HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-18; City Council; Resolution 2008-302EXHIBIT 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
follows:
RESOLUTION NO.2008-302
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONSULTING
AGREEMENT WITH BRG CONSULTING INC. FOR THE
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ACACIA
INVESTORS, LLC. FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BRG CONSULTING INC.
AGREEMENT.
CASE NAME: BRIDGES AT AVIARA
CASE NO.: EIR 06-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
1. That a consulting agreement with BRG Consulting Inc. for consulting
services to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bridges at Aviara (Exhibit 1),
and an agreement with Acacia Investors, LLC. for the payment of the EIR consultant services
(Exhibit 2) are hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute said
agreements.
2. Following the City Manager's execution of said agreements, the City
Clerk is directed to forward copies of this resolution and said agreements to BRG Consulting
Inc. Attention: Tim Gnibus, 304 Ivey Street, San Diego, CA 92101; Acacia Investors, LLC.
Attention: Don Augustine, 1650 Hotel Circle North Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92108; and, the
Planning Department.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the i«ti-. day of NnvpmhPT- 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Packard and Nygaard.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Kulcbin.
, Mayor
ATTI
E M. yvOpD/City Clerk O
(SEAL)>. ••TVggP' ,>V,,*>'
AGREEMENT WITH CONSULTANT FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
BRIDGES AT AVIARA EIR
THIS AGREEMENT, made this / 9 day of yl^tm^, 20 oY, between the
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter
referred to as "CITY," and BRG Consulting Inc. hereinafter referred to as
"CONTRACTOR".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the CITY has entered into an agreement with
Acacia Investors LLC. hereinafter called applicant, wherein the CITY agrees to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project identified as
The Bridges at Aviara which is generally located south of Cassia Road, east of
Ambrosia Lane, north of Aviara Oaks Elementary School, and west of Skimmer Court
and more precisely shown on the plat marked Attachment 1, attached hereto and made
a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR has the qualifications to prepare the required
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, it is understood that the CONTRACTOR shall be an independent
contractor of the CITY;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants and conditions,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. CONTRACTOR OBLIGATIONS
CONTRACTOR shall prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the subject
project in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act as implemented by the
1 Rev. 07-28-08
State Guidelines and by CITY in Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and its
implementing resolutions. In carrying out this obligation the CONTRACTOR'S duties
shall include the following:
(a) The CONTRACTOR shall, consistent with the Work Program contained in
Attachment 2, (1) make all necessary and required field explorations, reviews and tests;
(2) make all necessary and required laboratory tests and analyses; (3) appear and be
prepared to answer questions and prepare testimony on the final Environmental Impact
Report at all public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council prior
to the certification of the report; (4) make all reports necessary to comply with the
requirements of this section. Before preparing the draft report, the CONTRACTOR
shall submit copies of a preliminary report (screen check EIR) to the Planning Director
for staff review as stipulated in Attachment 2. The CONTRACTOR shall revise the
preliminary report as requested by staff in order to make it suitable for draft EIR review.
(b) CONTRACTOR shall prepare a draft report in compliance with the Work
Program contained in Attachment 2 on file at the Planning Department (unless
otherwise stated in this agreement), attached hereto and made a part hereof and with
applicable state law and CITY ordinances. The CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY
copies of the EIR as stipulated in Attachment 2 plus a reproducible master of the draft
Environmental Impact Report to the CITY.
(c) CONTRACTOR shall attempt to determine as soon as possible in the
study of the area involved, those factors which could severely inhibit or prohibit the
proposed project. If it appears that such factors are present, CONTRACTOR shall so
inform the Planning Director who in turn will discuss with the applicant the feasibility of
continuing with the report. The objective of this subsection of the agreement is to
2 Rev. 07-28-08
minimize the cost if these adverse factors exist.
(d) CONTRACTOR shall prepare and file with the CITY written responses to
all comments received subsequent to public notice that the draft Environmental Impact
Report has been filed. CONTRACTOR shall also prepare any response necessary to
matters raised at the public hearings. The written responses shall be prepared in a form
that will permit the responses to be incorporated into the final Environmental Impact
Report.
2. CITY OBLIGATIONS
(a) The CITY will make payment to the CONTRACTOR as provided for in this
agreement.
(b) The CITY will make available to the CONTRACTOR any documents,
studies, or other information in its possession related to the proposed project.
(c) The CITY will review the Preliminary Report presented by the
CONTRACTOR within fifteen working days of their receipt and make written comments
to the CONTRACTOR within that time period.
(d) The CITY shall provide the CONTRACTOR with copies of all written
comments received on the draft Environmental Impact Report subsequent to public
notice that the draft Environmental Impact Report has been filed and is available for
public review.
3. TIME OF COMPLETION
Time is of the essence in carrying out the terms of this agreement. It is
understood that inclement weather conditions may delay the completion of field work.
The CONTRACTOR will be allowed as many additional days as are necessary to
3 Rev. 07-28-08
compensate for days lost due to inclement weather. The CONTRACTOR shall submit
to the CITY copies of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report within that period of
time stipulated in Attachment 2 upon the signing of this agreement by both concerned
parties. The CONTRACTOR shall submit to the CITY the draft Environmental Impact
Report as stipulated in Attachment 2.
4. PAYMENT
The CONTRACTOR will be paid a maximum of $211,702.00
dollars for all work necessary to carry out the requirements of this agreement. Actual
payment shall be based on the cost of the report based on the costs as set forth in
Attachment 2 on file at the Planning Department. The CONTRACTOR shall be paid
within 14 days, in response to invoice, for compensable services toward the completion
of the Environmental Impact Report in accordance with Paragraph 1 above.
5. LIMITS OF THE OBLiGATION
The limits of the obligation of the CITY under this agreement is the sum of
$211,702.00 which amount is estimated to be sufficient to compensate the
CONTRACTOR for all services performed hereunder during the terms of this
agreement. In the event at any time it appears to the CONTRACTOR that said sum
may not be sufficient, he shall immediately so notify the Planning Director. He will not
perform any work or incur any obligation beyond said sum of $211,702.00
without appropriate amendment to this agreement.
6. CHANGES IN WORK
If, in the course of this contract, changes seem merited by the CONTRACTOR or
the CITY and informal consultations indicate that a change in the conditions of the
Rev. 07-28-08
V
contract is warranted, the CONTRACTOR or the CITY may request a change in the
contract. Such changes shall be processed by the CITY in the following manner. A
letter outlining the required changes shall be forwarded to the CITY or CONTRACTOR
to inform them of the proposed changes along with a statement of estimated changes
in charges or time schedule. After reaching mutual agreement on the proposal, a
supplemental agreement shall be prepared by the CITY and approved by the CITY
according to the procedures described in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.28.080.
Such supplemental agreement shall not render ineffective or invalid unaffected portions
of the agreement. Changes requiring immediate action by the CONTRACTOR or the
CITY shall be ordered by the Planning Director who will inform a principal of the
CONTRACTOR'S firm of the necessity of such action and follow up with a supplemental
agreement covering such work.
The lump sum amounts detailed in this agreement shall be adjusted for changes,
either additive or deductive, in the scope of work, provided such changes are processed
according to the procedures in this paragraph.
7. COVENANTS AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES
The CONTRACTOR warrants that their firm has not employed or retained any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the CONTRACTOR,
to solicit or secure this agreement, and that CONTRACTOR has not paid or agreed to
pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon, or resulting
from, the award or making of this agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty,
the CITY shall have the right to annul this agreement without liability, or, in its
5 Rev. 07-28-08
discretion, to deduct from the agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover,
the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fees, gift, or contingent
fee.
8. NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSE
The CONTRACTOR shall comply with the state and federal laws regarding
nondiscrimination.
9. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
The CITY may terminate this agreement at any time by giving written notice to
the CONTRACTOR of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at
least fifteen days prior to the effective date of the termination. In the event of
termination, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials prepared pursuant
to this agreement shall become its property. Upon termination for reasons other than
breach of this agreement CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR the reasonable value of the
services completed to the date of notice of determination.
10. DISPUTES
If a dispute should arise regarding the performance of work under this
agreement, the following procedure shall be used to resolve any question of fact or
interpretation not otherwise settled by agreement between parties. Such questions, if
they become identified as a part of a dispute among persons operating under the
provisions of this contract, shall be reduced to writing by the principal of the
CONTRACTOR or the CITY Planning Director. A copy of such documented dispute
shall be forwarded to both parties involved along with recommended methods of
resolution which would be of benefit to both parties. The CITY Planning Director or
6 Rev. 07-28-08
principal receiving the letter shall reply to the letter along with a recommended method
of resolution within ten (10) days. If the resolution thus obtained is unsatisfactory to the
aggrieved party, a letter outlining the dispute shall be forwarded to the City Council for
their resolution through the office of the City Manager. The City Council may then opt
to consider the directed solution to the problem. In such cases, the action of the City
Council shall be binding upon the parties involved, although nothing in this procedure
shall prohibit the parties seeking remedies available to them at law.
11. CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS
The CONTRACTOR agrees that any contract claim submitted to the City must
be asserted as part of the contract process as set forth in this agreement and not in
anticipation of litigation or in conjunction with litigation. The CONTRACTOR
acknowledges that if a false claim is submitted to the City, it may be considered fraud
and the CONTRACTOR may be subject to criminal prosecution. The CONTRACTOR
acknowledges that California Government Code Sections 12650 et seq.. the False
Claims Act, provides for civil penalties where a person knowingly submits a false claim
to a public entity. These provisions include false claims made with deliberate ignorance
of the false information or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information. If
the City of Carlsbad seeks to recover penalties pursuant to the False Claims Act, it is
entitled to recover its litigation costs, including attorney's fees. The CONTRACTOR
acknowledges that the filing of a false claim may subject the CONTRACTOR to an
administrative debarment proceeding wherein the CONTRACTOR may be prevented to
act as a contractor on any public work or improvement for a period of up to five (5)
years. The CONTRACTOR acknowledges debarment by another jurisdiction is
7 Rev. 07-28-08
grounds for the City of Carlsbad to disqualify the CONTRACTOR from the selection
process. <^O> (Initial)
The provisions of Carlsbad Municipal Code Sections 3.32.025, 3.32.026,
3.32.027 and 3.32.028 pertaining to false claims are incorporated herein by reference.
(Initial)
12. STATUS OF THE CONTRACTOR
The CONTRACTOR shall perform the services provided for herein in
CONTRACTOR'S own way as an independent contractor and in pursuit of
CONTRACTOR'S independent calling, and not as an employee of the CITY.
CONTRACTOR shall be under control of the CITY only as to the result to be
accomplished, but shall consult with the CITY as provided for in the request for
proposal. The persons used by the CONTRACTOR to provide services under this
agreement shall not be considered employees of the CITY for any purposes
whatsoever.
The CONTRACTOR is an independent contractor of the CITY. The payment
made to the CONTRACTOR pursuant to the contract shall be the full and complete
compensation to which the CONTRACTOR is entitled. The CITY shall not make any
federal or state tax withholdings on behalf of the CONTRACTOR or his/her employees
or subcontractors. The CITY shall not be required to pay any workers' compensation
insurance or unemployment contributions on behalf of the CONTRACTOR or his/her
employees or subcontractors, on behalf of the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR
agrees to indemnify the CITY for any tax, retirement contribution, social security,
overtime payment, or workers' compensation payment which the CITY may be required
8 Rev. 07-28-08
to make on behalf of the CONTRACTOR or any employee of the CONTRACTOR for
work done under this agreement.
The CONTRACTOR shall be aware of the requirements of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and shall comply with those requirements, including,
but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees,
subcontractors and CONTRACTORS that are included in this agreement.
13. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All documents and materials prepared pursuant to this agreement are the
property of the CITY. The CITY shall have the unrestricted authority to publish,
disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data, or other
materials prepared under this agreement.
14. REPRODUCTION RIGHTS
The CONTRACTOR agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the
work pursuant to this contract shall be vested in CITY and hereby agrees to relinquish
all claims to such copyrights in favor of CITY.
15. RELEASE OF INFORMATION BY CONTRACTOR
Any reports, information or other data, prepared or assembled by the
CONTRACTOR under this agreement shall not be made available to any individual or
organization by the CONTRACTOR without prior written approval of the CITY.
16. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad and
its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all claims, damages,
losses and expenses including attorney fees arising out of the performance of the work
9 Rev. 07-28-08
described herein caused in whole or in part by any willful misconduct or negligent act or
omission of the CONTRACTOR, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly
employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, except
where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the
City of Carlsbad.
CONTRACTOR shall at its own expense, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, officials, employees
and volunteers. CONTRACTOR'S indemnification of City shall not be limited by any
prior or subsequent declaration by the CONTRACTOR.
17. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
CONTRACTOR shall not assign this contract or any part hereof or any monies
due or to become due thereunder without prior written consent of the CITY.
18. SUBCONTRACTING
If the CONTRACTOR shall subcontract any of the work to be performed under
this contract by CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible to the
CITY for the acts and omissions of its subcontractor and of the persons either directly
or indirectly employed by its subcontractor, as it is for the acts and omissions of
persons directly employed by it. Nothing contained in this contract shall create any
employee or contractual relationship between any subcontractor of CONTRACTOR and
the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall bind every subcontractor and every subcontractor
of the subcontractor by their terms of this contract applicable to its work unless
specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in question approved in writing by
the CITY.
10 Rev. 07-28-08
19. PROHIBITED INTEREST
No official of the CITY who is authorized in such capacity on behalf of the CITY
to negotiate, make, accept or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting
or approving any architectural, engineering, inspection, construction, or material supply
contract or subcontract in connection with the construction of the project, shall become
directly or indirectly interested personally in this contract or in any part thereof. No
officer, employee, architect, attorney, engineer or inspector of or for the CITY who is
authorized in such capacity and on behalf of the CITY to exercise any executive,
supervisory or other similar functions in connection with the performance of this contract
shall become directly or indirectly interested personally in this contract or any part
hereof.
20. VERBAL AGREEMENT OR CONVERSATION
No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent or employee or the
CITY, either before, during or after the execution of this contract, shall affect or modify
any of the terms or obligations herein contained, nor shall such verbal agreement or
conversation entitle the CONTRACTOR to any additional payment whatsoever under
the terms of this contract.
21. SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGNS
Subject to the provision of Paragraph 10, "Hold Harmless Agreement", all terms,
conditions, and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind each of the parties
hereto, and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
assigns.
11 Rev. 07-28-08
22. EFFECTIVE DATE
This agreement shall be effective on and from the day and year first written
above.
23. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The CONTRACTOR shall file a Conflict of Interest Statement with the City Clerk
in accordance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Conflict of Interest Code.
The CONTRACTOR shall report investments or interests in all four categories.
24. INSURANCE
The CONTRACTOR shall obtain and maintain for the duration of the contract
and any and all amendments insurance against claims for injuries to persons or
damage to property which may arise out of or in connection with performance of the
work hereunder by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors. The insurance will be obtained from an insurance carrier admitted and
authorized to do business in the State of California. The insurance carrier is required to
have a current Best's Key Rating of not less than "A-:VII". OR with a surplus line insurer
on the State of California's List of Eligible Surplus Line Insurers (LESLI) with a rating in
the latest Best's Key Rating Guide of at least "A:X".
A. Coverages and Limits.
CONTRACTOR shall maintain the types of coverages and minimum limits
indicated herein, unless a lower amount is approved by the City Attorney or City
Manager:
1. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance. $1,000,000 combined
single-limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the
12 Rev. 07-28-08
submitted policies contain aggregate limits, general aggregate limits shall apply
separately to the work under this contract or the general aggregate shall be twice the
required per occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability (if the use of an automobile is involved for
CONTRACTOR'S work for the City). $1,000,000 combined single-limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability. Workers'
Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and
Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury.
B. Additional Provisions.
CONTRACTOR shall ensure that the policies of insurance required under
this agreement contain, or are endorsed to contain, the following provisions.
1. The City shall be named as an additional insured on all policies
excluding Workers' Compensation.
2. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish certificates of insurance to the
City before commencement of work.
3. The CONTRACTOR shall obtain occurrence coverage.
4. This insurance shall be in force during the life of the agreement
and any extension thereof and shall not be canceled without 30 days prior written notice
to the City sent by certified mail.
5. If the CONTRACTOR fails to maintain any of the insurance
coverages required herein, then the City will have the option to declare the
CONTRACTOR in breach, or may purchase replacement insurance or pay the
premiums that are due on existing policies in order that the required coverages may be
13 Rev. 07-28-08
n
maintained. The CONTRACTOR is responsible for any payments made by the City to
obtain or maintain such insurance and the City may collect the same from the
CONTRACTOR or deduct the amount paid from any sums due the CONTRACTOR
under this agreement.
25. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
The name of the persons who are authorized to give written notices or to receive
written notice on behalf of the City and on behalf of the CONTRACTOR in connection
with the foregoing are as follows:
For City: Title: Senior Planner
Name: Christer Westman
Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92008
For Contractor: Title: Vice President
Name: Tim Gnibus. AICP
Address: 304 Ivy Street
San Diego. CA 92101-2030
Architect/License Number: N/A
Architect/License Number: N/A
26. BUSINESS LICENSE
CONTRACTOR shall obtain and maintain a City of Carlsbad Business License
for the duration of the contract.
27. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This agreement, together with any other written document referred to or
14 Rev. 07-28-08
contemplated herein, embody the entire agreement and understanding between the
parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this agreement nor any provision
hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharges except by an instrument in
writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or
discharge is sought.
Executed by CONTRACTOR this /D*^ day of OCAo(o*i~ 20 oV.
CONTRACTOR:
BRG Consulting Inc.
(Name of Contractor)
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By:/
City^/laViager or Mayor-
ATTJEST:
/CORRAL^E M. WOOD; City Clerk
(sign here)
ERICH R LATHERS, PRESIDENT
(print name/title)
Byj
(sign here)
(print name/title)
(Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by CONTRACTOR must be attached).
(Chairman, president or vice-president and secretary, assistant secretary, CFO or assistant
treasurer must sign for corporations. Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution
certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering the officer(s)
signing to bind the corporation.)
(If signed by an individual partner, the partnership must attach a statement of partnership
authorizing the partner to execute this instrument).
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
By:
Assistant City Attorney
Rev. 07-28-08
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
On /£>-/*- oS _ before me, U. C tft>M (L-z- Notary Public,
personally appeared &&JC.& &• LAJ~#£&S> _ , who proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the, parsons) whosejaamfi(s)js/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me thatjie/she/they executed the same inJiis/her/their
authorized capactty(ies), and that bylus/her/their signature^) on the instrument the p£cson(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the.pe£san(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Signature of Notary)
Rev. 12/17/2007
CORPORATE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of BRG Consulting, Inc., having been duly assembled; and,
WHEREAS, said Board of Directors does wish to install Erich R. Lathers as President of the
corporation; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Lathers having accepted the office and responsibilities of the office of President
of the Corporation; it is
RESOLVED, that Erich R. Lathers be, and is, installed as President of BRG Consulting; and,
RESOLVED FURTHER that, Mr. Lathers, as President, may bind the Corporation to any action
to come before the Corporation by affixing his singular signature.
The undersigned hereby certifies that she is the duly elected and qualified Secretary and the
custodian of the books and records and seal of BRG Consulting, Inc., a corporation duly formed
pursuant to the laws of the State of California and that the foregoing is a true record of a
resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors and that said meeting was held in
accordance with state law and the Bylaws of the above-named Corporation on April 18,2000,
and that said resolution is now in full force and effect without modification or rescission.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed my name as Secretary and have hereunto affixed
the corporate seal of the above-named Corporation this September 29.2003.
Teresa Torices
Secretary
NOT TO SCALE
SITEMAP
Bridges at Aviara
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES
BRG will prepare an EIR for the proposed project that addresses all project components as well as current
and future discretionary actions associated with implementation of the project. We understand that the
CEQA document must ultimately be certified as reflecting the independent judgment of the City. We
understand that City staff will review screencheck documents and provide comments, and our work will be
responsive to the guidance provided by the City. BRG will work closely with the City throughout the CEQA
process and follow the City Environmental Review Procedures.
BRG will prepare environmental documents that comply with the criteria, standards and procedures of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) as amended, the Carlsbad
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), and the regulations,
requirements and procedures of any other responsible public agency or any agency with jurisdiction by
law over the project. If there are any conflicts between the City of Carlsbad's requirements and those of
any other agency, the City's shall prevail because the City is the CEQA Lead Agency.
The EIR will assemble all available data, provide an independent evaluation of any existing data, originate
new studies (where applicable), and provide an assessment of the probable short and long-term significant
impacts and cumulative impacts of the project. The EIR will provide an evaluation of all feasible mitigation
measures that could be carried out to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of the proposed project. BRG
wBI work closely with City staff to identify project alternatives, which avoid or reduce project-related
impacts and provide a quantitative, comparative analysis of each alternative. The following provides a
detailed description of our proposed scope of services:
Task 1 Project Initiation
Project initiation will involve attendance at a kick-off meeting (see Task 10), initial data collection, and a
site visit. In preparation for the kick-off meeting, BRG will prepare a list of data needs and a refined project
schedule. As an outcome of the meeting, the project team will have a clear understanding of the roles of
each team member. The overall program approach will be discussed and the schedule will be refined.
Project goals and objectives will be identified as well as potential alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR.
Subtask 1.1 Data Collection and Site Visit
BRG will conduct initial data collection for the project (e.g., obtain current ambient air quality data obtain
farmland mapping categories from the Department of Conservation, etc.) and review the existing
environmental database. We will conduct a site visit to obtain a full understanding of the existing
environmental setting of the project site and surrounding land uses and determine potential locations for
view simulations. Site photos will also be taken of the project area.
Subtask 1.2 Project Description
BRG will prepare a Project Description of the proposed project, suitable for inclusion in the EIR. The purpose
of this task is to ensure that we have a complete understanding of the project prior to commencing
i September 17,2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviaro. Project
environmental analysis. The City will be responsible for the preparation and distribution of the Notice of
Preparation (NOP).
Task 2 First Screencheck Pratt EIR
BRG will prepare a First Screencheck Draft EIR for the project. We understand the need for the
environmental analysis to follow the thread of logic from beginning to end (i.e., setting, threshold of
significance, impact, mitigation and conclusions) and that conclusions must be supported by fact. We
understand that the role of an EIR is to identify substantial evidence that there may be a significant effect
and where there is disagreement among experts, disclose the disagreement and state the lead agency's
position. The EIR will include the sections listed below.
Table of Contents
The EIR will begin with a list of its contents including identification of all tables, figures and Technical
Appendices.
Introduction
The Introduction will define the purpose, scope and legislative authority of the EIR, requirements of CEQA
and other pertinent environmental rules and regulations. This section will also describe the EIR process,
structure, intended uses of the EIR, required contents and its relationship to other potential responsible or
trustee agencies. Supporting maps and figures will be provided.
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15123. This section will
summarize the proposed project including the project's technical and economic characteristics. This
section will identify each significant effect of the project, with proposed mitigation measures which would
reduce that effect; known areas of controversy including issues raised by agencies and the public; and,
issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant
effects. The Executive Summary will also include a list of required discretionary approvals and
corresponding agency with approval authority.
Project Description
The Project Description will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15124, and provide the
project location, including project location maps, within the regional context, and a description of the
proposed project, including the proposed land use site plan and circulation. This section will provide an
overview of the project's background and history. The Project Description will list the basic goals and
objectives of the project. In addition, the section will identify the scope of the proposed project that will
serve as the "Basis of Analysis." Lastly, the Project Description will include a discussion of the environmental
procedures and intended uses of the EIR, as well as list the discretionary permits and approvals required for
project implementation. Maps and figures will be provided to support text descriptions as necessary.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Environmental Setting
The Environmental Setting will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15125. The section will
provide an overview of the local and regional physical environmental conditions. This section will describe
the existing site conditions, including a description of the existing land uses and natural resources occurring
on the project site. The Environmental Setting section will be detailed enough to constitute the baseline
physical conditions by which impact significance can be determined.
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Environmental Impact Analysis section will address all the environmental topics listed as potentially
significant in the City's CEQA checklist, some of which will be readily identified as having no potential for an
adverse environmental effect and can be treated briefly as "effects found not to be significant" (CEQA
Guidelines §15128). Each of the environmental topics with the potential for significant impacts will be fully
addressed pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15126, with the EIR analysis including a description of the relevant
environmental setting, criteria for determining significance of environmental impacts, potential
environmental impacts, level of significance of environmental impacts, recommended mitigation measures
to significantly reduce or avoid the significant impacts, and an analysis of significance or residual impacts
after mitigation measures are applied.
The EIR will provide an evaluation of feasible mitigation measures that could be carried out to reduce or
eliminate adverse impacts of the proposed project. Where several mitigation measures are available, the
basis for selection from among these measures will be discussed. The discussion of mitigation measures will
provide the background for findings under CEQA Guidelines §15091 (a). Mitigation measures will be
discussed in sufficient detail to provide the basis for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
comply with CEQA Guideline § 15126.4.
The following section summarizes the BRG Team approach to the primary technical analyses for the EIR. All
text will be supported by figures, tables, and charts as appropriate. BRG will perform all EIR analyses, with
the assistance of its subconsultants for specific technical studies, as identified below.
Aesthetics. The project site is visible from Poinsetttia Lane. Surrounding land uses include townhomes to
the north, single-family homes to the east, and apartments to the west. These land uses currently have
views of the project site. Potential aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project include
public viewsheds and the design and orientation of the proposed project. The following approach is
envisioned:
1. The existing aesthetic setting will be described in terms of public viewsheds, elevations, and
topography, and existing views onto the site, landscape features, and applicable plans and
ordinances related to visual aesthetics and grading (e.g.. Scenic Corridor Guidelines, General
Plan policies, Local Coastal Program policies).
2. Photos will be taken of the project area from public viewshed areas, including Poinsettia Lane
facing both east and west at the existing terminus and Ambrosia Lane to help characterize the
existing aesthetic setting of the project area.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
3. Up to five (5) visual simulations will be prepared showing existing conditions and the proposed
development conditions including proposed graded pads and graded pads with the proposed
maximum building heights depicted. We assume the project engineer will provide existing and
proposed topographical information to BRG in CAD format. A maximum of five views/visual
simulations have been assumed for this scope of work.
4. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
5. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated including compliance with the City's
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Scenic Corridor Guidelines, and Local Coastal Program.
6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant aesthetic impacts.
7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be
clearly stated.
Agricultural Resources. The project site is disturbed and has been in agricultural use in the recent past.
The site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and will require
compliance with the agricultural conversion requirements. The following approach is envisioned:
1. The agricultural setting will be described in terms of the historical context of farming activity on
the site. County-wide trends in agricultural conversion, the acreage of each of the various
important farmlands inventory mapped farmland on the site, the economic value of any
farmland that will be converted to non-agricultural use. BRG will contact the Department of
Conservation and obtain Important Farmlands Maps for the site. The areas of important
farmlands will be quantified using GIS Arcview.
2. The agricultural soils on site will be evaluated using U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Survey
data for the project site. The soils Capability Classes and Storie Index ratings will be identified.
3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
4. The potential agricultural impact associated with implementation of the proposed project will be
evaluated. This evaluation will include a discussion of the agricultural conversion requirements of
the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, conversion of agricultural lands, and the
project's consistency with City of Carlsbad General Plan policies related to agricultural uses.
5. Mitigation measures will be identified (if applicable) for any significant agricultural impacts.
6. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated.
Air Quality (Including Greenhouse Gas Analysis). BRG will utilize Brian F. Smith & Associates (BFSA) to
prepare an air quality impact assessment will analyze air quality impacts from the proposed project. A
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis will also be included in the air quality assessment. All air quality
impacts will be based upon Federal, State and Local Significance Thresholds. The following approach
is envisioned:
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Existing Ambient Site Vicinity Air Quality Levels
• Existing ambient air quality data will be collected from the California Air Resources Board.
Identified ambient pollutants will be quantified to show attainment status under the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
Construction Modeling
Identify air quality construction impacts per the methodologies within the 1993 CEQA Air
Quality Handbook developed by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A
list of construction grading equipment, earthwork quantities and phasing will need to be
provided for the analysis to commence.
• Calculate the health risk associated from the particulate matter due to diesel emissions as
generated from either assumed or proposed construction equipment at each phase of the
development.
• Best Management Practices (BMPs) and or mitigation measures will be recommended to
control onsite construction emissions and dust levels.
Project related Vehicular Trip Assessment
• Operational impacts utilizing related to the proposed project trip generation will be identified.
The average trip generation and anticipated round trip distance for the proposed project will
be needed. Air Quality impacts will be determined utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 model which
utilizes emission assumptions obtained from the EMFAC 2007 model.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Provide a greenhouse gas emission analysis for the proposed project consistent with the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32), which requires that by 2020 the state's greenhouse gas
emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopt regulations requiring the
reporting and verification of statewide (GHG) emissions and requires that CARB adopt
statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas
emissions in 1990, to be achieved by year 2020.
CEQA is not explicitly addressed in AB 32. However, because a key objective of CEQA is
public disclosure of the reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental
effects, case law has established that CEQA documents should disclose a project's
contribution to climate change.
Furthermore, the Attorney General's office argues that AB 32 requires a climate change
analysis. The Attorney General's position is that AB 32 is an "adopted air quality plan" requiring
the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Any project that adds to emissions,
conflicts with the goal of reducing those emissions, according to the Attorney General.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work tor the Bridges at Aviara Project
Projects that conflict with or obstruct implementation of an "applicable air quality plan" should
analyze that conflict in an EIR. This argument is based on Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines, which lists one factor for determining if an air quality impact is significant the
consideration of whether the project would conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation
of an air quality plan. The dilemma for EIR practitioners and CEQA Lead Agencies is that there
are no statewide significance criteria or approved mitigation methods concerning GHG
emissions.
BRG would look to other Agencies and recently prepared EIRs throughout the State to develop
an appropriate, legally-defensible threshold for significance. This threshold would be
presented to the County of Imperial for approval prior to beginning detailed analysis in the EIR.
BRG will present feasible measures to offset or reduce project GHG emissions, as identified in
AB 32. We will work with the County of Imperial and Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District to identify features that can be incorporated into the project that would reduce the
project related greenhouse emissions (e.g.'s, solar, energy efficiencies).
Other potential impacts associated with potential climate change issues, such as flooding,
drought, wildfire hazards), would be addressed within the context of the appropriate EIR
section, such as Hydrology, the Water Supply Assessment, and Hazards.
• The proposed greenhouse gas emissions of the business-as-usual plan and recommend
mitigation measures to reduce emissions as required by AB 32 will be estimated.
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant,
direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after
implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated.
BiofogJcaf Resources, BRG will utilize Merkel & Associates (M&A) to conduct a third party review of the
applicant-provided 2006 Dudek and Associates biological survey and Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) compliance report will be conducted. The review would include: evaluation of the
methodologies and conclusions contained in the reports for legal and scientific adequacy and
accuracy to ensure that the analyses are of a scale and level of effort appropriate to the requirements
of the project; and identification of any flaws in the methodologies and/or conclusions.
We will rely on the HMP consistency analysis provided in the HMP compliance report to evaluate the
project's consistency with the HMP in the EIR. We also assume that the biological survey addresses the
whole project; however, as part of the third party review, any additional impact to open space and
habitat areas resulting from the project will be identified. Criteria used to determine significance will be
identified, and significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the projects.
jhe level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly
stated. We assume that Dudek and Associates will be responsible for making any necessary changes
to the biological survey and HMP compliance report and that the survey and report will be suitable for
inclusion in the EIR.
September 17,2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges ot Avioro Project
Cultural Resources. BRG will utilize ASM Affiliates (ASM) to prepare a cultural resources study for the
proposed project. The study will consist of a review of the literature and site records on file with the
South Coastal Information Center (Information Center) at San Diego State University, followed by an
intensive survey of the proposed project area. All existing and newly identified prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites, features and isolates identified during the survey will be appropriately mapped,
documented and recorded with the Information Center for assignment of permanent trinomials.
If potentially significant archaeological sites are identified, evaluation may be necessary and the
scope of any such work will be provided to the City for review and approval prior to initiating work.
Upon completion of the survey (and, if necessary, evaluation), a draft technical report will be prepared
and submitted for review. This report will consist of a description of the project's natural and cultural
setting, study methods, results, potential impacts, and mitigation recommendations. Following review
and comment, prepare the final technical report for incorporation in overall submittal.
The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be contacted to conduct a search of
their files for any recorded Traditional Cultural Properties or Native American heritage sites located
within one mile of the project property. NAHC will respond with records of any such sites and will
provide a listing of all Native American tribal representatives that may have further knowledge of such
sites within the project. This information will then be provided to the City of Carlsbad for its SB-18 Tribal
consultation. Tribal consultation under SB-18 is necessary when a project requires a general plan
amendment and/or a specific plan. SB-18 requires the City to provide opportunities for the
involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes, public agencies, public utility
companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings and any
other means the county deems appropriate. The proposed project requires a general plan
amendment; therefore, consultation under SB-18 is required.
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant, direct,
and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after implementation of
mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated.
Contingency - As part of this scope of work and cost estimate, we have included a cost contingency
in the proposed budget to test and evaluate up to one (1) potentially significant archaeological site, if
identified on the project site.
Geology/Soils. BRG will utilize Petra Geotechnical (Petra) to conduct a third party review of the
applicant-provided Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities Report (June 22, 2006). The review
would include: evaluation of the analysis and conclusions contained in the report and evaluate the
adequacy of the impact analysis, particularly with regard to unstable soils, remedial earthwork,
landslides, rocky soils, fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, subsidence, settlement, surcharging,
liquefactions, proposed slope stability, and groundwater impacts. Petra will identify any
flaws/inadequacies in the analyses and conclusions.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges al Aviara Project
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified as significant, less than significant, direct, and
indirect impacts resulting from the project. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation
measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated. We assume that Geocon will be responsible for making
any necessary changes to the Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities Report and that the report
will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site and vicinity has the potential to be impacted by a
number of different types of hazards including past agricultural hazardous materials and high fire
hazard areas. BRG will utilize Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to prepare a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the project area. The following approach is envisioned:
1. Prepare Phase I ESA ERM proposes to perform the Phase I ESA in conformance with ASTM E 1527-
05 and AAI standards. ERM will seek to identify conditions indicative of releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products at, in, on or under the subject
properly through gathering information regarding: (1) current and past property uses and
occupancies; (2) current and past uses of hazardous substances and petroleum products; (3)
waste management and disposal activities; (4) current and past corrective actions and response
activities at the subject property; (5) engineering controls at the subject property, (6) institutional
controls at the subject property; and (7) properties adjoining or located nearby the subject
property.
2. The City's Fire Marshall will be contacted to determine the acceptability of proposed
development sites adjacent to any high fire hazard areas.
3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
4. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated including fire hazards and hazardous
materials.
5. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts.
6. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be
clearly stated.
Hydrology and Water Quality. BRG will utilize Fuscoe Engineering (Fuscoe) to conduct a third party
review of the applicant-provided Hydrology and Preliminary Drainage Reports (PDC, May 2007).
Fuscoe will identify any flaws/inadequacies in the analyses and conclusions. We assume that PDC will
be responsible for making any necessary changes to the Hydrology and Preliminary Drainage Reports
and that the reports will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR.
BRG will utilize Fuscoe to prepare a CEQA-level Storm Water Management Plan for the proposed
project. Fuscoe will prepare a CEQA-level Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) consistent with the
EIR level analysis and City of Carlsbad standards. SWMP shall include source control, site design and
treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for use by the City to certify temporary and
permanent onsite water quality control. SWMP will include impact analysis per CEQA guidelines.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified for hydrology and water quality, and
significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the project. The level of
significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated.
Land Use Planning. Surrounding land uses include townhomes to the north, vacant land and an
elementary school to the south, single-family homes to the east, and apartments and single-family
homes to the west. The project covers an area consisting of approximately 61 acres. The project
includes the proposal to change the General Plan designation from Residential Low-Medium Density
(0-4 du/ac) and Open Space to Residential High Density (15-23 du/ac) and Open Space. A significant
increase in density above the RLM density range would result if the proposal is approved.
The project will require the approval of numerous discretionary actions, with the major actions including
a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Local Facilities
Management Program Amendment, Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit, Coastal
Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Habitat Management
Plan Permit. The following approach is envisioned;
1. The land use setting will be described in terms of all applicable land use plans and policies,
existing on-site and off-site land uses, and planned on-site and off-site land uses. Exhibits will be
provided depicting the location of existing and planned land uses, and the project's context to
other applicable plans.
2. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
3. The project's consistency with land use plans will be analyzed. This analysis will include a detailed
project with respect to the projeci's consistency with the General Plan, Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan, Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) including the Growth Management
Chapter, McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Landscape Manual, Open
Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, Local Facilities Management Plan for
Zone 21, and Local Coastal Program. A detailed analysis of the project's consistency with
Coastal Act policies including coastal access, recreation, and the preservation of coastal
resources will be provided.
4. The project's compatibility with surrounding existing and proposed development will be
addressed. This analysis will focus on the single-family residential development to the east and
southwest and the apartment project located to the west. In addition, we understand that from
the RFP, a 90-unit multi-family residential project has been approved north of the site. The future
views of these residences will be considered during the compatibility evaluation. The project's
compatibility will be assessed in terms of types of land uses, proposed densities, and buffer
techniques. Of particular concern is the significant increase in density proposed by the project
as compared to the current allowable density.
5. The Land Use section will identify all significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts
resulting from project implementation.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant land use impacts.
7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be
clearly stated.
Noise. It is anticipated that portions of the project will experience noise from the extension of Poinsettia
Lane. During the construction phase of the project, the area will experience a temporary increase in
the ambient noise level and due to the project's increase in traffic volumes, the ambient noise level
may be increased on some adjacent roadways.
BRG will utilize BFSA to prepare a noise study for the proposed project. The study prepared by BFSA will
provide an exterior site assessment that focuses on both the project related noise impacts to offsite
land uses as well as potential offsite construction noise impacts generated during construction. The
study will also provide exterior noise predictions due to the future roadway geometries and volumes for
the residential uses proposed onsite. The following approach is envisioned.
Field Monitoring
• Ambient sound levels will be taken at four separate locations onsite. Each monitoring position
will be selected based upon the locations of future noise sensitive areas shown within
proposed project site plan. Traffic counts will also be taken simultaneously during the
monitoring event for noise modeling calibration.
• Ambient sound levels along two nearby offsite roadways will be taken in order to quantify
existing offsite noise levels. Traffic counts will also be taken during the monitoring event.
• Acoustical noise monitoring will conform to the City of Carlsbad's general plan.
Construction Noise Assessment
• BFSA will coordinate with the project manager to get a list of construction equipment and
phasing. This information will be utilized in order to quantify construction noise levels along any
nearby sensitive land uses. Construction related noise contours will be generated based upon
these assumptions.
Traffic Noise Modeling (Residential Areas)
• Future Traffic noise will be predicted at sensitive residential receptor locations within the
proposed site. BFSA will utilize the proposed project traffic study and proposed grading plans
for future input assumptions.
• Noise modeling will be conducted utilizing either the TNM 2.5 noise prediction software or the
CALTRANS Sound32 noise prediction software.
10 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
• Once the initial noise model is set up, BFSA will calibrate the prediction model utilizing the
ambient noise measurements, geographical locations of those measurements and the
simultaneous traffic counts performed above.
Traffic Noise Modeling (Offsitel
• BFSA will utilize the CALVENO noise emission regression equations to calculate offsite noise
impacts. A comparison analysis will be performed between sound predictions between both
the existing traffic volumes and the future predicted traffic volumes. These calculations will be
performed on roadway segments within the project traffic study.
Mitigation Design
• BFSA will utilize the TNM 2.5 noise prediction software to develop noise mitigation (as needed)
for the special education school site. Noise mitigation will be designed per the procedures
outlined within the City's Noise Element within the General Plan. The acoustical design will be
based upon both economic and functional goals.
• Should mitigation be required, BFSA will provide 11x17 attachments to the final acoustical
report for easier identification of the exact locations for each proposed barrier.
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant, direct,
and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after implementation of
mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated.
Population/Housing, The proposed project may indirectly induce growth through the provision of the
Poinsettia Lane road extension. An amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for
Zone 21 is required to update the existing and future development potential for the zone and the
anticipated infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project. The following approach is
envisioned:
1. The existing population/housing setting will be described in terms of existing population and
housing on-site, General Plan, LFMP Zone 21, and the Local Coastal Program allowances for the
site, and housing/populations for the project area and the City and region as a whole. We will
utilize information in the City's existing database and supplement this information with census
data as appropriate.
2. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
3. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated. This will include quantification of the
increase of housing and population on the project site, and a comparison to the General Plan,
LFMP Zone 21 unit allowances, and the Local Coastal Program. Based on a conversation with
City staff, we understand that the Applicant has conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment
analysis and that it will be available for assessment and inclusion in the EIR.
1 11 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
4. An analysis of whether the project will induce, either directly or indirectly, substantial growth in
the area will be provided.
5. An analysis of whether the project will displace a substantial number of existing dwelling units or
people will be provided.
6. An analysis of whether the project will result in exceeding the City's growth control point will be
provided.
7. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant population/housing impacts.
8. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated.
9. An analysis of the project's impact to public services and utilities will be provided in the ensuing
section.
Public Services and Utilities. The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 21. An
amendment to the LFMP for Zone 21 is required to update the existing and future development
potential for the zone and the anticipated infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project.
The following approach is envisioned:
1. The existing public services and facilities setting will be described in terms of existing services and
facilities serving the site and shall determine the demands of the project for fire protection,
police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities, water facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities, solid waste facilities, and gas and electric service.
2. This section will evaluate water, wastewater treatment faciliiies, solid waste facilities, gas and
electric service, fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.
Stormwater drainage facilities will be addressed in the Water Quality/Hydrology section of the
EIR.
3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified, including LFMP Zone 21
requirements.
4. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated. This will include quantification of the
increase of demand on the various public services and utilities, the ability to meet the demand,
and any expansion or new construction of facilities created by this demand that may cause a
physical impact to the environment. Based on a conversation with City staff, we understand that
the Applicant has conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment analysis and that it will be available
for assessment and inclusion in the EIR.
5. The City's emergency response plans will be evaluated in conjunction with the proposed project
to determine if the project will interfere with existing plans.
6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant public services and utilities impacts.
7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated.
12 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Recreation. The project site is located within the LFMP for Zone 21. BRG will analyze and compare the
proposed project's impacts to the Zone 21 LFMP. The following approach is envisioned:
1. The existing recreational setting will be described in terms of existing facilities serving the project
area, and their locations.
2. The ability of the agencies providing the recreational services to meet the demands of the
proposed project will be provided.
3. The project's potential impacts on recreation will be analyzed and compared against the Zone
21 LFMP. Based on a conversation with City staff, we understand that the Applicant has
conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment analysis and that it will be available for assessment
and inclusion in the EIR.
4. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified, including the LFMP Zone 21
requirements.
5. The potential impact of the project will be analyzed and compared to the Zone 21 LFMP. This will
include quantification of the increase of demand on the existing facilities, the ability to meet the
demand, and any expansion or new construction of facilities created by this demand that may
cause a physical impact to the environment.
6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant public services and utilities impacts.
7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated.
Jraffic/Circulation/Parking. BRG will utilize LOS Engineering (LOS) to conduct a third party review of the
Applicant provided traffic impact analysis for the proposed project. LOS will identify any
flaws/inadequacies in the analysis and conclusions. We assume that the Applicant's traffic
engineering consultant will be responsible for making any necessary changes to the traffic impact
analysis report and the report will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR.
Other CEQA Mandated EIR Sections
The EIR will contain the following CEQA mandated sections:
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes - In accordance with Article 9 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR will contain a discussion of the irreversible environmental changes that will result
from the proposed project and unavoidable significant impacts. This section will discuss uses of
nonrenewable resources, long-term commitments of resources, and potential irreversible
environmental damage that may result from environmental accidents associated with the project.
(mpacfs Found Nof To Be Significant - Areas of no significant impact identified in the Initial Study and
subsequent analysis for the EIR will be listed. The justification for such findings will be based on the Initial
Study and results of the Draft EIR analysis.
13 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Cumulative Impacts - The discussion of cumulative effects is an increasingly important analysis in EIRs.
The Cumulative Impacts section will evaluate whether individual project impacts are cumulatively
significant when viewed in combination with other projects. The section will discuss the potential of the
proposed project to compound or increase adverse environmental impacts when added to other
closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and project impacts. BRG will
work closely with City staff to identify cumulative projects, This section will discuss any indirect,
cumulative impacts and evaluate compliance with adopted threshold standards and applicable
policies and programs.
Growfh-/nduc/ng Impacts - The Growth Inducement section will assess the potential of the proposed
project to induce economic or population growth and the construction of additional housing, either
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The analysis will evaluate the project relative to
the phasing of community services and facilities to serve new development. An analysis of the
LFMP/Growth Management Plan and its ability to provide adequate infrastructure to meet the
demand as the project builds out will also be included. The section will discuss the potential for the use
of large amounts of fuel or energy and evaluate the project's compliance with regional and local
growth management policies.
Alternatives
The Alternatives section of the EIR will identify a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain
the basic objectives of the project, but reduce significant impacts. Alternatives evaluation will be a critical
component of the environmental review and mandated by CEQA. The alternatives will be fully defined
and analyzed in the First Screencheck Draft EIR submitted to the City. This section will include, at a
minimum, three project alternatives: 1) the "No Project" which analyzes what would be reasonably
expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on the current
General Plan and consistent with available infrastructure and community services; 2) a "Thirty Townhomes",
which would analyze the alternative of developing the southwestern most proposed area with 30 market-
rate townhomes instead of the 65 age restricted apartments; and 3) a "Reduced Project", which would
include an analysis of a reduced level of development intensity on the project site. BRG assumes that the
Thirty Townhome and Reduced Project alternatives would be developed in consultation/coordination with
City staff. The analysis for each alternative will include a qualitative and qualitative comparative analysis
for the relative environmental impacts and merits of each.
References, Persons and Agencies Contacted and EIR Preparation
This section will include lists of all references and persons and agencies contacted in the preparation of the
EIR, This section will also list all persons involved in the preparation of the document, their title and role.
Technical Appendices
The EIR Appendices will include an Initial Study (if prepared, and provided by the City), a copy of the NOP,
public comments on the NOP, and any technical studies prepared for the project.
14 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges a) Aviara Project
Task 3 Second Screencheck Draft EIR
BRG will revise the First Screencheck Draft EIR in response to City comments and provide five (5) copies of
the Second Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring binders (including Appendices) for City review and
comment.
Task 4 Draft EIR
BRG will incorporate City comments on the Second Screencheck Draft EIR and perform a quality control
review. BRG will then provide the City with the required amount of copies of the Draft EIR and Technical
Appendices. The Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be available for public review.
Our scope of work assumes the City will be responsible for the preparation and posting of the Notice of
Completion and Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR, and distribution of the EIR to the appropriate
agencies and individuals.
Tasks Screencheck Final EIR
BRG will prepare five (5) copies of the Preliminary Final EIR including Responses to Public Comments (not to
include the Technical Appendices unless revised) for City review and comment. Upon close of public
review of the Draft EIR, BRG understands our role will be to review all comments and prepare a summary of
general comment categories. We will meet with City staff to discuss the general approach to responding
to public comments. After agreeing to the approach, BRG will number each individual comment and
prepare corresponding responses, including identification of responses that affect or supplement
information contained in the Draft EIR. BRG will modify the text of the Draft EIR or add footnotes to the
margins identifying relevant responses to comments. Of course. City staff shall make final determination on
the adequacy of responses to comments.
The fee proposal included herein assumes a total of 200 individually numbered comments will be received
on the Draft EIR. Please note a single comment letter may contain numerous numbered comments. The
estimate of the level of effort in responding to comments is based on a moderate to high level of
controversy.
Contingency - As part of this scope of work and cost estimate, we have included a cost contingency to
provide responses to comments if the number of individual comments exceeds 200.
Task 6 Draft Final EIR
BRG will incorporate City comments on the Screencheck Final EIR in response to City comments.
Task 7 Final EIR
BRG will incorporate City comments on the Draft Final EIR and perform a final quality control review.
15 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work (or the Bridges at Aviara Project
Task 8 CEQA Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Subtask 8.1 Screencheck CEQA Flndlngs/SOC
BRG will prepare the Candidate CEQA Findings pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15091 for ultimate submittal
to the City Planning Commission and City Council. BRG will prepare draft Candidate Findings to be
submitted for City staff review at the Second Screencheck Draft EIR. BRG will identify project changes,
alterations and required mitigation identified in the Draft EIR, which avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. If there are mitigation measures or alternatives to the project identified in the EIR
which could reduce the adverse consequences of the project but which are determined infeasible, BRG
will provide the required CEQA findings, giving the specific economic, social or other conditions which
render the mitigation measure or alternatives infeasible. Please note that development of these findings of
infeasibility will likely require the active participation of the City and/or applicant to provide sufficient facts
to support the findings. BRG will coordinate development of the necessary arguments to support CEQA
Findings. In addition, the Candidate Findings will identify any changes or alterations that are within the
jurisdiction of another public agency.
Should the EIR conclude an impact is significant and unmitigable, BRG will prepare a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (SOC) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15093, BRG will work closely with
the City to identify the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project,
which outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects. BRG will coordinate with the City to establish the
evidence in the record to support overriding considerations.
The Findings will follow the format and style specified by the City.
Subtask 8.2 Final CEQA Findings/SOC
BRG will prepare a final set of CEQA Findings/SOC based on City review and changes to the Draft EIR that
may have resulted from public comment.
Task 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP1
Subtask 9.1 Screencheck MMRP
We understand the need for preparation of an MMRP in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21081,6(a)[l) and California Code of Regulations Section 15091. The MMRP will include a brief summary of
the environmental impact. However, the associated mitigation measure will be included verbatim from
the EIR in order to provide sufficient detail to address impacts at the project level. Each mitigation measure
will reference the appropriate implementing permits to facilitate mitigation monitoring. For each project
change, condition, or mitigation measure the program will include the following:
• Specific monitoring activities;
• Implementation phase or milestone;
• Identification of the party responsible for implementation;
• Identification of the party responsible for monitoring;
• Criteria for evaluating the success of each mitigation measure; and,
» Compliance verification criteria.
16 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Subtask 9.2 Draft MMRP
BRG will prepare a Draft MMRP incorporating City comments on the Screencheck MMRP. The Draft MMRP
will be available for public review with the Draft Program EIR.
Subtask 9.3 Final MMRP
BRG will prepare a Final MMRP based on any changes to mitigation measures as a result of public review
and comment on the Draft EIR.
Task 10 Meetings and Hearings
BRG understands that project management and staff support are crucial elements to preparation of a
legally-defensible EIR. BRG commits attendance of our Project Manager for the following meetings:
• One (1) kick-off meeting with City staff to initiate the project, discuss work products and overall project
schedule.
• One (1) public scoping meeting to solicit input from the public on the scope and content of the EIR.
• Two (2) staff meetings to discuss and resolve issues related to preparation of the Screencheck Draft EIR,
etc.
• Two (2) staff meetings to review comments on the First and Second Screencheck Draft EIRs.
• Two (2) staff meetings to review the responses to comments and Final Draft EIR.
Up to three (3) public hearings with presentations as necessary as determined by City staff.
One (1) additional meeting as necessary.
In addition to providing our Project Manager, BRG commits principal-level attendance at the three (3)
required public meetings/hearings. BRG assumes a maximum of four (4) hours each for the project
initiation, scoping meeting, and public hearings.
DELIVERABLES
BRG anticipates the following deliverables to be submitted to the City. All documents will be readable by
Microsoft Word 2000:
(5) Copies of the first Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring loose-leaf binders
(5) Copies of the second Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring loose-leaf binders (includes appendices)
(5) Copies of the Screencheck MMRP
(5) Copies of the Screencheck Candidate CEQA Finding of Fact
(50) Copies of the City-approved Draft EIR, Exhibits and MMRP consisting of:
- 25 spiral-bound copies
- 25 digital copies on CD
17 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work (or the Bridges at Aviara Project
(30) Copies of the Technical Appendices consisting of:
- 15 spiral-bound copies
- 15 digital copies on CD
(1) Master CD Copy of the Draft EIR with appendices, exhibits, and MMRP for City's website
(5) Copies of the first Screencheck Final EIR (including Response to Comments, Final EIR and any
amendments to the technical appendices)
(5) Copies of the second Screencheck Final EIR (including Response to Comments, Final EIR and any
amendments to the technical appendices)
(51) Copies of the City-approved Final EIR, Exhibits and MMRP consisting of:
- 25 spiral-bound copies
- 25 digital copies on CD
- 1 camera-ready copy
(30) Copies of any amended Technical Appendices consisting of:
- 15 spiral-bound copies
- 15 digital copies on CD
(1) Digital copy on CD of the Findings of Fact
(1) Digital copy on CD of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(1) Master CD Copy of the Final EIR with any amended appendices, exhibits, and MMRP for City's
website
(5) Copies of the Certified Final EIR, Appendices, Exhibits, MMRP, and CEQA Findings of Fact, which
incroporate any changes made to the Final Draft EIR during the public hearing and certification
process, if necessary
(1) Master CD copy of the Certified Final EIR with appendices, exhibits, and MMRP
5.0 SCHEDULE
This section presents BRG's proposed task-by-task work schedule to complete the services requested by the
City. The attached schedule assumes a start-date in September 8, 2008; however, this date will be revised
upon further direction by the City. BRG's schedule to complete the CEQA process according to our
proposed scope of work is provided on the following page.
BRG and our subcontractors have the resources and commitment to the City to complete the CEQA
process in approximately one year.
18 September 17, 2008
Bridges at Aviara EIR
Cost Estimate
Task I- Prolect Initiation
1.1 Data CdLctton and Srt« Visit
1.2 Protect Description
Subtotal Task 1
Task 2 - First Screencfuck Draft EIR
Visual Simulations (5)
Subtotal Task 2
Task 3 - Second Screencheck Draft EIR
Task 4 - Draft EIR
Task 5 - Screencheck Final EIR'
Task 6 - Draft Final EIR
Task 7 - Final EIR
Task 8 - CEOA Flndlnos of F»ct/SOC
8.1 Screencheck Frndinas/SOC
8.2 Final Findinos/SOC
Subtotal Task 8
Task 9 MMRP
9.1 Screencheck MMRP
9.2 Draft MMRP
9.3 Rnal MMRP
Subtotal Task 9
Task 1 0 Meetings and fearlnas
Kickoff Meeting
Staff Meetings - Issue Resdvtion
Staff Meeting - Review Screenctteck EHt comments
Staff Meeting - Kevisw Scroenctiect EIR comments
Hearings
Subtotal Task 10
TOTAL
Rate (S/hr)
Principal
2
2
4
.8
2
10
8
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
8
16
59
315
Project
M»n,qe,
4
3
12
10
4
44
24
16
ie
S
4
4
4
a
2
i
i
4
2
2
2
2
8
11
152
770
Analyst III
S
31
40
60
0
eo
,32
16
24
16
a
0
0
o
4
2
Z
a
0
0
0
0
4
4
208
100
Environ
Analyst 1
12
0
12
120
0
120
32
4
11
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
192
90
CADD/C-IS
0
S
8
40
1ZO
160
24
16
a
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222
95
Environ
Analyst 1
24
0
24
140
0
140
SO
32
0
e
8
16
a
24
a
2
2
n
0
0
0
0
4
4
332
75
Suoconsukants
LOS Engineering (traffic)
Merkel and Associates (biological resources - third-parlyreview)
ASM Affiliates (cultural resources)
Brian F. Smith & Associates (air quality (Including GHG) and noise)
Peua Gcotedinical, Inc. (neoioqy/soils - third-part review)
Fuscoe Enqineennq {Water Quality and HydroloOY - third-oarlv review)
Environmental Resource Management (Phase 1 ESA)
Administrative Cost (10%)
Total
Contlnoencv Taste - Included In Budoet Total
ASM Affiliates - Cultural resources evaluation and testing (one archaeological site)
BHG Consulting - Responses to Comments
Total
Other Direct Cotu
Mileage & Postage, delivery, miscellaneous printing
First Screen Draft EIR (5 copies - 3-ring binders)
Second Screen Draft EIR (5 copies - 3-nng binders)
Screendieck MMRP (5 copies)
Saeendieclt CEQA Findings (5 copies)
Draft EIR + Technical Appendices (25 spiral-bound and 25 CDs t 15 spiral-bound and 1 5 CDs + 1 Master CD)
Draft MMRP (5 copies)
Screencheck Final EIR (5 copies)
Draft Final EIR (5 copies)
Final EIR + Any Amended Techncial Appendices (25 spiral-bound and 25 CDs + 15 spiral-bound and 1 S CDs + 1 Master CD)
Final MMRP, CEQA Findmgs/SOC (1 CO)
Certified Final EIR + Any Amended Technical Appendices * Final MMRP, CEQA Findings (5 copies and 1 Master CD)
Total Expenses
TOTAL EIR COST
Production
4
4
a
40
0
40
IS
IS
16
8
e
2
2
4
4
2
2
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
128
85
SI, BOO
$4,162
$4,443
$10,100
$2,500
$10,100
$3,800
$3,690
$40.595
$20,000
$350
$425
$425
$10
$10
$4.750
$10
J500
$500
$3,000
$2
$1,750
$11,732
* 211,702
Total BRG
Hours
54
54
we
448
126
574
2ia
106
84
56
3r?
24
16
40
19
S
a
is
4
4
4
4
24
32
1,159
TOTAL COST
JS.3JO
K.230
ill,620
$43.820
512.710
S 56.530
121.430
S11.330
S3.940
16.600
tl.580
if.eso
$2.oao
14.760
tl.995
tl.OOS
> 1.005
S4.00S
tS70
S370
1370
3970
14.580
18.460
139,375
1 Induces time/cost for respondnq to 200 individual c
STANDARD HOURLY RATES AND TERMS
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES
BRIDGES AT AVIARAEIR
STAFF RATE
Principal - Tim Gnibus $315
Project Manager - Patrick O'Neill $170
Environmental Analyst/Planner III - Kathie Washington $100
Environmental Analyst/Planner II - Mary Bilse $90
Environmental Analyst/Planner I - John Addenbrooke $75
GIS Specialist - Totran Mai $95
Documents Manager - Mary Brady $85
The following standard terms apply unless otherwise agreed:
All subconsultants and other direct project-related expenses are reimbursable
at cost plus ten percent.
Invoices will be presented monthly for work completed during the preceding
30 days, and are due and payable upon receipt.
Invoices aged more than 60 days will be increased by 1.5 percent per month
carrying charges.
Effective January 1, 2008
Rates will increase by 10% per year effective January 1 of each year.
.
.5 o I u 11 o n
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND APPLICANT
FOR PAYMENT OF EIR CONSULTANT
BRIDGES AT AVIARA EIR 06-01
THIS AGREEMENT is made this / 4^ day of /1<TKm W.2Q0 #.
between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California,
hereinafter referred to as CITY, and Acacia Investors, LLC. hereinafter referred to as
"APPLICANT".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the APPLICANT has filed with the CITY a request for
approval of a proposed project identified as The Bridges at Aviara requiring an
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, CITY has determined that its current staff is inadequate in
number to process the Environmental Impact Report in a timely and thorough manner;
and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT in order to ensure the expeditious processing of
said Environmental Impact Report desires to pay to CITY the amount necessary to hire
a CONSULTANT.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions, it
is agreed as follows:
1. The CITY will engage the firm of BRG Consulting Inc. hereinafter
referred to as "CONTRACTOR" to perform the necessary work in the processing and
monitoring of the Environmental Impact Report for that area more particularly depicted
upon a site map attached as Attachment 1 and made a part of this agreement.
2. It is understood that the CONTRACTOR services shall conform to
1 Rev. 07/31/00
the Proposal attached as Attachment 2 and made a part of this agreement, and may
require:
a) Field exploration;
b) Weekly communication with the City staff;
c) Written reports; and
d) Such other work necessary to properly evaluate the
proposed project as directed by the Planning Director.
3. It is understood that the CITY will direct the CONTRACTOR to
complete a draft and final Environmental Impact Report at the earliest feasible time.
The CITY will advise the APPLICANT in writing of any impacts which may render the
proposed project infeasible within a reasonable time after CITY has received the
CONTRACTOR 's conclusions in writing.
4. The APPLICANT shall pay to the CITY the actual cost of the
CONTRACTOR 's services. Such cost shall be based on the costs set forth in
Attachment 3. The APPLICANT has advanced the sum of $211,702.00 as payment on
account for the actual cost of the CONTRACTOR'S services. In the event it appears, as
the work progresses, that said sum will not be sufficient to cover the actual cost, the
CITY will notify the APPLICANT of the difference between the amount deposited and
the new estimated cost. CITY will ensure, to the extent feasible, that no further work
will be performed by the CONTRACTOR incurring an obligation beyond the amount
advanced without an appropriate amendment to this Agreement. If the actual cost of
preparing the report is less than the APPLICANT'S advance, any surplus will be
refunded to APPLICANT by CITY.
5. It is understood that the CONTRACTOR shall be an independent
2 Rev. 07/31/00
contractor of the CITY and CITY shall not be liable for any negligent acts or omissions
of the CONTRACTOR. The APPLICANT agrees to permit the CONTRACTOR to enter
upon his property and to perform all work thereon as the CONTRACTOR deems
necessary to complete the Environmental Impact Report. It is agreed that the
APPLICANT will not interfere with the CONTRACTOR in the performance of such work
or attempt to influence such CONTRACTOR during the course of his investigation and
report.
6. It is understood that the CITY will attempt to bring the
Environmental Impact Report to Planning Commission and City Council as soon as
possible, barring no delays from the APPLICANT.
7. The City shall not be required to defend any third party claims and
suits challenging any action taken by the City with regard to any procedure or
substantive aspect of the City's environmental process and approval of development of
the property. If the City, in its sole and absolute discretion defends such action or
proceeding, the Applicant shall be responsible and reimburse the City for whatever
legal fees and costs, in their entirely, may be incurred by the City in defense of such
action or proceeding. The City shall have the absolute right to retain such legal counsel
as the City deems necessary and appropriate. Applicant shall reimburse the City for
any award of court costs or attorney fees made against City in favor of any third party
challenging either the sufficiency of a negative declaration or EIR or the validity of the
City's approval of the application. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings
have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated.
Rev. 07/31/00
•i"")
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on
the day and year first above written.
Executed by APPLICANT this 29th day of September, 2008.
APPLICANT:
ACACIA INVESTORS, LLC _
(Name of Applicant)
By: Its Manager, Arlen Capital, LLC
By: Its. Manager, Don Augustine
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
City Manager or Mayor
DON AUGUSTINE, Manager .ORRALNE M. WpOp/City Clerk
By: Its Manager, Vantaggio Management Partners, LLC
By: Its Manager, Homeplace Investment Corporation
By: Stephen L. Taylor, President
STEPHEN L. TAYLOR/President
(Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Contractor musf be attached.)
(Chairman, president or vice-president and secretary, assistant secretary, CFO or assistant
treasurer must sign for corporations. Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution
certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering the officers)
signing to bind the corporation.)
(If signed by an individual partner, the partnership must attach a statement of partnership
authorizing the partner to execute this instrument).
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
By:
Rev. 07/31/00
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
On October 1, 2008 before me, Judith M. Glasgow Notary Public,
personally appeared Don Augustine , who proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence to be the person(g) whose name^ is/as* subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they- executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity^ies), and that
by his/her/their signature^ on the instrument the person($, or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(X5 acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
CommteitondU 737830
NoMHV ^uWte -California •
lanOtoaoCaunty 1
Rev. 12/17/2007
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
On October 2, 2008 before me, Judith M. Glasgow
personally appeared _Stephen L. Taylor
Notary Public,
, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(X) whose name^ is/ate subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/hcr/thcif authorized capacityCies)? and that by his/her/their-
signature(^( on the instrument the person(XJ, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(#f acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
ion Otage County
M»Co»mvi«p>»/»r 1.3011 t
Rev. 12/17/2007
WOT TO SCALE
SITEMAP
Bridges atAviara
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES
BRG will prepare an EIR for the proposed project that addresses all project components as well as current
and future discretionary actions associated with implementation of the project. We understand that the
CEQA document must ultimately be certified as reflecting the independent judgment of the City. We
understand that City staff will review screencheck documents and provide comments, and our work will be
responsive to the guidance provided by the City. BRG will work closely with the City throughout the CEQA
process and follow the City Environmental Review Procedures.
BRG will prepare environmental documents that comply with the criteria, standards and procedures of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) as amended, the Carlsbad
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), and the regulations,
requirements and procedures of any other responsible public agency or any agency with jurisdiction by
law over the project. If there are any conflicts between the City of Carlsbad's requirements and those of
any other agency, the City's shall prevail because the City is the CEQA Lead Agency,
The EIR will assemble all available data, provide an independent evaluation of any existing data, originate
new studies (where applicable), and provide an assessment of the probable short and long-term significant
impacts and cumulative impacts of the project. The EIR will provide an evaluation of all feasible mitigation
measures that could be carried out to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of the proposed project. BRG
will work closely with City staff to identify project alternatives, which avoid or reduce project-related
impacts and provide a quantitative, comparative analysis of each alternative. The following provides a
detailed description of our proposed scope of services:
Task 1 Project Initiation
Project initiation will involve attendance at a kick-off meeting (see Task 10), initial data collection, and a
site visit. In preparation for the kick-off meeting, BRG will prepare a list of data needs and a refined project
schedule. As an outcome of the meeting, the project team will have a clear understanding of the roles of
each team member. The overall program approach will be discussed and the schedule will be refined.
Project goals and objectives will be identified as well as potential alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR.
Subtask 1.1 Data Collection and Site Visit
BRG will conduct initial data collection for the project (e.g., obtain current ambient air quality data, obtain
farmland mapping categories from the Department of Conservation, etc.) and review the existing
environmental database. We will conduct a site visit to obtain a full understanding of the existing
environmental setting of the project site and surrounding land uses and determine potential locations for
view simulations. Site photos will also be taken of the project area.
Subtask 1.2 Project Description
BRG will prepare a Project Description of the proposed project, suitable for inclusion in the EIR. The purpose
of this task is to ensure that we have a complete understanding of the project prior to commencing
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
environmental analysis. The City will be responsible for the preparation and distribution of the Notice of
Preparation (HOP).
Task 2 First Screencheck Draft EIR
BRG will prepare a First Screencheck Draft EIR for the project. We understand the need for the
environmental analysis to follow the thread of logic from beginning to end (i.e., setting, threshold of
significance, impact, mitigation and conclusions) and that conclusions must be supported by fact. We
understand that the role of an EIR is to identify substantial evidence that there may be a significant effect
and where there is disagreement among experts, disclose the disagreement and state the lead agency's
position. The EIR will include the sections listed below.
Table of Contents
The EIR will begin with a list of its contents including identification of all tables, figures and Technical
Appendices.
Introduction
The Introduction will define the purpose, scope and legislative authority of the EIR, requirements of CEQA
and other pertinent environmental rules and regulations. This section will also describe the EIR process,
structure, intended uses of the EIR, required contents and its relationship to other potential responsible or
trustee agencies. Supporting maps and figures will be provided.
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15123. This section will
summarize the proposed project including the project's technical and economic characteristics. This
section will identify each significant effect of the project, with proposed mitigation measures which would
reduce that effect; known areas of controversy including issues raised by agencies and the public; and,
issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant
effects. The Executive Summary will also include a list of required discretionary approvals and
corresponding agency with approval authority.
Project Description
The Project Description will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15124, and provide the
project location, including project location maps, within the regional context, and a description of the
proposed project, including the proposed land use site plan and circulation. This section will provide an
overview of the project's background and history. The Project Description will list the basic goals and
objectives of the project. In addition, the section will identify the scope of the proposed project that will
serve as the "Basis of Analysis." Lastly, the Project Description will include a discussion of the environmental
procedures and intended uses of the EIR, as well as list the discretionary permits and approvals required for
project implementation. Maps and figures will be provided to support text descriptions as necessary.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Environmental Setting
The Environmental Setting will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15125. The section will
provide an overview of the local and regional physical environmental conditions. This section will describe
the existing site conditions, including a description of the existing land uses and natural resources occurring
on the project site. The Environmental Setting section will be detailed enough to constitute the baseline
physical conditions by which impact significance can be determined.
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Environmental Impact Analysis section will address all the environmental topics listed as potentially
significant in the City's CEQA checklist, some of which will be readily identified as having no potential for an
adverse environmental effect and can be treated briefly as "effects found not to be significant" (CEQA
Guidelines §15128). Each of the environmental topics with the potential for significant impacts will be fully
addressed pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15126, with the EIR analysis including a description of the relevant
environmental setting, criteria for determining significance of environmental impacts, potential
environmental impacts, level of significance of environmental impacts, recommended mitigation measures
to significantly reduce or avoid the significant impacts, and an analysis of significance or residual impacts
after mitigation measures are applied.
The EIR will provide an evaluation of feasible mitigation measures that could be carried out to reduce or
eliminate adverse impacts of the proposed project. Where several mitigation measures are available, the
basis for selection from among these measures will be discussed. The discussion of mitigation measures will
provide the background for findings under CEQA Guidelines §15091 (a). Mitigation measures will be
discussed in sufficient detail to provide the basis for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
comply with CEQA Guideline § 15126.4.
The following section summarizes the BRG Team approach to the primary technical analyses for the EIR. All
text will be supported by figures, tables, and charts as appropriate. BRG will perform all EIR analyses, with
the assistance of its subconsultants for specific technical studies, as identified below.
Aesthetics. The project site is visible from Poinsetttia Lane. Surrounding land uses include townhomes to
the north, single-family homes to the east, and apartments to the west. These land uses currently have
views of the project site. Potential aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project include
public viewsheds and the design and orientation of the proposed project. The following approach is
envisioned:
1. The existing aesthetic setting will be described in terms of public viewsheds, elevations, and
topography, and existing views onto the site, landscape features, and applicable plans and
ordinances related to visual aesthetics and grading (e.g.. Scenic Corridor Guidelines, General
Plan policies. Local Coastal Program policies).
2. Photos will be taken of the project area from public viewshed areas, including Poinsettia Lane
facing both east and west at the existing terminus and Ambrosia Lane to help characterize the
existing aesthetic setting of the project area.
I September 17, 2008
67,
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
3. Up to five (5) visual simulations will be prepared showing existing conditions and the proposed
development conditions including proposed graded pads and graded pads with the proposed
maximum building heights depicted. We assume the project engineer will provide existing and
proposed topographical information to BRG in CAD format. A maximum of five views/visual
simulations have been assumed for this scope of work.
4. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
5. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated including compliance with the City's
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Scenic Corridor Guidelines, and Local Coastal Program.
6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant aesthetic impacts.
7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be
clearly stated.
Agricultural Resources. The project site is disturbed and has been in agricultural use in the recent past.
The site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and will require
compliance with the agricultural conversion requirements. The following approach is envisioned:
1. The agricultural setting will be described in terms of the historical context of farming activity on
the site. County-wide trends in agricultural conversion, the acreage of each of the various
important farmlands inventory mapped farmland on the site, the economic value of any
farmland that will be converted to non-agricultural use. BRG will contact the Department of
Conservation and obtain Important Farmlands Maps for the site. The areas of important
farmlands will be quantified using GIS Arcview.
2. The agricultural soils on site will be evaluated using U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Survey
data for the project site. The soils Capability Classes and Storie Index ratings will be identified.
3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
4. The potential agricultural impact associated with implementation of the proposed project will be
evaluated. This evaluation will include a discussion of the agricultural conversion requirements of
the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, conversion of agricultural lands, and the
project's consistency with City of Carlsbad General Plan policies related to agricultural uses.
5. Mitigation measures will be identified (if applicable) for any significant agricultural impacts.
6. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated.
Air Quality (including Greenhouse Gas Analysis). BRG will utilize Brian F. Smith & Associates (BFSA) to
prepare an air quality impact assessment will analyze air quality impacts from the proposed project, A
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis will also be included in the air quality assessment. All air quality
impacts will be based upon Federal, State and Local Significance Thresholds. The following approach
is envisioned:
September 17, 2008
r '7
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Existing Ambient Site Vicinity Air Quality Levels
• Existing ambient air quality data will be collected from the California Air Resources Board.
Identified ambient pollutants will be quantified to show attainment status under the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
Construction Modeling
Identify air quality construction impacts per the methodologies within the 1993 CEQA Air
Quality Handbook developed by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A
list of construction grading equipment, earthwork quantities and phasing will need to be
provided for the analysis to commence.
• Calculate the health risk associated from the particulate matter due to diesel emissions as
generated from either assumed or proposed construction equipment at each phase of the
development.
• Best Management Practices (BMPs) and or mitigation measures will be recommended to
control onsite construction emissions and dust levels.
Project related Vehicular Trip Assessment
• Operational impacts utilizing related to the proposed project trip generation will be identified.
The average trip generation and anticipated round trip distance for the proposed project will
be needed. Air Quality impacts will be determined utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 model which
utilizes emission assumptions obtained from the EMFAC 2007 model.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Provide a greenhouse gas emission analysis for the proposed project consistent with the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32), which requires that by 2020 the state's greenhouse gas
emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopt regulations requiring the
reporting and verification of statewide (GHG) emissions and requires that CARB adopt
statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas
emissions in 1990, to be achieved by year 2020.
CEQA is not explicitly addressed in AB 32. However, because a key objective of CEQA is
public disclosure of the reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental
effects, case law has established that CEQA documents should disclose a project's
contribution to climate change.
Furthermore, the Attorney General's office argues that AB 32 requires a climate change
analysis. The Attorney General's position is that AB 32 is an "adopted air quality plan" requiring
the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Any project that adds to emissions,
conflicts with the goal of reducing those emissions, according to the Attorney General.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges oi Aviarg Project
Projects that conflict with or obstruct implementation of an "applicable air quality plan" should
analyze that conflict in an EIR. This argument is based on Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines, which lists one factor for determining if an air quality impact is significant the
consideration of whether the project would conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation
of an air quality plan. The dilemma for EIR practitioners and CEQA Lead Agencies is that there
are no statewide significance criteria or approved mitigation methods concerning GHG
emissions.
BRG would look to other Agencies and recently prepared EIRs throughout the State to develop
an appropriate, legally-defensible threshold for significance. This threshold would be
presented to the County of Imperial for approval prior to beginning detailed analysis in the EIR.
BRG will present feasible measures to offset or reduce project GHG emissions, as identified in
AB 32. We will work with the County of Imperial and Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District to identify features that can be incorporated into the project that would reduce the
project related greenhouse emissions (e.g.'s, solar, energy efficiencies).
Other potential impacts associated with potential climate change issues, such as flooding,
drought, wildfire hazards), would be addressed within the context of the appropriate EIR
section, such as Hydrology, the Water Supply Assessment, and Hazards.
The proposed greenhouse gas emissions of the business-as-usual plan and recommend
mitigation measures to reduce emissions as required by AB 32 will be estimated.
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant,
direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after
implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated.
Biological Resources. BRG will utilize Merkel & Associates (M&A) to conduct a third party review of the
applicant-provided 2006 Dudek and Associates biological survey and Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) compliance report will be conducted. The review would include: evaluation of the
methodologies and conclusions contained in the reports for legal and scientific adequacy and
accuracy to ensure that the analyses are of a scale and level of effort appropriate to the requirements
of the project; and identification of any flaws in the methodologies and/or conclusions.
We will rely on the HMP consistency analysis provided in the HMP compliance report to evaluate the
project's consistency with the HMP in the EIR. We also assume that the biological survey addresses the
whole project; however, as part of the third party review, any additional impact to open space and
habitat areas resulting from the project will be identified. Criteria used to determine significance will be
identified, and significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the projects.
The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly
stated. We assume that Dudek and Associates will be responsible for making any necessary changes
to the biological survey and HMP compliance report and that the survey and report will be suitable for
inclusion in the EIR.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Cultural Resources. BRG will utilize ASM Affiliates (ASM) to prepare a cultural resources study for the
proposed project. The study will consist of a review of the literature and site records on file with the
South Coastal Information Center (Information Center) at San Diego State University, followed by an
intensive survey of the proposed project area. All existing and newly identified prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites, features and isolates identified during the survey will be appropriately mapped,
documented and recorded with the Information Center for assignment of permanent trinomials.
If potentially significant archaeological sites are identified, evaluation may be necessary and the
scope of any such work will be provided to the City for review and approval prior to initiating work.
Upon completion of the survey (and, if necessary, evaluation), a draft technical report will be prepared
and submitted for review. This report will consist of a description of the project's natural and cultural
setting, study methods, results, potential impacts, and mitigation recommendations. Following review
and comment, prepare the final technical report for incorporation in overall submittal.
The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be contacted to conduct a search of
their files for any recorded Traditional Cultural Properties or Native American heritage sites located
within one mile of the project property. NAHC will respond with records of any such sites and will
provide a listing of all Native American tribal representatives that may have further knowledge of such
sites within the project. This information will then be provided to the City of Carlsbad for its SB-18 Tribal
consultation. Tribal consultation under SB-18 is necessary when a project requires a general plan
amendment and/or a specific plan. SB-18 requires the City to provide opportunities for the
involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes, public agencies, public utility
companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings and any
other means the county deems appropriate. The proposed project requires a general plan
amendment; therefore, consultation under SB-18 is required.
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant, direct,
and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after implementation of
mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated.
Contingency - As part of this scope of work and cost estimate, we have included a cost contingency
in the proposed budget to test and evaluate up to one (1) potentially significant archaeological site, if
identified on the project site.
Geology/Soils. BRG will utilize Petra Geotechnical (Petra) to conduct a third party review of the
applicant-provided Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities Report (June 22, 2006). The review
would include: evaluation of the analysis and conclusions contained in the report and evaluate the
adequacy of the impact analysis, particularly with regard to unstable soils, remedial earthwork,
landslides, rocky soils, fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, subsidence, settlement, surcharging,
liquefactions, proposed slope stability, and groundwater impacts. Petra will identify any
flaws/inadequacies in the analyses and conclusions.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified as significant, less than significant, direct, and
indirect impacts resulting from the project. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation
measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated. We assume that Geocon will be responsible for making
any necessary changes to the Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities Report and that the report
will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site and vicinity has the potential to be impacted by a
number of different types of hazards including past agricultural hazardous materials and high fire
hazard areas. BRG will utilize Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to prepare a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the project area. The following approach is envisioned:
1. Prepare Phase I ESA ERM proposes to perform the Phase I ESA in conformance with ASTM E 1527-
05 and AAI standards. ERM will seek to identify conditions indicative of releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products at, in, on or under the subject
property through gathering information regarding: (1) current and past property uses and
occupancies; (2) current and past uses of hazardous substances and petroleum products; (3)
waste management and disposal activities; (4) current and past corrective actions and response
activities at the subject property; (5) engineering controls at the subject property, (6) institutional
controls at the subject property; and (7) properties adjoining or located nearby the subject
property.
2. The City's Fire Marshall will be contacted to determine the acceptability of proposed
development sites adjacent to any high fire hazard areas.
3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
4. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated including fire hazards and hazardous
materials.
5. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts.
6. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be
clearly stated.
Hydrology and Water Quality. BRG will utilize Fuscoe Engineering (Fuscoe) to conduct a third party
review of the applicant-provided Hydrology and Preliminary Drainage Reports (PDC, May 2007).
Fuscoe will identify any flaws/inadequacies in the analyses and conclusions. We assume that PDC will
be responsible for making any necessary changes to the Hydrology and Preliminary Drainage Reports
and that the reports will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR.
BRG will utilize Fuscoe to prepare a CEQA-level Storm Water Management Plan for the proposed
project. Fuscoe will prepare a CEQA-level Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) consistent with the
EIR level analysis and City of Carlsbad standards. SWMP shall include source control, site design and
treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for use by the City to certify temporary and
permanent onsite water quality control. SWMP will include impact analysis per CEQA guidelines.
September 17,2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified for hydrology and water quality, and
significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the project. The level of
significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated.
Land Use Planning. Surrounding land uses include townhomes to the north, vacant land and an
elementary school to the south, single-family homes to the east, and apartments and single-family
homes to the west. The project covers an area consisting of approximately 61 acres. The project
includes the proposal to change the General Plan designation from Residential Low-Medium Density
(0-4 du/ac) and Open Space to Residential High Density (15-23 du/ac) and Open Space. A significant
increase in density above the RLM density range would result if the proposal is approved.
The project will require the approval of numerous discretionary actions, with the major actions including
a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Local Facilities
Management Program Amendment, Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit, Coastal
Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Habitat Management
Plan Permit. The following approach is envisioned:
1. The land use setting will be described in terms of all applicable land use plans and policies,
existing on-site and off-site land uses, and planned on-site and off-site land uses. Exhibits will be
provided depicting the location of existing and planned land uses, and the project's context to
other applicable plans.
2. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
3. The project's consistency with land use plans will be analyzed. This analysis will include a detailed
project with respect to the project's consistency with the General Plan, Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan, Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) including the Growth Management
Chapter, McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Landscape Manual, Open
Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, Local Facilities Management Plan for
Zone 21, and Local Coastal Program. A detailed analysis of the project's consistency with
Coastal Act policies including coastal access, recreation, and the preservation of coastal
resources will be provided.
4. The project's compatibility with surrounding existing and proposed development will be
addressed. This analysis will focus on the single-family residential development to the east and
southwest and the apartment project located to the west. In addition, we understand that from
the RFP, a 90-unit multi-family residential project has been approved north of the site. The future
views of these residences will be considered during the compatibility evaluation. The project's
compatibility will be assessed in terms of types of land uses, proposed densities, and buffer
techniques. Of particular concern is the significant increase in density proposed by the project
as compared to the current allowable density.
5. The Land Use section will identify all significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts
resulting from project implementation.
September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant land use impacts.
7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be
clearly stated.
Noise. It is anticipated that portions of the project will experience noise from the extension of Poinsettia
Lane. During the construction phase of the project, the area will experience a temporary increase in
the ambient noise level and due to the project's increase in traffic volumes, the ambient noise level
may be increased on some adjacent roadways.
BRG will utilize BFSA to prepare a noise study for the proposed project. The study prepared by BFSA will
provide an exterior site assessment that focuses on both the project related noise impacts to offsite
land uses as well as potential offsite construction noise impacts generated during construction. The
study will also provide exterior noise predictions due to the future roadway geometries and volumes for
the residential uses proposed onsite. The following approach is envisioned.
Field Monitoring
• Ambient sound levels will be taken at four separate locations onsite. Each monitoring position
will be selected based upon the locations of future noise sensitive areas shown within
proposed project site plan. Traffic counts will also be taken simultaneously during the
monitoring event for noise modeling calibration.
• Ambient sound levels along two nearby offsite roadways will be taken in order to quantify
existing offsite noise levels. Traffic counts will also be taken during the monitoring event.
• Acoustical noise monitoring will conform to the City of Carlsbad's general plan.
Construction Noise Assessment
• BFSA will coordinate with the project manager to get a list of construction equipment and
phasing. This information will be utilized in order to quantify construction noise levels along any
nearby sensitive land uses. Construction related noise contours will be generated based upon
these assumptions.
Traffic Noise Modeling (Residential Areas)
• Future Traffic noise will be predicted at sensitive residential receptor locations within the
proposed site. BFSA will utilize the proposed project traffic study and proposed grading plans
for future input assumptions.
• Noise modeling will be conducted utilizing either the TNM 2.5 noise prediction software or the
CALTRANS Sound32 noise prediction software.
10 September 17,2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
• Once the initial noise model is set up, BFSA will calibrate the prediction model utilizing the
ambient noise measurements, geographical locations of those measurements and the
simultaneous traffic counts performed above.
Traffic Noise Modeling (Offsitel
BFSA will utilize the CALVENO noise emission regression equations to calculate offsite noise
impacts. A comparison analysis will be performed between sound predictions between both
the existing traffic volumes and the future predicted traffic volumes. These calculations will be
performed on roadway segments within the project traffic study.
Mitigation Design
BFSA will utilize the TNM 2.5 noise prediction software to develop noise mitigation (as needed)
for the special education school site. Noise mitigation will be designed per the procedures
outlined within the City's Noise Element within the General Plan. The acoustical design will be
based upon both economic and functional goals.
• Should mitigation be required, BFSA will provide 11x17 attachments to the final acoustical
report for easier identification of the exact locations for each proposed barrier.
Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant, direct,
and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after implementation of
mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated.
Population/Housing. The proposed project may indirectly induce growth through the provision of the
Poinsettia Lane road extension. An amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for
Zone 21 is required to update the existing and future development potential for the zone and the
anticipated infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project. The following approach is
envisioned:
1. The existing population/housing setting will be described in terms of existing population and
housing on-site, General Plan, LFMP Zone 21, and the Local Coastal Program allowances for the
site, and housing/populations for the project area and the City and region as a whole. We will
utilize information in the City's existing database and supplement this information with census
data as appropriate.
2. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified.
3. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated. This will include quantification of the
increase of housing and population on the project site, and a comparison to the General Plan,
LFMP Zone 21 unit allowances, and the Local Coastal Program. Based on a conversation with
City staff, we understand that the Applicant has conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment
analysis and that it will be available for assessment and inclusion in the EIR.
11 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
4. An analysis of whether the project will induce, either directly or indirectly, substantial growth in
the area will be provided.
5. An analysis of whether the project will displace a substantial number of existing dwelling units or
people will be provided.
6. An analysis of whether the project will result in exceeding the City's growth control point will be
provided.
7. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant population/housing impacts.
8. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated.
9. An analysis of the project's impact to public services and utilities will be provided in the ensuing
section.
Public Services and Utilities. The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 21. An
amendment to the LFMP for Zone 21 is required to update the existing and future development
potential for the zone and the anticipated infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project.
The following approach is envisioned:
1. The existing public services and facilities setting will be described in terms of existing services and
facilities serving the site and shall determine the demands of the project for fire protection,
police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities, water facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities, solid waste facilities, and gas and electric service.
2. This section will evaluate water, wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste facilities, gas and
electric service, fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.
Stormwater drainage facilities will be addressed in the Water Quality/Hydrology section of the
EIR.
3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified, including LFMP Zone 21
requirements.
4. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated. This will include quantification of the
increase of demand on the various public services and utilities, the ability to meet the demand,
and any expansion or new construction of facilities created by this demand that may cause a
physical impact to the environment. Based on a conversation with City staff, we understand that
the Applicant has conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment analysis and that it will be available
for assessment and inclusion in the EIR.
5. The City's emergency response plans will be evaluated in conjunction with the proposed project
to determine if the project will interfere with existing plans.
6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant public services and utilities impacts.
7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated.
12 September 17, 2008
bi
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Recreation. The project site is located within the LFMP for Zone 21. BRG will analyze and compare the
proposed project's impacts to the Zone 21 LFMP. The following approach is envisioned:
1. The existing recreational setting will be described in terms of existing facilities serving the project
area, and their locations.
2. The ability of the agencies providing the recreational services to meet the demands of the
proposed project will be provided.
3. The project's potential impacts on recreation will be analyzed and compared against the Zone
21 LFMP. Based on a conversation with City staff, we understand that the Applicant has
conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment analysis and that it will be available for assessment
and inclusion in the EIR.
4. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified, including the LFMP Zone 21
requirements.
5. The potential impact of the project will be analyzed and compared to the Zone 21 LFMP. This will
include quantification of the increase of demand on the existing facilities, the ability to meet the
demand, and any expansion or new construction of facilities created by this demand that may
cause a physical impact to the environment.
6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant public services and utilities impacts.
7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated.
Traffic /Circulation/Parking. BRG will utilize LOS Engineering (LOS) to conduct a third party review of the
Applicant provided traffic impact analysis for the proposed project. LOS will identify any
flaws/inadequacies in the analysis and conclusions. We assume that the Applicant's traffic
engineering consultant will be responsible for making any necessary changes to the traffic impact
analysis report and the report will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR.
Other CEQA Mandated EIR Sections
The EIR will contain the following CEQA mandated sections:
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes - In accordance with Article 9 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR will contain a discussion of the irreversible environmental changes that will result
from the proposed project and unavoidable significant impacts. This section will discuss uses of
nonrenewable resources, long-term commitments of resources, and potential irreversible
environmental damage that may result from environmental accidents associated with the project.
Impacts Found Not To Be Significant - Areas of no significant impact identified in the Initial Study and
subsequent analysis for the EIR will be listed. The justification for such findings will be based on the Initial
Study and results of the Draft EIR analysis.
13 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work (or the Bridges at Aviara Project
Cumulative Impacts - The discussion of cumulative effects is an increasingly important analysis in EIRs.
The Cumulative Impacts section will evaluate whether individual project impacts are cumulatively
significant when viewed in combination with other projects. The section will discuss the potential of the
proposed project to compound or increase adverse environmental impacts when added to other
closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and project impacts. BRG will
work closely with City staff to identify cumulative projects. This section will discuss any indirect,
cumulative impacts and evaluate compliance with adopted threshold standards and applicable
policies and programs.
Growfh-/nduc/ng fmpacfs - The Growth Inducement section will assess the potential of the proposed
project to induce economic or population growth and the construction of additional housing, either
directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The analysis will evaluate the project relative to
the phasing of community services and facilities to serve new development. An analysis of the
LFMP/Growth Management Plan and its ability to provide adequate infrastructure to meet the
demand as the project builds out will also be included. The section will discuss the potential for the use
of large amounts of fuel or energy and evaluate the project's compliance with regional and local
growth management policies.
Alternatives
The Alternatives section of the EIR will identify a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain
the basic objectives of the project, but reduce significant impacts. Alternatives evaluation will be a critical
component of the environmental review and mandated by CEQA. The alternatives will be fully defined
and analyzed in the First Screencheck Draft EIR submitted to the City. This section will include, at a
minimum, three project alternatives: 1) the "No Project" which analyzes what would be reasonably
expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on the current
General Plan and consistent with available infrastructure and community services; 2) a "Thirty Townhomes",
which would analyze the alternative of developing the southwestern most proposed area with 30 market-
rate townhomes instead of the 65 age restricted apartments; and 3) a "Reduced Project", which would
include an analysis of a reduced level of development intensity on the project site. BRG assumes that the
Thirty Townhome and Reduced Project alternatives would be developed in consultation/coordination with
City staff. The analysis for each alternative will include a qualitative and qualitative comparative analysis
for the relative environmental impacts and merits of each.
References, Persons and Agencies Contacted and EIR Preparation
This section will include lists of all references and persons and agencies contacted in the preparation of the
EIR. This section will also list all persons involved in the preparation of the document, their title and role.
Technical Appendices
The EIR Appendices will include an Initial Study (if prepared, and provided by the City), a copy of the NOP,
public comments on the NOP, and any technical studies prepared for the project.
14 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Task 3 Second Screencheck Draft EIR
BRG will revise the First Screencheck Draft EIR in response to City comments and provide five (5) copies of
the Second Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring binders (including Appendices) for City review and
comment.
Task 4 Draft EIR
BRG will incorporate City comments on the Second Screencheck Draft EIR and perform a quality control
review. BRG will then provide the City with the required amount of copies of the Draft EIR and Technical
Appendices. The Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be available for public review.
Our scope of work assumes the City will be responsible for the preparation and posting of the Notice of
Completion and Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR, and distribution of the EIR to the appropriate
agencies and individuals.
Tasks Screencheck Final EIR
BRG will prepare five (5) copies of the Preliminary Final EIR including Responses to Public Comments (not to
include the Technical Appendices unless revised) for City review and comment. Upon close of public
review of the Draft EIR, BRG understands our role will be to review all comments and prepare a summary of
general comment categories. We will meet with City staff to discuss the general approach to responding
to public comments. After agreeing to the approach, BRG will number each individual comment and
prepare corresponding responses, including identification of responses that affect or supplement
information contained in the Draft EIR. BRG will modify the text of the Draft EIR or add footnotes to the
margins identifying relevant responses to comments. Of course. City staff shall make final determination on
the adequacy of responses to comments.
The fee proposal included herein assumes a total of 200 individually numbered comments will be received
on the Draft EIR. Please note a single comment letter may contain numerous numbered comments. The
estimate of the level of effort in responding to comments is based on a moderate to high level of
controversy.
Contingency - As part of this scope of work and cost estimate, we have included a cost contingency to
provide responses to comments if the number of individual comments exceeds 200.
Task 6 Draft Final EIR
BRG will incorporate City comments on the Screencheck Final EIR in response to City comments.
Task 7 Final EIR
BRG will incorporate City comments on the Draft Final EIR and perform a final quality control review.
15 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Task 8 CEQA Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
Subtask 8.1 Screencheck CEQA Findings/SOC
BRG will prepare the Candidate CEQA Findings pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15091 for ultimate submittal
to the City Planning Commission and City Council. BRG will prepare draft Candidate Findings to be
submitted for City staff review at the Second Screencheck Draft EIR. BRG will identify project changes,
alterations and required mitigation identified in the Draft EIR, which avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. If there are mitigation measures or alternatives to the project identified in the EIR
which could reduce the adverse consequences of the project but which are determined infeasible, BRG
will provide the required CEQA findings, giving the specific economic, social or other conditions which
render the mitigation measure or alternatives infeasible. Please note that development of these findings of
infeasibility will likely require the active participation of the City and/or applicant to provide sufficient facts
to support the findings. BRG will coordinate development of the necessary arguments to support CEQA
Findings. In addition, the Candidate Findings will identify any changes or alterations that are within the
jurisdiction of another public agency.
Should the EIR conclude an impact is significant and unmitigable, BRG will prepare a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (SOC) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15093. BRG will work closely with
the City to identify the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project,
which outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects. BRG will coordinate with the City to establish the
evidence in the record to support overriding considerations.
The Findings will follow the format and style specified by the City.
Subtask 8.2 Final CEQA Findings/SOC
BRG will prepare a final set of CEQA Findings/SOC based on City review and changes to the Draft EIR that
may have resulted from public comment.
Task 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program fft/lMRP)
Subtask 9.1 Screencheck MMRP
We understand the need for preparation of an MMRP in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(a)(l) and California Code of Regulations Section 15091. The MMRP will include a brief summary of
the environmental impact. However, the associated mitigation measure will be included verbatim from
the EIR in order to provide sufficient detail to address impacts at the project level. Each mitigation measure
will reference the appropriate implementing permits to facilitate mitigation monitoring. For each project
change, condition, or mitigation measure the program will include the following:
• Specific monitoring activities;
• Implementation phase or milestone;
• Identification of the party responsible for implementation;
• Identification of the party responsible for monitoring;
• Criteria for evaluating the success of each mitigation measure; and,
• Compliance verification criteria.
16 September 17, 2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
Subtask 9.2 Draft MMRP
BRG will prepare a Draft MMRP incorporating City comments on the Screencheck MMRP. The Draft MMRP
will be available for public review with the Draft Program EIR.
Subtask 9.3 Final MMRP
BRG will prepare a Final MMRP based on any changes to mitigation measures as a result of public review
and comment on the Draft EIR.
Task 10 Meetings and Hearings
BRG understands that project management and staff support are crucial elements to preparation of a
legally-defensible EIR. BRG commits attendance of our Project Manager for the following meetings:
• One (1) kick-off meeting with City staff to initiate the project, discuss work products and overall project
schedule.
• One (1) public scoping meeting to solicit input from the public on the scope and content of the EIR.
• Two (2) staff meetings to discuss and resolve issues related to preparation of the Screencheck Draft EIR,
etc.
• Two (2) staff meetings to review comments on the First and Second Screencheck Draft EIRs.
• Two (2) staff meetings to review the responses to comments and Final Draft EIR.
• Up to three (3) public hearings with presentations as necessary as determined by City staff.
One (1) additional meeting as necessary.
In addition to providing our Project Manager, BRG commits principal-level attendance at the three (3)
required public meetings/hearings. BRG assumes a maximum of four (4) hours each for the project
initiation, scoping meeting, and public hearings.
DELIVERABLES
BRG anticipates the following deliverables to be submitted to the City. All documents will be readable by
Microsoft Word 2000:
(5) Copies of the first Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring loose-leaf binders
(5) Copies of the second Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring loose-leaf binders (includes appendices)
(5) Copies of the Screencheck MMRP
(5) Copies of the Screencheck Candidate CEQA Finding of Fact
(50) Copies of the City-approved Draft EIR, Exhibits and MMRP consisting of:
- 25 spiral-bound copies
- 25 digital copies on CD
17 September 17,2008
EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project
(30) Copies of the Technical Appendices consisting of:
- 15 spiral-bound copies
- 15 digital copies on CD
(1) Master CD Copy of the Draft EIR with appendices, exhibits, and MMRP for City's website
(5) Copies of the first Screencheck Final EIR (including Response to Comments, Final EIR and any
amendments to the technical appendices)
(5) Copies of the second Screencheck Final EIR (including Response to Comments, Final EIR and any
amendments to the technical appendices)
(51) Copies of the City-approved Final EIR, Exhibits and MMRP consisting of:
- 25 spiral-bound copies
- 25 digital copies on CD
- 1 camera-ready copy
(30) Copies of any amended Technical Appendices consisting of:
- 15 spiral-bound copies
- 15 digital copies on CD
(1) Digital copy on CD of the Findings of Fact
(1) Digital copy on CD of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(1) Master CD Copy of the Final EIR with any amended appendices, exhibits, and MMRP for City's
website
(5) Copies of the Certified Final EIR, Appendices, Exhibits, MMRP, and CEQA Findings of Fact, which
incroporate any changes made to the Final Draft EIR during the public hearing and certification
process, if necessary
(1) Master CD copy of the Certified Final EIR with appendices, exhibits, and MMRP
5.0 SCHEDULE
This section presents BRG's proposed task-by-task work schedule to complete the services requested by the
City. The attached schedule assumes a start-date in September 8, 2008; however, this date will be revised
upon further direction by the City. BRG's schedule to complete the CEQA process according to our
proposed scope of work is provided on the following page.
BRG and our subcontractors have the resources and commitment to the City to complete the CEQA
process in approximately one year.
18 September 17, 2008
Bridges at Aviara EIR
Cost Estimate
Task 1- Project Initiation
1.1 Data Collection and Site Visit
1.2 Project Descriotion
Subtotal Task 1
Task 2 - First Screencheck Draft EIR
Visual Simulations (5)
Subtotal Task 2
Task 3 - Second Screencheck Draft EIR
Task 4 -Draft EIR
Task 5 - Screencheck Final EIR1
Task 6 - Draft Final EIR
Task 7 -Final EIR
Task 8 - CEOA Findings of Fact/SOC
8.1 Screencheck Fkidinas/SOC
8.2FfnaIFIndinas/SOC
Subtotal Task 8
Task 9 MMRP
9.1 Screencheck MMRP
9.2 Draft MMRP
9.3 Final MMRP
Subtotal Task 9
Task 1 0 Meetings and Hearings
Kickoff MeetinQ
Staff Meetinos • issue Resolution
Staff MeetinQ - Review Screenctieck EIR comments
Staff Meetina - Kevietv Screencheck EIR comments
Hearinos
Subtotal Task 10
TOTAL
Rate (S/hr)
PrinciDal
z
2
4
8
2
30
a
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
e
16
59
315
Project
Manager
4
8
12
40
4
44
24
16
76
a
4
4
4
B
2
J
1
„
2
2
2
2
8
16
152
770
Environ
Analyst II
8
32
40
60
0
60
32
16
24
16
8
0
0
0
4
2
2
8
0
0
0
0
4
A
208
700
Environ
Analyst II
12
0
12
HO
0
no
32
4
16
B
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
192
90
CADD/G1S
0
8
8
40
120
160
24
16
8
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222
95
Environ
Analyst 1
24
0
24
140
0
140
80
32
0
8
8
16
8
24
a
2
2
12
0
0
0
0
4
4
332
75
SubcoroutUnts
LOS Engineering (traffic)
Merke! and Associates (biological resources - third-pa rtyre view)
ASM Affiliates (cultural resources)
Brian F. Smith & Associates (air quality (including GHG) and noise)
Petra Gcolechnical, Inc. (geoiopy /soils - third-part review)
Fuscoc Engmecring (Water Quality and Hydrology - third-party review)
Environmental Resource Management (Phase 1 E5A)
Administrative Cost (10%)
Total
Contlnoency Tasks • Indudfld In 8udoet Total
ASM Affiliates - Cultural resources evaluation and test ng (one archaeological site)
BRG Consulting - Responses to Comments
Total
Othef Direct Carts
Mrieage 8r Postage, delivery, miscellaneous printing
First Screen Draft EIR (5 copies - 3-ring binders)
Second Screen Draft EIR (5 copies • 3-ring binders)
Screencheck MMRP (5 copies)
Screencheck CEQA Findings (5 copies)
Draft EIR + Technical Appendices (25 spiral-bound and 25 CDs * 1 5 spiral-bound and 1 5 CDs + 1 Master CD}
Draft MMRP (5 copies)
Screencheck Final FIR (5 copies)
Draft Final EIR (5 copies)
Final EIR -t Any Amended Technctal Appendices (25 spiral-bound and 25 CDs + 1 5 spiral-bound and! 5 CDs + 1 Master CD)
Final MMRP, CEQA Findings/SOC (1 CD)
Certified Final EIR + Any Amended Technical Appendices + Final MMRP. CEQA Find-ngs (5 copies and 1 Master CD)
Total Expenses
TOTAL EIR COST
Production
4
4
8
40
0
40
18
18
16
8
8
2
2
4
4
2
2
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
128
85
51,800
S4.16Z
$4,443
510,100
52,500
510,100
53.600
53,690
540,595
520,000
5350
5425
5425
510
510
54.750
510
5500
5500
53,000
52
51,750
511.732
* 211,702
Total BRG
Hours
54
54
108
448
126
574
218
106
84
56
32
24
16
40
IS
S
e
J5
4
4
4
4
24
32
1,159
TOTAL COST
S5.330
i6.290
111.620
143.820
S12.710
S56.530
1 22.490
til. 390
19.940
S6.600
13.580
12.680
SZ.080
54.760
S1.995
11.005
11.005
i4.005
1970
3970
>970
3970
34.580
S8.460
139,375
11ncludes time/cost for responding to 200 individual comments.
Sepiembef 17, 2006
STANDARD HOURLY RATES AND TERMS
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES
BRIDGES AT AVIARA EIR
STAFF RATE
Principal - Tim Gnibus $315
Project Manager - Patrick O'Neill $170
Environmental Analyst/Planner III - Kathie Washington $100
Environmental Analyst/Planner II - Mary Bilse $90
Environmental Analyst/Planner I - John Addenbrooke $75
GIS Specialist - Totran Mai $95
Documents Manager - Mary Brady $85
The following standard terms apply unless otherwise agreed:
All subconsultants and other direct project-related expenses are reimbursable
at cost plus ten percent.
Invoices will be presented monthly for work completed during the preceding
30 days, and are due and payable upon receipt.
Invoices aged more than 60 days will be increased by 1.5 percent per month
carrying charges.
Effective January 1, 2008
Rates will increase by 10% per year effective January 1 of each year.