HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-04-20; City Council; 12176; Green Valley Master PlanCITl-3F CARLSBAD - AGENC- BILL
/& 4 T--
\B#a TITLE: AGREEMENTS FOR TEE PREPARATION OF AN
ATG. 49~ -7’3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN - EIR 93-02
IEPT. PLN
n4F-I TA -1
IECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council concurs, m&QQ Resolution No. 93-106 APPROVING an agreement with the consulting firm Coleman Planning Gioup to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley Master Plan, EIR 93-02, and APPROVING an agreement with the Carlsbad Partners to provide funding for the Environmental Impact Report.
ITEM EXPLANATION
As a part of the review of the proposed Green Valley Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Master Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan, staff has determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared. The project proponent has been informed of the determination and has agreed to fund the Environmental Impact Report.
Requests for proposals were sent to 15 consulting firms, six of which responded. The bids for the preparation of the EIR ranged in cost from $107,000 to $145,000. For each proposal submitted, the Planning Department conducted a thorough review of the scope of work, the subconsultants to be used, qualifications and cost. The contrast in costs can be attributed to the scope and method of the consultants for addressing each of the potential impacts to be analyzed.
After reviewing all proposals, staff recommends that Coleman Planning Group, at a cost of $126,866.00, be selected to prepare the EIR for the review of this project. Their proposal was comprehensive and well formatted. The scope of work proposed by the consultant and their subcontractors indicated a knowledge of methodology and experience necessary for the project. Several of the subcontractors have worked previously with the City of Carlsbad and are therefore familiar with the City's policies and expectations. Although the primary consultant has not previously had a contract with the City, the firm has worked with the City of Encinitas on a project adjacent to the Green Valley site and is therefore familiar with the project area.
Because of the above stated reasons, staff recommends Coleman Planning Group for the preparation of the Green Valley Master Plan Environmental Impact Report. The estimated cost of the proposed work is not to exceed $126,866.00.
The project proponent the, Carlsbad Partners, is responsible for the provision of the funding for the EIR. Funds have been deposited with the City in a trust account.
EXRIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. q3-/06 2. Exhibit #'A'* (Location Map) 3. Exhibit IIBI@ (Agreement w/Coleman Planning Group) 4. Exhibit '*C" (Agreement w/Carlsbad Partners)
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
RESOLUTION NO. 93-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF,THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND COLEXAN PLANNING GROUP AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND THE CARLSBAD PARTNERS TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN. EIR 93-02
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
does hereby resolve as follows:
1. That certain agreements between the City of
Carlsbad and the Coleman Planning Group and the City of Carlsbad
and the Carlsbad Partners for consulting services to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley Master Plan (MP-
92-Ol), copies of which are on file in the office of the City
Clerk, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby approved.
2. The Mayor of the City of Carlsbad is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said agreements for and on
behalf of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 20th
day of APRIL , 1993.
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin
NOES : None
ABSENT: Council Members Nyga
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
11 \ ENClNl;--& -
G k
Pacific Ocean
~
3 m 3 3 ‘p
\
m w
c
GREEN VALLEY
R
No Scale
I
EXHEW’A”
Vicinity Map
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the 22nd day of APRIL
I 19B, by and between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as “CITY’, and COLEMAN PLANNING GROUP, hereinafter referred
to as “CONSULTANT”.
RECITALS
CITY requires the services of an environmental consultant to provide the necessary
technical and support services for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report; and
CONSULTANT possesses the necessary skills and qualifications to provide the services
required by the CITY;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants
contained herein, CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:
1. CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS
(See Attachment “A”).
2. CITY OBLIGATIONS
The CITY shall make payment to the CONSULTANT as provided for in this
agreement. The CITY shall review all screen checks submitted by CONSULTANT within
10 full working days of their receipt and make written and/or oral comments to the
CONSULTANT within that time period.
The CITY shall provide the CONSULTANT with copies of all written comments
received on the draft EIR subsequent to the filing of the draft EIR for public review and
Rev. 6/l O/92
EXHIBIT “B”
the close of the public review period.
3. PROGRESS AND COMPLETION
The work under this contract will begin within ten (10) days after receipt of
notification to proceed by the CITY and be completed within 185 days of that date.
Extensions of time may be granted if requested by the CONSULTANT and agreed to in
writing by the Planning Director. The Planning Director will give allowance for
documented and substantiated unforeseeable and unavoidable delays not caused by. a
lack of foresight on the part of the CONSULTANT, or delays caused by CITY inaction or
other agencies’ lack of timely action
4. FEES TO BE PAID TO CONSULTANT
The total shall not exceed the fee payable according to Paragraph 6, “Payment of
Fees,” and shall be no more than $126,866.00. No other compensation for services will
be allowed except those items covered by supplemental agreements per Paragraph 8,
“Changes in Work.”
5. DURATION OF CONTRACT
This agreement shall extend for a period of one year from date thereof. The
contract may be extended for one additional one (1) year period or parts thereof, based
upon satisfactory performance and the CITY’S needs.
6. PAYMENT OF FEES
The CONSULTANT will be paid a maximum of $126,866.00 for all work necessary
to carry out the requirements of the agreement. Actual payment shall be based on the
cost of the report based on the costs as set forth in Attachment “A”. The CONSULTANT
2 Rev. 6/l O/92
shall be paid within 30 days, in response to monthly invoices for up to 65% of the
compensable services for the completion of the screen check draft EIR in accordance
with Attachment “A”. The CONSULTANT will be paid up to an additional 10% upon the
draft being sent out for public review. The CONSULTANT will be paid up to an additional
15% upon acceptance by the CITY of the response to comments from the CONSULTANT,
and the final 10% will be paid not to exceed the maximum amount provided in this
agreement after the certification of the EIR or final action of the City Council.
7. FINAL SUBMISSIONS
All submittals shall be in accordance with Attachment “A”.
8. CHANGES IN WORK
If, in the course of the contract, changes seem merited by the CONSULTANT or
the CITY, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change in the
conditions of the contract is warranted, the CONSULTANT or the CITY may request a
change in 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 by
CONSULTANT to inform them of the proposed changes along with a statement of
estimated changes in charges or time schedule. A supplemental agreement shall be
prepared by the CITY and approved by the.CITY according to the procedures described
in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.28.172. Such supplemental agreement shall not
render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of the agreement.
9. COVENANTS AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES
The CONSULTANT warrants that their firm has not employed or retained any
3 Rev. 6/l O/92
company or person, other a bona fide employee working for the CONSULTANT, to solicit
or secure this agreement, and that CONSULTANT 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 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.
10. NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSE
The CONSULTANT shall comply with the state and federal laws regarding
nondiscrimination.
11. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
In the event of the CONSULTANT’S failure to prosecute, deliver, or perform the
work as provided for in this contract, the CITY may terminate this contract for
nonperformance by notifying the CONSULTANT by certified mail of the termination of the
CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT, thereupon, has five (5) working days to deliver said
documents owned by the CITY and all work in progress to the Planning Director. The
Planning Director shall make a determination of fact based upon the documents delivered
to CITY of the percentage of work-which the CONSULTANT has performed which is
usable and of worth to the CITY in having the contract completed. Based upon that
finding as reported to the City Manager, the Manager shall determine the final payment
of the contract.
12,. DISPUTES
If a dispute should arise regarding the performance of work under this agreement,
4 Rev. 6/l O/92
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 CONSULTANT or the 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 Planning Director or 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 Cffice of the Cii 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.
13. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF SERVICES
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon tendering thirty (30) days
written notice to the other party. In the event of such suspension or termination, upon
request of the CITY, the CONSULTANT shall assemble the work product and’put same
in. order for proper filing and closing and deliver said product to CITY. In the event of
termination, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for work performed to the termination date;
however, the total shall not exceed the lump sum fee payable under paragraph 4. The
CITY shall make the final determination as to the portions of tasks completed and the
compensation to be made.
5 Rev. 6/l O/92
14. STATUS OF THE CONSULTANT
The CONSULTANT shall perform the services provided for herein in
CONSULTANTS own way as an independent contractor and in pursuit of
CONSULTANT’S independent calling, and not as an employee of the CITY.
CONSULTANT 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 CONSULTANT is an independent contractor of the CITY. The payment made
to the CONSULTANT pursuant to the contract shall be the full and complete
compensation to which the CONSULTANT is entitled. The CITY shall not make any
federal or state tax withholdings on behalf of the CONSULTANT. The CITY shall not be
required to pay any workers’ compensation insurance on behalf of the CONSULTANT.
The CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify the CITY for any tax, retirement contribution,
social security,‘overtime payment, or workers’ compensation payment which the CITY
may be required to make on behalf of the CONSULTANT or any employee of the
CONSULTANT for work done under this agreement.
The CONSULTANT 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 consultants that are included in this agreement.
15. CONFORMITY TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
The CONSULTANT shall cause all drawings and specifications to conform to all
applicable requirements of law: federal, state and local. CONSULTANT shall provide all
6 Rev. 6/l O/92
necessary supporting documents, to be filed with any agencies whose approval is
necessary.
The CITY will provide copies of the approved plans to any other agencies.
16. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All plans, studies, sketches, drawings, reports, and specifications as herein
required are the property of the CITY, whether the work for which they are made be
executed or not. In the event this contract is terminated, all documents, plans,
specifications, drawings, reports, and studies shall be delivered forthwith to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall have the right to make one (1) copy of the plans for his/her records.
17. REPRODUCTION RfGHTS
The CONSULTANT 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.
16: HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
The CITY, its officers, and employees shall not be liable for any claims, liabilities,
penalties, fines, or any damage to goods, propel-ties, or effects of any person whatever,
nor for personal injuries or death caused by, or resulting from, any intentional or negligent
acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S agents, employees, or
representatives. CONSULTANT agrees to defend, indemnify, and save free and harmless
the CITY and its officers and employees against any of the foregoing claims, liabilities,
penalties or fines, including liabilities or claims by reason of alleged defects in any plans
and specifications, and any cost, expense or attorney’s fees which are incurred by the
CITY on account of any of the foregoing.
7 Rev. 6/l O/92
19. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
The CONSULTANT shall not assign this contract or any part thereof or any monies
due thereunder without the prior written consent of the CITY.
20. SUBCONTRACTING
If the CONSULTANT shall subcontract any of the work to be performed under this
contract by the CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to the CITY for
the acts and omissions of CONSULTANT’S subcontractor and of the persons either
directly or indirectly employed by the subcontractor, as CONSULTANT is for the acts and
dmissions of persons directly employed by consultant. Nothing contained in this contract
shall create any contractual relationship between any subcontractor of CONSULTANT and
the CITY. The CONSULTANT shall bind every subcontractor and every subcontractor of
a subcontractor by the terms of this contract applicable to CONSULTANTS work unless
specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in question approved in writing by the
CITY.
21. PROHIBITED INTEREST
No official of the CITY whir is authorized in such capacity on behalf of the CITY to
negotiate, make, accept, or approve, or take part in negotiating, making, accepting, or
approving of this agreement, shall become directly or indirectly interested personally in
this contract or in any part thereof. No officer or employee of the CITY who is authorized
in such capacity and on behalf of the CITY to exercise any executive, supervisory, or
similar functions in connection with the performance of this contract shall become directly
or indirectly interested personally in this contract or any part thereof.
8 Rev. 6/l O/92
22. VERBAL AGREEMENT OR CONVERSATION
No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent, or employee of 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 entitle the CONSULTANT to any
additional payment whatsoever under the terms of this contract.
23. SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 18; “Hold Harmless Agreement,” all terms,
conditions, and provisions hereof shall insure to and shall bind each of the parties hereto,
and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
24. EFFECTIVE DATE
This agreement shall be effective on and from the day and year first written above.
25. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The consultant 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.
26. INSURANCE
The CONSULTANT shall obtain and maintain policies of general liability insurance,
automobile liability insurance, and a combined policy of worker’s compensation and
employers liability insurance from an insurance company authorized to do business in the
State of California which meets the requirements of City Council Resolution No. 91-403
in an insurable amount of not less than one million dollars ($1 ,OOO,OOO) each, unless a
lower amount is approved by the City Attorney or the City Manager. This insurance shall
be in force during the life of this agreement and shall not be canceled without thirty (30)
days prior written notice to the CITY sent by certified mail.
9 Rev. 6/l O/92
The CITY shall be named as -an additiqnal insured on these policies. The
CONSULTANT shall furnish certificates of insurance to the CITY before commencement
of work.
Executed by CONSULTANT this / 5 -* ’ day of &A./?c fj , 19’i.?.
CONSULTANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
PL.A/dn/MLG c o[e.mHL/L’
(name of Consultant) f&o ‘>f7
BY
7 By: ?z+&,
’ (sign here) I *
AT-l-EST:
Ict-tA A TT c&?*@/ t name h&j -
0 w w E R , Co leM&V PUA~M-JC-
(title and orghnitation of signatory)cfic;;p ALETHA L. FWUTENKRANZ
City Clerk
(Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by CONSULTANT must be attached.)
.- . . . .
@HomeFed6ankGA ALL-PURPOSE CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTYOF .sAn/ h/&-o
0” /s /%beJj /993 , before me, ~4hrR/5flltiA ,J, d?N /7/f (here insert
name and title of the officer), personally appeared fi/CA# EL 17 CO L&HA& , pef~&+L
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person44 whose name% is/a+e subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that heMe&hey executed the same in his/he&heir authorized capacity(ies), and
that by his/he&h& signature0 on the instrument the person@, or the entity upon behalf of which the perso& acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
SAV.193 (12,'92)
The CITY shall be named as an additiirnal insured on these policies. The
CONSULTANT shall. furnish certificates of insurance to the CITY before commencement
of work.
Executed by CONSULTANT this I ‘$ t ’ day of 5 1943.
CONSULTANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
/L- Add .vI,G c ci ie /y A A,’
(name of Consultant)
Gd.0 ‘JP
9 By: %.--. P
’ (sign here) Al-TEST:
0 &,’ :-ti c’ /q . Co lef+f/LU P~A,vuI~(-
(title and orgsnization of signatory)GRcLp ALETHA L. FWJfENKfQJNZ
City Clerk
(Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by CONSULTANT must be attached.)
(President or vice-president and secretary or assistant secretary must sign for
corporations. If only one officer signs, the corporation must attach a resolution certified
by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering that officer to
bind the corporation.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rev. 6/l O/92 10
Green Valley EIR
Company Services
The Coleman Planning Group (CPG) shall perform all tasks necessary for the preparation and submittal of a Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley project as outlined in the RFP issued by the City of Carlsbad. This shall include:
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Hold one evening public scoping meeting to determine all environmental issues that need to be addressed in the EIR, and coordinate with City staff to incorporate into the EIR any additional analysis determined by staff to be appropriate.
Assemble all available data, originate new studies where required, and provide an assessment of the probable short and long-term cumulative impacts of the project. Evaluate all feasible mitigation measures which could be carried out to reduce or eliminate any adverse impact of the project. The EIR shall also analyze all feasible alternatives to the project as proposed.
Prepare and present to the City of Carlsbad written bi-weekly progress summaries.
Identify, discuss, ar ,levelop a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for inclusion in the EIR for any impacts which may be associated with the short-term and long-term development of the site.
Within eight (8) weeks C weeks.if the rare p)ant surveys are included1 from entering into an agreement with the City, CPG shall provide seven (7) screen check Draft EIRs in three ring binders for City staff review which will comply completely with the criteria, standards and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines for its implementation, the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and the regulations, requirements and procedures of any agency with jurisdiction by law.
Provide seven (7) second screen check Draft EIRs* in three ring binders if determined necessary by the City within a two week period from the request.
Provide four (4) copies of the revised Draft EIR* with appendices and exhibits, which incorporate staffs written recommendations and revisions to the screen check draft within fourteen (14) weeks from entering into an agreement with the City.
Provide fifty (50) copies of the City-approved Draft EIR with appendices and exhibits; twelve (12) of those copies shall be in three-ring loose leaf binders and thirty-eight (38) shall be three-hole punched and shrink wrapped. In addition, one reproducible copy and one computer disk readable by Wordperfect 5.1 shall be provided.
Within two weeks after the close of the public review period, CPG shall respond to comments made during the Draft EIR public review period and submit responses to comments along with seven (7) screen check Final EIR documents to staff for review.
Within two weeks of receiving staff’s, written recommendations and revisions to the screen check Final EIR, CPG shall provide fifty (50) copies of the Final EIR, including appendices and exhibits, which incorporates staffs written recommendations and revisions to the screen check Final EIR. Twelve (12) of those copies shall be in three-ring loose leaf binders, twelve (12) shall be spiral-bound, and twenty-six (26) shall be three hole punched and shrink wrapped. In addition, one reproducible copy and one computer disk readable by Wordperfect 5.1 shall be provided.
* *Screen check EIR co ies will be re ared nl i determined necessa t Ci
March IS,1993 3 Coleman Planning Group
ATTACHMENT “A’
Green Valley EIR
3 The Coleman Planning Group shall attend up to fourteen (14) meetings, as listed in the Request for Proposal (page 5) dated January 25, 1993 issued by the City of Carlsbad. Attendance of subconsultants at these meetings shall be as indicated in the attached item&d EIR cost proposal. Additional meetings beyond those indicated shall require a contract amendment and shall be charged on a time and materials basis. will be billed. m
[ REVISED WORK PRi%%i%]
On the basis of our research and review of the Request for Proposal, attendance at the pre-proposal meeting Cwith C-f, in addition to our research and review of pertinent environmental issues as identified in the related technical reports, the Coleman Planning Group project team agrees to complete this Environmental Impact Report according to the following revised work program.
A. Land Use Compatibility
As Land Use Analysts, Hofman Planning Associates (HPA) will analyze the land use changes proposed within the Master Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment for their compatibility and their compliance with various City ordinances and policies. Tasks proposed are as follows:
1) Review the existing project conditions including Zoning, General Plan designations,,adjacent Circulation Element Roadways and all other applicable City and Coastal Commission ordinances and policies.
2) Describe the project and surrounding land uses.
3) Review and analyze the compatibility of the designated land uses and land use patterns within the Master Plan area and surrounding areas with the existing City Ordinances, policies, major goals and studies. This review will also include an analysis of the Encinitas Ranch Specific w a thorough review of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Local Coastal Program. This review will pay special attention to the impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment from C, Commercial to RRI, Regional Retail Intensive on a portion of the property, HPA’s review of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Local Coastal Program will determine whether the proposed change to land use requires an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. This review wilI also concentrate on the internal compatibility of the proposed land uses. If mitigation is required, implementable mitigation measures will be incorporated into the EIR.
4) Analyze all Droposed alternatives. including the offisite alternative as to their pot&W to -
B. Agriculture and Oben Space
Utilizing the results of the land use and biological resources reports proposed herein as background information, the Coleman Planning Group shall provide an analysis of the potential impact to the region and local community from the potential loss of agricultural and open space land due to the conversion of new land uses proposed in the Master Plan and Master Tentative Map. Tasks shall include:
1) Review and analyze the compatibility of the urban and open space interface within the Master Plan area and surrounding areas. This shall include an analysis of the project’s compliance with oastal Commission k
March IS.1993 4 Coleman Planning Group
Green Valley EIR
m the ‘City of Carlsbad Open Space and Resource Conservation Management Plan; and open space preservation goals, policies and-biological requirements for species/habitat preservation.
2) Assess the feasibility of continued agricultural operations and the potential loss and value of agricultural production in the area to be affected by the proposed project. This shall include a discussion of the agricultural quality of the site and the impact on local and State agriculture.
3) Analyze the impacts resulting from the proposed conversion of such agricultural lands to urban use. This analysis will also concentrate on assessing impacts to community character, plans and policies of Carlsbad and the s relative to agricultural goals.
4) Develop mitigation measures based upon the above analysis where appropriate.
m- ~culture and onen snace.
C. Biological Resources
As the project biological consultants, Sweetwater Environmental Biologists (SEB) shall complete the following work program:
1) Conduct a literature search to analyze the thoroughness of the previous environmental documents and to determine the sensitive resources known to occur in the project vicinity.
2) Conduct brief field surveys necessary to independently verify the biological technical report completed by P&D Technologies in 1992. The surveys will focus on the sensitive species and habitats identified in the report. If SEB’s findings are not consistent with P&D’s, SEB would immediately notify the client and provide a cost estimate for the additional surveys that would be necessary to determine the extent of the sensitive resources and habitats occurring on site.
CV 3 Based on California gnatcatcher workinggrour, guidelines. SEB would nerforrn UP to three c
4 <duct f u A a second ....oc vireo. The U S Fish and Wildlife Service reauires eipht surveys b comDleted at one week 1 interval hew’ n A ril 1 m 1 t ei ht surve s f th wronriate habitat as soon as oossible.
5) As a third ontional task. SEB would conduc;three rare olant surveys: one in Mah/A~ril,
3 & f 1 - . Orcuttseflower. San Dlegq,go ldenw and Palmer’s g@ing-hook. The May surv~ . . t Q
member
survey is desired. a final biolom ehnical r ~eres~tin c w 1 gS EIR would then be comnleted bv September 30.1993,
$jJQ&g of th muments im were w on thwo&Q&& w ’ n’l
2These slants were n,ot found during the fall survevs on this site, however both occur on the adjacent Ecke umuerty c
March 15.1993 5 Coleman Planning Group
Green Valley EIR Green Valley EIR
3) 3) Conduct the appropriate detailed field reconnaissance surveys for m Conduct the appropriate detailed field reconnaissance surveys for m the off-site alignments of the internal “spine” road and the small 1.9 acre parcel at the SW the off-site alignments of the internal “spine” road and the small 1.9 acre parcel at the SW comer of Levant Street and El Camino Real which is not within the Master Plan, but is to be comer of Levant Street and El Camino Real which is not within the Master Plan. but is to be addressed in the EIR. addressed in the EIR.
4) Prepare a complete biological technical report. The report would address current site conditions, analyze potential project impacts and recommend mitigation measures to offset those impacts. SEB would address the City’s Habitat Management Plan nd how this project fits into it. Potential permit requirements would also be discussed. However, the development of detailed revegetation or mitigation plans, or assistance in the actual permitting process will be considered outside the scope of this contract.
D. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
Archaeological Associates, Ltd., serving as project apthropologists/archaeologists in association with John Minch Associates, paleontologists, will prepare the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources section of the EIR. Brian F. Smith and Associates surveyed the subject property for archaeological resources in 1989. The 1989 study resulted in the discovery of six previously unrecorded sites. Five of the six sites comprise marine shell and lithics scatters of varying sizes. The sixth site consists only of a lithics scatter. Furthermore, indications of possible subsurface cultural deposits were observed at two of the locations.
The test program outlined below has been designed to provide data for making significance and boundary determinations of these sites. It is emphasized that the results of the proposed test may or may not amount to complete mitigation of impacts to the subject archaeological sites. Generally, if testing fails to yield evidence of the presence of a significant deposit at a site, collection of surface artifacts will comprise complete and adequate mitigation. If, on the other hand, a significant deposit is uncovered, mitigation will consist either of site preservation, salvage excavation, or a combination of the two. The test program is described below. Ev m done in conformance with the Citv of Carl&ad Cultural Resource Guidelines December. 19901.
1)
2)
Surface Collection. The surface collection serves the purpose of mitigating impacts to surface artifacts and provides a concept of the configuration of surface material which is helpful when selecting excavation locations. It will be conducted using the transit-controlled method described by Van Horn and Murray (1982). Briefly, this consists of locating each surface artifact with a transit. The collection crew bags and numbers the artifacts, the numerical designation corresponding to the number on the transit coordinate entry. In this way, it is possible to map the configuration of surface finds to scale and the original provenience of each item is permanently recorded.
Augering Program. Auger holes provide a relatively fast means for defining site boundaries as well as making certain that no deposit exists at locations with only sparse surface material. All six sites will be thoroughly and systematically augered. The holes will be dug with a 9” hydraulic auger fitted to a Case 1835B Uniloader (bobcat). A smaller, two-man power auger fitted with a 6” bit will supplement the hydraulic auger. The exact number and location of the auger holes will be left to the discretion of the Field Director. Ail backdirt will be screened using l/8-inch mesh and the results recorded. Hole locations will be mapped using transit and stadia.
3) Test Excavations. The primary purpose of the test units is to determine the quality and quantity of finds present (if any) subsurface. If a subsurface deposit is encountered, the units will assist in determining deposit depth and exposing a cross-section of the deposit. Each unit will be excavated in 10 cm. levels and backdirt from each level wilI be screened using l/&inch mesh. All artifacts found in the units will be bagged according to unit and level.
March IS, 1993 6 Coleman Planning Group
Green Valley EIR
The following minimum number of units will be excavated at each site:
if?
Minimum no. of Units 1 #2 1 #3 4 #4 4
E :
4) Updated Site Record Forms. Updated site record forms will be generated and filed with both the San Diego Museum of Man and the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University.
5) Laboratory Work and Cataloging, All cultural material recovered during field work will be washed, identified, and cataloged at Archaeological Associates’ facility in Sun City. Obsidian specimens, if recovered, will be inspected for hydration rim thickness at Archaeological Associates’ lab in Sun City. Other special studies such as micro-wear and seed flotation will also be conducted in-house. C-14 specimens, if recovered, will be sent to Beta-Analytic in Miami, Florida. Fauna1 remains will be submitted to the Zooarchaeology Lab at UCLA for identification.
6) Report Preparation. An interim report certifying that the field investigation is complete and briefly describing the results will be provided immediately following completion of test operations. It will be followed by a complete narrative report describing the methods and finds at the site. The final report will include a copy of the surface collection map, artifact descriptions, graphics, site interpretations, and mitigation recommendations. Copies of the artifact catalogs and site record forms will be appended to the text.
Mitigation recommendations will consist of alternative means of mitigating impacts if a particular site is deemed significant beyond the test phase proposed here. If a site is found to be insignificant or adequately sampled during the test, no additional mitigative action will be recommended.
7) Paleontological Resources. In order to determine whether significant paleontological resources are situated within the boundaries of the subject property, it will be necessary to: (a) conduct a review of the geologic literature pertinent to the geologic units and fossils including paleontological localities, (b) perform a walk-over and inspection of exposures and slopes of each geologic unit mapped on the site, and (c) compile a narrative report describing the study and its results.
s, Alternatives. Analvze alI nronosed alternatives. including the off-site alternative (limited to a c!gp cord resourceS,
E. Geology/Soils
As project geologists, Ninyo & Moore shall provide an evaluation of the geologic and geotechnical hazards within the proposed project in accordance with the Guidelines for Geologic/Seismic Considerations in Environmental Impact Reports published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Tasks will include the following:
1) Review of published maps, literature, in-house reports, and aerial photographs. These documents will be compared with the preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the development by others.
March IS, I993 7 Coleman Planning Group
Green Valley EIR
2) Conduct a geologic reconnaissance of the proposed development area. The reconnaissance will include mapping of geologic exposures as they exist.
3) Preparation of a report presenting findings, conclusions and recommendations for mitigation measures or additional studies as necessary.
Note: A subsurface evaluation is not included within the scope of this study v
Qf the off-site alternative as to potential geoloaiclsoils impacts. Should a subsurface evaluation be required by the reviewing agencies, a scope and cost for such a study may be provided upon request. In addition, please note that the scope of this study does not include an environmental site assessment (hazardous materials). If such services are required, a proposal can be provi&d.
F. HydrologylWater Quality
As the project hydrologic and water resources consultants on the Coleman Planning Group project team, Pacific Rim Engineering, Inc. will analyze the proposed water quality, erosion and sedimentation control devices for their ability to mitigate (with “Best Management Practices”) potential water quality and biological impacts to Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon resulting from implementation of the project. Proposed tasks include the following:
1. Hydrology/Water Quality Assessment a) Describe existing hydrological setting of site b) Research existing water quality data at RWQCB c) Discuss existing water quality d) Review of Hydrology studies e) Review HEC-2 studies f) Review hydrological/water quality impacts g) Discuss project mitigation measures h) Discuss alternatives to further reduce impacts i) Field visit
2. EIR Revisions a) Screencheck revision b) Draft EIR revision
3. Alternatives Analysis a) Environmentally preferred alternative b) Offsite alternative
G. Visual QualityfLandform Alteration
The Coleman Planning Group (CPG) will conduct a detailed visual quality analysis of the Master Plan area. Many of the potential visual impacts related to the project can be avoided if the visual sensitivity of the site and the characteristics of the surrounding environment are known.. This section of the EIR proposes the following scope:
1) Provide an accurate inventory of each of the visual elements of the site. This would include field analysis of where the site can be seen from and what parts of the site are the most visible. Existing: photoaanhs of the site will be utilized and. if necessarv. additional p_...........n.....a hoto ra hs will analvsic
2) Visual sensitivity mapping of the site. Sensitivity is determined by how often a portion of the site can be seen from a variety of vantage points as well as the relative number of potential
March 15,1993 8 Coleman Planning Group
Green Valley EIR
viewers of the site. Existing aerial photographs and aerial photo simulations of the proposed Master Plan will be utilized.
3) Categorize the specific elements (landform, roadway, vegetation, scale, etc.) found both on the site and commonly found in the area. Further analysis will help to define the character of the area, the elements of the site, and the amount of sensitivity these elements would have to the viewer if they changed. A summary of potential mitigation measures will also be accomplished as part of this step.
4) Analyze all proposed alternatives, including the off-site alternative as to their impact on the visual environment.
H. Circulation
The Coleman Planning Group will incorporate in the EIR the traffic study to be provided by the City of Carlsbad.
2. Noise
As project noise specialists, Endo Engineering, Inc. proposes the following tasks:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9).
10)
Introduce the relevant noise rating schemes and their significance in quantifying the acoustic environment,
Address land use compatibility with various noise levels per the City of Carlsbad General plan and Noise Policy.
Identify existing noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site.
Develop projections for noise levels adjacent to nearby roadways for current conditions based upon traffic volumes provided in the traffic study (using RD-77- 108).
Discuss construction-related short-term impacts.
Develop projections for noise levels adjacent to nearby roadways for each alternative and phase of the preferred project based upon traffic volume projections provided in the traffic study (using RD-77- 108).
Identify audible noise increases associated with build-out of the project and various alternatives, to the extent permitted by available traffic information.
Identify and assess the significance of projected noise impacts in terms of the sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity, such as, the least Bell’s vireo. (based upon information provided in the biology report). .
Address any potential on-site noise impacts relaied to projected ambient noise levels from master planned roadways adjacent to the project site and alternative sites.
Recommend generalized measures needed to reduce noise impacts to acceptable levels.
March 15, I993 9 Coleman Planning Group
J. Air Qualify
Green Valley EIR
As project air quality specialists, Endo Engineering, Inc. proposes the following tasks:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Discuss climatic and meteorological trends particular to the project vicinity.
Summarize historical trends in ambient air quality during the last three years.
Discuss the adverse effects of air pollutants on sensitive receptors.
Identify any City of Carlsbad General Plan policies related to air quality.
Quantify construction-related short-term impacts.
Prepare an air pollutant emission inventory for the proposed project and up to three alternatives, based upon project square footage and project-related VMT.
Analyze carbon monoxide concentrations with and without the project adjacent to key intersections using the California Line Source Dispersion (CALINE 4) computer model (over 1 -hour and S-hour averaging periods).
8)
9)
10)
Address ,the project’s consistency with the “Draft 1991 San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy”.
Discuss w altemativs growth inducing and cumulative impacts on air quality.
Develop a list of construction-related and operational mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to acceptable levels including:
l those measures included in the project; and
l those measures which would further reduce impacts if-included, but not proposed.
K. Public ServicesfUtilities
Hofman Planning Associates (HPA) will perform a detailed analysis or the existing levels of service and the impacts of the proposed project on all of the public facilities covered by the City of Carlsbad’s Local Facilities Management Program. Tasks include:
1) A thorough review of the Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan and possible conversations with staff members from the appropriate agencies. HPA wili also review the impacts on other facilities not covered by Carlsbad’s Local Facilities Management Program, such as hospitals, police protection and solid waste. Prior to starting this portion of the EIR, HPA will contact the Carlsbad Planning Department to get a confurnation of the public facilities that need to be addressed by this section of the EIR.
2) After a review of the existing levels of service, anticipated capacity and the impacts of the proposed project, mitigation measures will be prepared.
stiei.r 3 2 0 ntialim ac t
L. Cumulative Impacts
The Coleman Planning Group, in association with the proposed project team, shall address potential cumulative impacts associated with the development of the Master Plan area in addition to the cumulative impacts resulting from the required off-site improvements, w alternative.
March 15,1993 10 Coleman Planning Group
M. Growth Inducement
Green Valley EIR
The Coleman Planning Group shall provide a growth inducement study of the proposed project and oroiect alternatives in accordance with CEQA including, but not limited to:
1) A study of the potential impacts associated with the extension of public facilities through vacant lands adjacent to the project boundaries.
2) Analysis of any other potential growth-inducing issues that may be relevant based upon analysis of other technical issues to be studied in the EIR and outlined in this proposal.
3) Where appropriate, mitigation measures or recommendations will be included and a monitoring program provided.
N. Project Alternatives
In accordance with CEQA, the Coleman Planning Group (CPG) and Hofman Planning Associates (HPA) shall fully investigate several feasible alternatives based upon the environmental information developed through the technical studies (please refer to the special studies under the Work Program proposed herein for technical tasks involved in the alternatives analysis). Analysis of alternatives in the EIR shall include a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, including an assessment of the differing impacts and measures necessary to mitigate those impacts. The range of alternatives shall include the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
A No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative will analyze the impacts associated with no development onsite.
Land Use Alternative. This alternative will evaluate a variation of the project which is based on the existing General Plan Designations of Community Commercial, Office and Medium- high Residential.
Various Access Road Configurations. This alternative involves analyzing the five access road confurations requested by the City of Carlsbad,< and traffic information nrovided by the Citv of Carlsbad and/or the nroiect aonlicant. Three of these confirurations propose the extension of Leucadia Boulevard eastward to the site, while two propose access at La Costa.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative. HPA will take the input of the biologist and traffic consultant into consideration when preparing the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Input will also be obtained from City staff to develop an alternative that reduces environmental impacts, yet still results in a viable project. An exhibit will be prepared & the same level of detail as the Master Plan to accompany this alternative.
Offsite Alternative. HPA will contact staff to discuss and choose an appropriate site for the Offsite Alternative. HPA’s knowledge of Carlsbad and the existing and proposed land uses in Carlsbacl should help to facilitate this decision. After an alternative site has been chosen, HPA together with CPG will utilize information received from the technical studies proposed herein to provide a general level of review of all potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project at the alternative site rather than the Green Valley site.
* alternative site will be ~remred in coniunction with the text.
March IS. I993 11 Coleman Planning Group
0. Additional Issues
Green Valley EIR
The Coleman Planning Group shall address any additional issues not covered in this proposal if found to be potentially significant upon completion of scoping workshop as proposed. An expanded scope of work and contract amendment would be required if the Coleman Planning Group is directed by the City to cover additional issues not included in the Request for Proposal.
March 15,1993 12 Coleman Planning Group
1. 3% UT 5 E 2r .I! 2 EG
E 5 b
z. 3 c ‘t c
qpp 3 -&a ‘0 ‘U B wi zc?z:z.
0
858%X%8888, mbco-hm?OcO-Tv
o(Awowwwwww fl
0
s Utn-T-e---WN* - 2 *
*o~oo~~in~bn~ a omhmmohb~ho 2 WWWWW~W~WHZ cnf s w
3
3 !!
i
;
!i
.g s 8 4 a , 5 .I
$ 3 ‘60 s 8 2
3
8888 3 C?“=F-z -
i Fi wwww y)
i 8C8%$2 I - ,,,,,,f
gggzzzss CJ’
www(Rwwww
omoomm*t- o_~maJ~~oo
(cIoww*wiziz
f
d -8 9 ‘0 2
B
2
1
SI ‘ii
d - . 2 & 2 m
0
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 22nd day of APRIL ,19=, between the
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter
referred to as CITY, and CARLSBAD PARTNERS 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 Green Valley Master Plan requiring an Environmental
Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, CITY has determined that its current staff is inadequate in number to
process the proposed 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 Coleman Planning Group hereinafter referred to
as “CONSULTANT” 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 “A” and made a part of this agreement.
2. It is understood that the CONSULTANT services shall conform to the Proposal
1 REV. 4125191
EXHIBIT “C”
attached as Attachment “EY and made a part of this agreement, and may require:
a) Field exploration;
b) Weekly communication with the City staff;
cl 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 CONSULTANT to complete a draft and
final Environmental Impact Report at the earliest feasible time. The CITY will advise the
APPLlCA.NT in writing of any impacts which may render the proposed project unfeasible
within a reasonable tirrle after CITY has received the CONSULTANT’s conclusions in
writing.
4. The APPLICANT shall pay to the CITY the actual cost of the CONSULTANT’s
services. Such cost shall be based on the costs set forth in Attachment “c”. The
APPLICANT has advanced the sum of $126,866.00 as payment on account for the actual
cost of the CONSULTANT’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
CONSULTANT 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.
REV. 4/25/91
5. It is understood that the CONSULTANT shall be an independent contractor of the
CITY. The APPLICANT agrees to permit the CONSULTANT to enter upon his property
and to perform all work thereon as the CONSULTANT deems necessary to complete the
Environmental Impact Report. It is agreed that the APPLICANT will not interfere with the
CONSULTANT in the performance of such work or attempt to influence such
CONSULTANT 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.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
REV. 4/25/91
(Acknowledgment)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the 5th day of April 1993 ,by Thanas J. Cumes
,
My commission expires:
&xi1 27, 1993 Notary’s printed name:
Linda Williams, Notary Public In and far the State of Texas My Commlssron Exptres 04 In-j/ 43
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this a9 aement on the
day and year first above written.
Executed by APPLICANT this se’ ‘-Z
,’ .il.‘i lf i day of r ’ 1,) l.- ‘; ,, ,19
.^:g .
l d
APPLICANT:
; : / ; !.i ; , , /-r *-, ‘- +‘. : -, -,. : /. -; , -;,. _ _ -~‘.. ’
(name of Applicant)
CITY QF CARLSBAD, a muni,cipal
corporation of the State of Califoaia
./- ; : ,/:
BYI I ,( ;,_ ,+ . . . . ‘1 /:tr,q.$,P
(sign here) . ATTEST:
_.-- -,, , ; , 1 . . . _. tq *. 7-i &?.. f,, J 1.
(print name here)
City Clerk
T ; .:. \’ -.,_‘I,,-.‘f . 1. _ j &;,42,.q p c -r/;l.y ‘; Y,‘;
(title. and organization of signatory) ’ g /‘ ..; ~:!‘y.d; A’ /q/J-- .‘. : . r
(Proper notarial ackno$ed$nent of execution by APPLICANT must be attached.)
(President or vice-president and secretary or assistant secretary must sign for
corporations. If only one officer signs, the corporation must attach a resolution certified
by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering that officer to
bind the corporation.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BALL
4 REV. 4/25/91
--
-/ \tf \ ENCINITAS
Pacihc Ocea
Q
No Scale
P&D Technologloa ATTACHMENT “A”
Vicinity Map
Green Valley EIR
Company Services
The Coleman Planning Group (CPG) shall perform all tasks necessary for the preparation and submittal of a Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley project as outlined in the RFP issued by the City of Carlsbad. This shall include:
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
Hold one evening public scoping meeting to determine all environmental issues that need to be addressed in the EIR, and coordinate with City staff to incorporate into the EIR any additional analysis determined by staff to be appropriate.
Assemble all available data, originate new studies where required, and provide an assessment of the probable short and long&term cumulative impacts of the project. Evaluate all feasible mitigation measures which could be carried out to reduce or eliminate any adverse impact of the project. The EIR shall also analyze all feasible alternatives to the project as proposed.
Prepare and present to the City of Carlsbad written bi-weekly progress summaries.
Identify, discuss, and develop a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for inclusion in the EIR for any impacts which may be associated with the short-term and long-term ,development of the site.
Within .eight (8) weeks rthirteen weeks if the rare slant surveys are included1 fir-m entering into an agreement with the City, CPG shall provide seven (7) screen check Draft EIRs in three ring binders for City staff review which will comply completely with the criteria, standards and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines for its implementation, the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and the regulations, requirements and procedures of any agency with jurisdiction by law.
Provide seven (7) second screen check Draft EIRs* in three ring binders if determined necessary by the City within a two week period from the request.
Provide four (4) copies of the revised Draft EIR* with appendices and exhibits, which incorporate staffs written recommendations and revisions to the screen check draft within fourteen (14) weeks from entering into an agreement with the City.
Provide fifty (50) copies of the City-approved Draft EIR with appendices and exhibits; twelve (12) of those copies shall be in three-ring loose leaf binders and thirty-eight (38) shall be three-hole punched and shrink wrapped. In addition, one reproducible copy and one computer disk readable by Wordperfect 5.1 shall be provided.
Within two weeks after the close of the public review period, CPG shall respond to comments made during the Draft EIR public review period and submit responses to comments along with seven (7) screen check Final EIR documents to staff for review.
Within two weeks of receiving staff’s written recommendations and revisions to the screen check Final EIR, CPG shall provide fifty (50) copies of the Final EIR, including appendices and exhibits,. which incorporates staffs written recommendations and revisions to the screen check Final EIR. Twelve (12) of those copies shall be in three-ring loose leaf binders, twelve (12) shall be spiral-bound, and twenty-six (26) shall be three hole punched and shrink wrapped. In addition, one reproducible copy and one computer disk readable by Wordperfect 5.1 shall be provided.
March IS, 1993 3 Coleman Planning Group
Green Valley EIR
0 The Coleman Planning Group shall attend up to fourteen (14) meetings, as listed in the Request for Proposal (page 5) dated January 25, 1993 issued by the City of Carlsbad. Attendance of subconsultants at these meetings shall be as indicated in the attached itemized EIR cost proposal. Additional meetings beyond those indicated shall require a contract amendment and shall be charged on a time and materials basis. will be billed. only
) REVISED WORK P&$%iii-I
On the basis of our research and review of the Request for Proposal, attendance at the pre-proposal meeting df, in addition to our research and review of pertinent environmental issues as identified in the related technical reports, the Coleman Planning Group project team agrees to complete this Environmental Impact Report according to the following revised work program.
A. Land Use Compatibility
As Land Use Analysts, Hofman Planning Associates (HPA) will analyze the land use changes proposed within the Master Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment for their compatibility and their compliance with various City ordinances and policies. Tasks proposed are as follows:
1) Review the existing project conditions including Zoning, General Plan designations, adjacent Circulation Element Roadways and all other applicable City and Coastal Commission ordinances and policies.
2) Describe the project and surrounding land uses.
3) Review and analyze the compatibility of the designated land uses and land use patterns within the Master Plan area and surrounding areas with the existing City Ordinances, policies, major goals and studies. This review will also include an analysis of the Encinitas Ranch Soecific M a thorough review of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Local Coastal Program. This review will pay special attention to the impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment from C, Commercial to RRI, Regional Retail Intensive on a portion of the property. HPA’s review of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Local Coastal Program will determine whether the proposed change to land use requires an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. This review will also concentrate on the internal compatibility of the proposed land uses. If mitigation is required, implementable mitigation measures will be incorporated into the EIR.
& Analvze all vrooosed alternatives. including the off-site alternative as to their notential to m
B. Agriculture and Open Space
Utilizing the results of the land use and biological resources reports proposed herein as background information, the Coleman Planning Group shall provide an analysis of the potential impact to the region and local community from the potential loss of agricultural and open space land due to the conversion of new land uses proposed in the Master Plan and Master Tentative Map. Tasks shall include:
1) Review and analyze the compatibility of the urban and open space interface within the Master Plan area and surrounding areas. This shall include an analysis of the project’s compliance with oastal Commission d
March IS,1993 4 Coleman Planning Group
Green Valley EIR
m the City of Carlsbad Open Space and Resource Conservation Management Plan; and open space preservation goals, policies and biological requirements for species/habitat preservation.
2) Assess the feasibility of continued agricultural operations and the potential loss and value of agricultural production in the area to be affected by the proposed project. This shall include a discussion of the agricultural quality of the site and the impact on local and State agriculture.
3) Analyze the impacts resulting from the proposed conversion of such agricultural lands to urban use. This analysis will also concentrate on assessing impacts to community character, plans and policies of Carlsbad and the w relative to agricultural goals.
4) Develop mitigation measures based upon the above analysis where appropriate.
w- to aticulture and onen space.
C. Biological Resources
As the project biological consultants, Sweetwater Environmental Biologists (SEB) shall complete the following work program:
1) Conduct a literature search to analyze the thoroughness of the previous environmental documents and to determine the sensitive resources known to occur in the project vicinity.
2) Conduct brief field surveys necessary to independently verify the biological technical report completed by P&D Technologies in 1992. The surveys will focus on the sensitive .,pecies and habitats identified in the report. If SEB’s findings are not consistent with P&D’s, SEB would immediately notify the client and provide a cost estimate for the additional surveys that would be necessary to determine the extent of the sensitive resources and habitats occurring on site.
c Based on California gnatcatcher workinuouo guidelines. SEB would oerform un to three s
4 ._)B woul: vireo. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reauires eight survevs be comnleted at one week d m 1 t ei ht rve s f th anronriate habitat as soon as possible.
5) As a third ontional task. SEB would conduct three rare plant survevs: one in Ma~h/A~ril, . 1 11 ower. h DiePo m and Palmer’s &ne-hook. The Mm
brodiaea -Blochman’s Th Au us e
Encinitas &char-is. and De1 Maand aster.2 If this survev is desired. a final biolom technical renort woul 3 mlt EIR would then be wmnleted bv Sentember 30.1993.
lA review Q ~ments indicm surv e?/s w 1
v ’ n’l
*These slants were not found durinn the fall surveys on this site. however both occur on the adiacent Ecke urotxrty
.d an
March IS, I993 5 Coleman Planning Group
r”--- 11-1, -. P,” urrrn v urrey cm
3) Conduct the appropriate detailed field reconnaissance surveys for m the off-site alignments of the internal “spine” road and the small 1.9 acre name1 at the SW comer of Leva& Street and El Camino Real which is not within the MasterPlan, but is to be addressed in the EIR.
4) Prepare a complete biological technical report. The report would address current site conditions, analyze potential project impacts and recommend mitigation measures to offset those impacts. SEB would address the City’s Habitat Management Plan and how this project fits into it. Potential permit requirements would also be discussed. However, the development of detailed revegetation or mitigation plans, or assistance in the actual permitting process will be considered outside the scope of this contract.
D. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
Archaeological Associates, Ltd., serving as project anthropologists/archaeologists in association with John Minch Associates, paleontologists, will prepare the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources section of the EIR. Brian F. Smith and Associates surveyed the subject property for archaeological resources in 1989. The 1989 study resulted in the discovery of six previously unrecorded sites. Five of the six sites comprise marine shell and lithics scatters of varying sizes. The sixth site consists only of a lithics scatter. Furthermore, indications of possible subsurface cultural deposits were observed at two of the locations.
The test program outlined below has been designed to provide data for making significance and boundary determinations of these sites. It is emphasized that the results of the proposed test may or may not amount to complete mitigation of impacts to the subject archaeological sites. Generally, if testing fails to yield evidence of the presence of a significant deposit at a site, collection of surface artifacts will comprise complete and adequate mitigation. If, on the other hand, a significant deposit is uncovered, mitigation will consist either of site preservation, salvage excavation, or a combination of the two. The test program is described below. w done in conformance with the Citv of Carl&ad Cultural Resource Guidelines (December, 1mL
1)
2)
Surface Collection. The surface collection serves the purpose of mitigating impacts to surface artifacts and provides a concept of the configuration of surface material which is helpful when selecting excavation locations. It will be conducted using the transit-controlled method described by Van Horn and Murray (1982). Briefly, this consists of locating each surface artifact with a transit. The collection crew bags and numbers the artifacts, the numerical designation corresponding to the number on the transit coordinate entry. In this way, it is possible to map the configuration of surface finds to scale and the original provenience of each item is permanently recorded..
Augering Program. Auger holes provide a relatively fast means for defming site boundaries as well as making certain that no deposit exists at locations with only sparse surface material. All six sites will be thoroughly and systematically augered. The holes will be dug with a 9” hydraulic auger fitted to a Case 1835B Uniloader (bobcat). A smaller, two-man power auger fitted with a 6” bit will supplement the hydraulic auger. The exact number and location of the auger holes will be left to the discretion of the Field Director. All backdirt will be screened using 1/8-&h mesh and the results recorded. Hole locations will be mapped using transit and stadia.
3) Test Excavations. The primary purpose of the test units is to determine the quality and quantity of finds present (if any) subsurface. If a subsurface deposit is encountered, the units will assist in determining deposit depth and exposing a cross-section of the deposit. Each unit will be excavated in 10 cm. levels and backdirt from each level will be screened using l/8-inch mesh. All artifacts found in the units will be bagged according to unit and level.
March IS,1993 6 Coleman Planning Group
4)
5)
6)
7)
Green Valley EIR
The following pCn.imum number of units w-ill be excavated at each site:
Minimum no. of Units 1 #2 1 #3 4
ii 4
#6 :
8) Alternatives. Analvze all pronosed alternatives. including the off-site alternative (limited to a m rd h rifli rtm
E. Geology/Soils
As project geologists, Ninyo & Moore shall provide an evaluation of the geologic and geotechnical hazards within the proposed project in accordance with the Guidelines for Geologic/Seismic Considerations in Environmental Impact Reports published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Tasks will include the following:
1) Review of published maps, literature, in-house reports, and aerial photographs. These documents will be compared with the preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the development by others.
March 15,1993. 7 Coleman Planning Group
Updated Site Record Forms. Updated site record forms will be generated and filed with both the San Diego Museum of Man and the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University.
Laboratory Work and Cataloging. All cultural material recovered during field work will be washed, identified, and cataloged at Archaeological Associates’ facility in Sun City. Obsidian specimens, if recovered, will be inspected for hydration rim thickness at Archaeological Associates’ lab in Sun City. Other special studies such as micro-wear and seed flotation will also be conducted in-house. C-14 specimens, if recovered, will be sent to Beta-Analytic in Miami, Florida. Fauna1 remains will be submitted to the Zooarchaeology Lab at UCLA for identification.
Report Preparation. An interim report certifying that the field investigation is complete and briefly describing the results will be provided immediately following completion of test operations. It will be followed by a complete narrative report describing the methods and finds at the site. The final report will include a copy of the surface collection map, artifact descriptions, graphics, site interpretations, and mitigation recomm :dations. Copies of the artifact catalogs and site record forms will be appended to the text
Mitigation recommendations will consist of alternative means of mitigating impacts if a particular site is deemed significant beyond the test phase proposed here. If a site is found to be insignificant or adequately sampled during the test, no additional mitigative action will be recommended.
Paleontological Resources. In order to determine whether significant paleontological resources are situated within the boundaries of the subject property, it will be necessary to: (a) conduct a review of the geologic literature pertinent to the geologic units and fossils including paleontological localities, (b) perform a walk-over and inspection of exposures and slopes of each geologic unit mapped on the site, and (c) compile a narrative report describing the study and its results.
Green Valley EIR
2) Conduct a geologic reconnaissance of the proposed development area. The reconnaissance wilI include mapping of geologic exposures as they exist.
3) Preparation of a report presenting findings, conclusions and recommendations for mitigation measures or additional studies as necessary.
Note: A subsruface evaluation is not included within the scope of this study m
of the off-site alternative as to Dotential peologiclsoils imDact,s. Should a subsurj&e evaluation be required by the reviewing agencies, a scope and cost for such a study may be provided upon request. In addition, please note that the scope of this study does not include an environmental site assessment (hazardous materials). If such services are required, a proposal can be provided.
F. HydrologylWater Quality
As the project hydrologic and water resources consultants on the Coleman Planning Group project team, Pacific Rim Engineering, Inc. will analyze the proposed water quality, erosion and sedimentation control devices for their ability to mitigate (with “Best Management Practices”) potential water quality and biological impacts to Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon resulting from implementation of the project. Proposed tasks include the following:
1. Hydrology/Water Quality Assessment a) .b) Describe existing hydrological setting of site Research existing water quality data at RWQCB c) Discuss existing water quality d) Review of Hydrology studies e) Review HEC-2 studies f) Review hydrologicallwatr:; quality impacts g) Discuss project mitigation measures h) Discuss alternatives to further reduce impacts i) Field visit
2. EIR Revisions a) Screencheck revision b) Draft EIR revision
3. Alternatives Analysis a) Environmentally preferred alternative b) Gffsite alternative
G. Visual Qualityllandform Alteration
The Coleman Planning Group (CPG) will conduct a detailed visual quality analysis of the Master Plan area. Many of the potential visual impacts related to the project can be avoided if the visual sensitivity of the site and the characteristics of the surrounding environment are known. This section of the EIR proposes the following scope:
1) Provide an accurate inventory of each of the visual elements of the site. This would include field analysis of where the site can be seen from and what parts of the site are the most visible. Existing Maths of the site will be utilized and. if necessarv, additional { gnalvsis,
2) Visual sensitivity mapping of the site. Sensitivity is determined by how often a portion of the site can be seen from a variety of vantage points as well as the relative number of potential
March IS,1993 8 Coleman Planning Grolcp
Green Valley EIR
viewers of the site. Existing aerial photographs and aerial photo simulations of the proposed Master Plan will be utilized.
3) Categorize the specific elements (landform, roadway, vegetation, scale, etc.) found both on the site and commonly found in the area. Further analysis will help to define the character of the area, the elements of the site, and the amount of sensitivity these elements would have to the viewer if they changed. A summary of potential mitigation measures will also be accomplished as part of this step.
4) Analyze all proposed alternatives, including the off-site alternative as to their impact on the visual environment.
H. Circulation
The Coleman Planning Group will incorporate in the EIR the traffic study to be provided by the City of Carlsbad.
I. Noise
As project noise specialists, Endo Engineering, Inc. proposes the following tasks:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Introduce the relevant noise rating schemes and their significance in quantifying the acoustic environment.
Address land use compatibility with various noise levels per the City of Carlsbad General plan and Noise Policy.
Identify existing noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site.
Develop projections for noise levels adjacent to nearby roadways for current conditions based upon traffic volumes provided in the traffic study (using RD-77-108).
Discuss construction-related short-term impacts.
Develop projections for noise levels adjacent to nearby roadways for each alternative and phase of the preferred project based upon traffic volume projections provided in the traffic study (using RD-77- 108).
Identify audible noise increases associated with build-out of the project and various alternatives, to the extent permitted by available traffic information.
Identify and assess the significance of projected noise impacts in terms of’the sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity, such as, the least Bell’s vireo (based upon information provided in the biology report).
Address any potential on-site noise impacts related to projected ambient noise levels from master planned roadways adjacent to the project site and alternative sites.
Recommend generalized measures needed to reduce noise impacts to acceptable levels.
March 15,1993 9 Coleman Planning Group
J. Air Quality
Green Valley EIR
As project air quality specialists, Endo Engineering, Inc. proposes the following tasks:
1)
2)
3)
4)
3
6)
7)
Discuss climatic and meteorological trends particular to the project vicinity.
Summarize historical trends in ambient air quality during the last three years.
Discuss the adverse effects of air pollutants on sensitive.receptors.
Identify any City of Carlsbad General Plan policies related to air quality.
Quantify construction-related short-term impacts.
Prepare an air pollutant emission inventory for the proposed project and up to three alternatives, based upon project square footage and project-related VMT.
Analyze carbon monoxide concentrations with and without the project adjacent to key intersections usjng the California Line Source Dispersion (CALINE 4) computer model (over l-hour and 8-hour averaging periods).
8)
9)
10)
Address the project’s consistency with the “Draft 1991 San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy”.
Discuss wtemativs growth inducing and cumulative impacts on air quality.
Develop a list of construction-related and operational mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to acceptable levels including:
l those measures included in the project; and
l those measures which would further reduce impacts if included, but not proposed.
K. Public ServicedUtilities
Hofman Planning Associates (HPA) will perform a detailed analysis or the existing levels of service and the impacts of the proposed project on all of the public facilities covered by the City of Carlsbad’s Local Facilities Management Program. Tasks include:
1) A thorough review of the Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan and possible conversations with staff members from the appropriate agencies. HPA will also review the impacts on other facilities not covered by Carlsbad’s Local Facilities Management Program, such as hospitals, police protection and solid waste. Prior to starting this portion of the EIR, HPA will contact the Carlsbad Planning Department to get a confutation of the public facilities that need to be addressed by this section of the EIR.
2) After a review of the existing levels of service, anucipated capacity and the impacts of the proposed project, mitigation measures will be prepared.
3) Anal all alt ativ as t
L. Cumulative Impacts
The Coleman Planning Group, in association with the proposed project team, shall address potential cumulative impacts associated with the development of the Master Plan area in addition to the cumulative impacts resulting from the required off-site improvements, m alternative.
March 15.1993 10 Coleman Planning Group
M. Growth Inducement
Green Valley EIR
The Coleman Planning Group shall provide a growth inducement study of the proposed project and oroiect alternatives in accordance with CEQA including, but not limited to:
1) A study of the potential impacts associated with the extension of public facilities through vacant lands adjacent to the project boundaries.
2) Analysis of any other potential growth-inducing issues that may be relevant based upon analysis of other technical issues to be studied in the EIR and outlined in this proposal.
3) Where appropriate, mitigation measures or recommendations will be included and a monitoring program provided.
N. Project Alternatives
In accordance with CEQA, the Coleman Planning Group (CPG) and Hofman Planning Associates (HPA) shall fully investigate several feasible alternatives based upon the environmental information developed through the technical studies (please refer to the special studies under the Work Program proposed herein for technical tasks involved in the alternatives analysis). Analysis of alternatives in the EIR shall include a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, including an assessment of the differing impacts and measures necessary to mitigate those impacts. The range of alternatives shall include the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
A No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative wiIl analyze the impacts associated with no development onsite.
Land Use Alternative. This alternative will evaluate a variation of the project which is based on the existing General Plan Designations of Community Commercial, Office and Medium- high Residential.
Various Access Road Configurations. This alternative involves analyzing the five access road confurations requested by the City of Carlsbad, bas esed herein and traffic information Drovided by the Citv of Carlsbad and/or the proiect&olicant. Three of these confinvations propose the extension of Leucadia Boulevard eastward to the site, while two propose access at La Costa.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative. HPA will take the input of the biologist and traffic consultant into consideration when preparing the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Input will also be obtained from City staff to develop an alternative that reduces environmental impacts, yet still results in a viable project. An exhibit wiI1 be prepared a the same level of detail as the Master Pla to accompany this alternative.
Offsite Alternative. HPA will contact staff to discuss and choose an appropriate site for the Offsite Alternative. HPA’s knowledge of Carlsbad and the existing and proposed land uses in Carlsbad should help to’facilitate this decision. After an alternative site has been chosen, HPA together with CPG will utilize information received from the technical studies proposed herein to provide a general level of review of alI potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project at the alternative site rather than the Green Valley site.
sexhibi t_(...,..uf& i.e. a “b b 1 ‘a alternative site wilI be ~remred in coniunction with the text.
March 15.1993 11 Coleman Planning Group
Green Valley EIR
0. Additional Issues
The %oleman Planning Group shall address any additional issues not covered in this proposal if found to be potentially significant upon completion of scoping workshop as proposed. An expanded scope of work and contract amendment would be required if the Coleman Planning Group is directed by the City to cover additional issues not included in the Request for Proposal.
March IS,1993 12 Coleman Planning Group
il Om~O*00~ 3 O~~~~OOOOC3~
Y)Y)WY)WY)Y)#o)
=: 5 .c ; .i Q 3 4 Y 0
858 %i?Z8888 2 mbce-hO\QOm‘b‘P
~)wwoowwwww 1
0
wm-w*-~-~N~ - E (I)
8888 3 22X% - fl z wwww H
May 4, 1993
Coleman Planning Group 138 Escondido Avenue, Suite 209 Vista, CA 92084-6044
RE: ACJr88lU8nt for Preparation Of EIR for the Gr88n Valley Master Plan
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of April 20, 1993, adopted Resolution No. 93-106, approving an Agreement with the Coleman Planning Group for' the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley Master Plan.
Enclosed please find a fully executed copy of the agreement and Resolution No. 93-106.
KRK:ijp
Enclosures
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Cartsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808