. Statistical descriptions of infrastructure requirements for the proposed project will be prepared on the basis of site planning factors and project subdivision maps. Infrastructure information will include additional lane- and curb-miles of streets and roads by tYpe, medians and parkways, signalized intersections, storm drains, trails, bikeways, public parks and community facilities. Available information on the costs of capital facilities, and methods of financing these facilities will also be presented as part of the project description. Task 4 City of Dublin Fiscal Analysis This task will involve the projection of the fiscal impacts to the City of Dublin for the project land uses. The fiscal projection will be on a year-by-year basis. The prOjection of revenues and costs will be based on statistical descriptions of land uses and infrastructure prepared as part of the land use analysis and project description, and on the cost and revenue factors estimated in Task 1. The analysis will also project one-time capital revenues associated with the project, and capital costs, to the extent that capital cost information is availahle as part of the project materials. The task will also include the evaluation of fiscal impacts in terms of recurring fiscal balance and revenue/cost ratios. Task 5 Alameda County Fiscal Analysis (Optional Task) Since the property will be annexed to the City of Dublin, most impacts for municipal- type costs will be borne by the City. However, Alameda County will experience costs for provision of countywide services. Revenues to the County will also be generated. Countywide services are provided to all residents of the County, whether they live in cities or unincorporated areas. Examples of countywide services include courts, jails and welfare. Costs for countywide services will be systematically examined in the following major categories: . Legislative and administrqtive Finance Courts . .. 3 OCT-14-1994 1~:46 OWEN HITCHCOCK P.05 . . Detention and correction · Protective inspection · Health · Public assistance The project's revenue generation to the County will be projected. Revenue generation will be primarily from property tax. motor. vehicle license fees. and real property transfer tax. Task 6 Public School Impacts This task will address the impacts of the projects on public schools. The analysis will be based on information from the local school districts. Based on pupil generation estimates for Schaefer Heights, the total number of new school seats for elementary, middle school and high schools will be identified. This information will be reviewed with school officials, and evaluated in the context of existing schools and capacities. The public school requirements of the project will then be identified in the context of districtwide plans and other future developments. Public school construction costs attributable to Schaefer Heights will be estimated, and potential financing and implementation mechanisms will be discussed and evaluated. Task 7 Mitigation Under CEQA Mitigation under CEQA will be addressed for a number of potential impacts, including: · Fiscal shortfalls which may be projected · Shortfalls in public services and facilities, including fire protection, police protection, parks and recreation, and other potentially impacted services and facilities · Incremental impacts of the project on capacities of water, sewer and drainage facilities The mitigation discussion will include discussion of appropriate financing mechanisms for facility impacts and shortfalls. Task 8 Report Preparation ThiS task will document the fiscal impact analysis, including the land use analysis and project description, and fiscal impacts to the City and County. The report will be revised based on review by the City staff. Ten copies of the draft and final reports, plus a camera.ready original of each report, wiH be provided. 4 OCT-14-1994 15:47 OWEN HITCHCOCK P.0E. . . Attachment 2 CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER HEIGHTS EIR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED BUDGET I-- I Percent TASK Hours Cost of Total ._~~~ 1 Housing Market Study 40 $3,600 17.5% 2 Estimation of City of Dublin Revenue and Cost Factors 24 2,160 10.5% 3 Land Use Analysis and Project Description 24 2,160 10.5% 4 City of Dublin Fiscal Analysis 40 3,600 17.5% 5 Alameda County Fiscal Analysis (Optional) 20 1,800 8.8% 6 Public Schoo! Impacts 20 1,800 8.8% 7 Mitigation Under CECA 40 3,600 17.5% 8 Report Preparation ZQ. .L.8QQ aa%. Total Labor1 228 $20,520 100.0% Estimated Expenses2 snoo Total Budget $21,100 Notes: 1. Labor costs are based on an avarage rate of $90 per hour. 2. Expenses are for travel, per diem, purchase of data and publications printing and copying and other direct project expenses and will be billed at cost. TrlTCiI P ru=, . EXHIBIT A-2 TJKM Scope of Services . . ", (i ~ Transporla>;on Consultants . ; , )J U )'. --' j) V!2.."ns OF E)(Cl::LLENCf October 10, 1994 ~.;.,., _ '.,_.....-r ":"'. ,,'", f '';'>~-;'I , ' I , ; \ ,.i _Ji Mr. Rudolph Platzek WPM Planning Team 1200 "G" Street. Suite l-B Modesto, CA 95354 Subject: Revised Proposal to Prepare the TraffidCirculation Element for the Schaefer Heights EIR in the City of Dublin Dear Mr. Platzek: TJKM Transportation Consultants is pleased to present this revised proposal to prepare the circulation element of the EIR for the above project. As you know, we previously prepared the circulation element for the West Dublin Specific Plan and more recently the proposed Palo Verde Ranch site in Alameda County. Consequently, we believe that we are very well qualified to analyze the reduced Schaefer Heights project. Several changes have occurred since the prior effort that effect the approach and scope of this new study. First, the travel demand model used by all local agencies for long-range plarming is the Tri-Valley Transportation Model (TVTM) which is currently maintained by Barton- Aschman. They serve as a clearinghouse for traffic model data at a non-competitive fee. We plan to use this model for the long-range traffic forecasts. This basically replaces all the previous model forecasts that were done by TJKM for the West Dublin Specific Plan. Secondly, removing the new 1-580 interchange with Schaefer Ranch Road will shift some project traffic to adjoining interchanges. The San Ramon RoadlFoothill Road interchange is particularly sensitive to added traffic in the future along with the adjoining intersections. New base year (1994) traffic conditions will be evaluated at all intersections and roadways in the study area as part of our work. Much of the traffic data is available from annual monitoring programs and recent traffic studies in the area. Finally, the potential impact to 1-580 will require a greater level of analysis to comply with the current Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's policies regarding General Plan Amendments. Overall, we expect that our traffic study will require substantial new work. This proposal is based on our experience with the City of Dublin, our previous work for the West Dublin area, discussions with Mr. Mehran Sepehri of the City of Dublin, our understanding of the current transportation planning policies, and our review of the materials attached to your August 25 letter. We believe that the following scope of services (see Attachment "A") will provide adequate analysis of circulation impacts for the environmental review of the subject property to satisfy City and CEQA study requirements: ff 4637 Chabot Drive. Suite 214, Pleasanlon, California 94588.2754. (510) 463~0611. Fax (510) 463.3690 Pleasanton . Sacramento. Fresno. Santa Rosa (. (-. Mr. Rudolph Platzek -2- October 10, 1994 Staffing Carl Springer of our Pleasanton office will serve as the project manager for this effort with the assistance of Mr. Christopher Kinzel, Transportation Engineer. Mr. Springer has over 14 years experience as a transportation engineer, and he has managed all of the recent studies in the City of Dublin. Study Fee Estimate Our recommended work scope is described in Attachment "A" for your review. The estimated fee of each work task is based on our standard hourly rate charges as shown in the attached Table I. As shown there, we expect the total study fee not to exceed $17.500. Billings will be made on a milestone basis up to this limit, and we will not invoice for extra work without your prior approval. Once our team is selected, we would expect you to execute a contract with WPM Planning team prior to starting our work. This offer is good for 90 days from the date of this letter. Study Schedule Once the study has begun, we expect to deliver the draft report to you within six to eight weeks of your notice to proceed. Comments on our draft reportS will be revised and re- submitted within one to two weeks. We look forward to working closely with you on this project. Please call me with any questions regarding our proposed work scope and fee estimate. Your truly, cc: Mehran Sepehri, City of Dublin pjp Alladunenll 1S7-4P.lCS ff . , Task 1 Project Initiation Task 2 Data Collection and Existing Conditions Task 3 Travel Demand Forecasts attachment" A" ~cope of Traffic Engineering Services (~. ~ "', Transportation Analysis Schaefer Heights EIR in the City of Dublin TJKM will meet with City staff to discuss the specific work products and tasks to be considered in the traffic analysis. We will review the scope of impact analysis and conflnn the traffic forecasts scenarios. TJKM will collect copies of recent traffic reports that are relevant to the study. TJKM will conduct a site review to identify existing circulation or access issues. TJKM will collect data from City staff regarding the existing street system and traffic perfonnances at critical locations. It is not expected that this will include new traffic counts or other observations. TJKM conducts annual traffic counts in the City of Dublin. and we are currently in progress on the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Study which included observations throughout the downtown area. Also. the City of Pleasanton annually monitor traffic counts and conditions at major intersections throughout the City. A review of the existing conditions on the major roadways connecting to the West Dublin Planning Area and selected portions of Interstate 580 will be made. The streets will include Dublin Canyon Road. Dublin Boulevard, Eden Canyon Road, Schaefer Ranch Road and San Ramon Road. The existing traffic conditions will be detennined during a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the study intersections. The initial list of off-site study intersections include: Studv Intersections Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard Foothill Road/Dublin Canyon Road Eden Canyon Road/1-580 Westbound Ramps Eden Canyon Road/1-580 Eastbound Ramps In addition. future conditions will be reviewed at the main intersections nearest to the project site including Schaefer Ranch Road/Dublin Canyon, Schaefer Ranch Road/Dublin Boulevard. and the main street connection to Dublin Boulevard. Existing freeway conditions will be analyzed based on data available from the 1-580/1-680 study that was prepared for the Alameda County Transportation Authority along with other count data collected by TJKM at the Eden Canyon Road interchange. The existing conditions will describe the 1-580 mainline levels of service between 1-680 and Castro Valley Boulevard. Travel demand forecasts will be made for the short-tenn and long-tenn scenarios to consider the potential project traffic impacts. The short-term scenarios will be done with a manual TRAFFIX model based on existing traffic counts and approved projects in Dublin and Pleasanton. The approved project " TJKM Transportation ConsuItallls Page 1 of 3 10/10/94 Task 4 Traffic Impacts and Mitigations '. (~. data is readUy available to TJKM. For example, we maintain all development data for the City of Pleasanton for its use'in operating the Pleasanton traffic impact model. The long-term forecasts will be made using the Tri- Valley Transportation Model (TVTM) with necessary modifications to accurately represent the proposed project The current 2010 model includes a higher level of development consistent with the previous West Dublin Plan, and it also assumes that the Schaefer Road interchange with 1-580 would be built by 2010. Both of these elements would need to be changed as a part of this study. Also, the potential for development in West Dublin in addition to the proposed project will be re-evaluated. The traffic forecasts scenarios would include: Forecast Scenarios Existing plus Approved (short-term) Existing plus Approved plus Schaefer Heights Project (short-term) 2010 Without the Project and No New interchange (long-term) 2010 With the Project and Schaefer Road interchange (long-term) 2010 With the Project and No New Interchange (long-term) ...."l - Traffic forecast data will be prepared for all of the study intersections and portions of the 1-580 freeway. The 2010 data would include potential projects that may occur within the Tri-Valley area that would contribute traffic to the study area. Also, on-site traffic volumes will be forecasted using manual methods to review the proposed site circulation plan. These volumes will give guidance regarding planned street widths, number of travel lanes, and the need for traffic controls (Le. traffic signals). Traffic forecasts data will be re-analyzed to assess the future base conditions and the increment of impact associated with the proposed project. Locations that are shown to exceed acceptable seIVice levels with the added project traffic would be identified for potential mitigation. The Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton use Level of Service D as the minimum peak hour service levels while the Alameda County CMA has designated Level of Service E as the minimum condition on 1-580. Mitigation measures could include additional roadway capacity, intersection channelization, and traffic controls. Based on the on-site roadway volumes, recommendations will be made for the proposed circulation plan to provide safe and convenient access within the project This will include the three future intersections noted in Task 2. This analysis will address roadway safety, peak traffic flow conditions, and emergency vehicle access. In addition, the City of Dublin requires a traffic impact fee as part of new development approval to pay for their fair share of city improvements. TJKM regularly conducts these impact fee calculations for other developments, and we are very familiar with the process. TJKM will estimate the percent contribution by the proposed Schaefer Heights project to affected City transportation projects ff TIKM Transportation Consulttlllts Page 2 of 3 10/10/94 Task 5 Traffic Report (. (~. (e.g. Dublin Boulevard widening) , and we will detennine the total impact fee. Potential credits for land dedicated to construct public roads will also be considered. The technical fmdings of the traffic forecasts and impact evaluations will be presented in a study report for your use in preparing an Administrative Draft EIR. After the City staff comments, we will revise our report for your use in submitting the Draft EIR. Issues to be addressed in the report include: Significant impacts to study roadways Regional impacts to local freeway conditions · Recommended mitigation measures Traffic impact fee I, TJKM Transportation Conswtanls Page 3 of 3 10/10';4 I , a: - W In ... ..c: en .- Q) :J: .... Q) .... Q) CO ..c: CJ U) .... o .... >- "'C c.a .- U) - .ot) ::::J CO Co.. 't- E O~ ~:;: ....... ._ as (J~ t:: c.~ 3: :J 00 ... '(1) Q.(I) tn I: 16'& ... I: ....w (I) ...- o .$1 .- 0 I: 0 (I) tn 00.:2 (I) ...- o .$1 .- 0 I: 0 (I) tn OOtn < "i~ 0.... .- CIS OJ:: .5 (.) ... a.s: - en o (J "C C a:s ~ ::::J o :c :a - en "C C1) - a:s E ':;::; en W . . - ~ .c a:s ~ . Q)O ::!r--. ::2~ :::10 .- 0 Cf)T""" fA- ... <L> 00 .50 0.T""" Cf) Q)t.n ::!C\J ._ T""" ~* ~ ~ tn :J~ 0>- ::t:m tn - ... CIS CIS -- 0- 1-0 C U"l 'V W 'V 'o:t C\J "<t tO~l?;g 0 T""" to to C\J C\J C\I T""" T""" C') 'o:t C\J co co~~t! '<t 'o:t C\J C\I co .... m ~ .... o 0 0 0 0 0 LO co C\I 0 M co ~~~~~ :; fA- ~ W .... ~ 00 00 OC\J - ~ ~ I: .2 - a. .t: o UJ Cl) C ~ UJ ~ 1Il I: .g '5 I: o U Cl .5 lii 'x W "0 I: I: CIS .2 5 ~ ._~ 'c -'0 t)o .~ Cll e co a.. c 1Il I: .2 Cii lii Q) CIS :-2 o ::E Q) '0 t:: & I: ~ as S "0 1Il a: I: t) > CIS cu '0 ~ ~ ~ c-en Q) e 0 ~ :J li= '"~ '5 e t=1..L1- +-C\I(")"<tU"l 0' o o. .... * @J t?. 1Il I: :::I ex: 1Il Q) 5 lii "81:5 o 00::::::l <.)tn~"8 B~~Q j~~~ Cii ~ ~c (. T""" <L> OJ as a.. 'o:t 0'1 ~ o T""" o 0 ~ g r-: r-: T"" T"" w- * "C CI) '0 CI) i a: ia :;:: I: (I) :'S! - I: o u :E ~ ~ I- - - ~ cu "C ~ cE . . EXHIBIT B TIME.SCHEDULE for preparation and processing of SCHAEFER RANCH EIRlCEQA FINDINGS/GPAlUNIFIED GP/GPA MAP Date * October 31, 1994 December 23, 1994 January 10, 1995 January 27, 1995 February 10, 1995 March 18, 1995 March 30, 1995 April 7, 1995 }:\9309'CON1RACT.SH Davs Allowed Action Estimated date for notice to proceed 53 Submission of 19 copies of Administrative Draft ElR for City staff and applicant review (15 copies City I 4 copies applicant) Submission of 4 copies of Administrative Draft General Plan Amendment to City 18 Staff returns ADElR and ADGP A comments to WPM 17 Submission of 70 copies of Draft EIR to City (60 copies City I 10 copies applicant) 31 Submission of 60 copies of Draft GP A to City (56 copies City I 4 copies applicant) 48 End of Draft EIR public review period (assumes a 45-day public review period starting February 1, 1995) 10 Evaluate comments on Draft EIR and request contract amendment for preparation of Response to Comments 18 Estimated date of notice to proceed on contract amendment . . EXHIBIT B, Continued Date Davs Allowed Action April 21, 1995 14 Submission of 66 copies of Draft Final EIR to City (60 copies City 16 copies applicant) April 21, 1995 N/A Submission of 12 copies of Draft CEQA Findings to City (6 copies City 1 6 copies applicant) May 5, 1995 14 Submission of 24 copies of Draft Final CEQA Findings to City (20 copies City 1 4 copies applicant) May 5, 1995 N/A Submission of 60 copies of Draft Final GP A to City (56 copies City 1 4 copies applicant) To be detennined Preparation of Unified General Plan! Schaefer Ranch GP A Map * Dates may be adjusted if notice to proceed is not given on October 31, 1994. " 1:\93Q9\CON1RACf.SH .;/ . r . .s . ..' "f / ~~ 5 5-0 -0 s::: i~ 5 5 ~. 5~ " < ~ f" /. lZl] 13 ..... S... I /. 13 ::s ...,< 1;1 e;~ &.s !.. a~ ~~ l !:l-...... << . I I; . ~~ ~~ \jlJ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~"& ~J~~ .~~ ~l ~~ O~ ~ EXHIBIT 3 " '" . . It , I c IIll1 h~U I ,0 I <(o..~ I w- I Q::l2 ./ ~ hi) ~tln! I <(Q) C O<.!)Q) ~U!ti ItlQ wz<.!) OZc ~ nllt ~ni~ zz= LUS.o 5. 8 J :!.!~i!l .~ 8 LLJo.. 'ou WVN'SSVl Jl: i! ~€! Z j) II 11 ~aQ: i :::>w< DOc.!> j' . ZZZ I.~! .. !l ig. lL. c: CtS - a. e.' 0) c '0) G; C .- - .c ::So .C.': ~ tilll ~ 1111 ~IIQ , ;nh~ z ~ :JoD:; ~w.cr.; . aot'> ZZz: . .~~z ~ ~ i I .";' " BACKGROUND ATTACHMENT