HomeMy WebLinkAboutWailes, Renee Schatz; 2022-10-17;DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND RENEE SCHATZ WAILES FOR PAYMENT OF EIR CONSULTANT
EIR 22-06
17th THIS AGREEMENT is made this
October day of
, 2022 between the
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to
as CITY, and RENEE SCHATZ WAILES, as Trustee of the Renee Schatz Wailes Revocable Trust
dated February 10, 2000, hereinafter referred to as "APPLICANT".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the APPLICANT has filed with the CITY a request for approval of a
proposed project identified as EIR 22-06 – THREE ON GARFIELD 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 Baranek Consulting Group, 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 the
BARANEK CONSULTING GROUP, INC SCOPE OF WORK attached as Attachment 2 and made
a part of this agreement, and may require:
a) Field exploration;
b) Weekly communication with the City staff; 1 Rev. 01/31/2013
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
c) Written reports; and
d) Such other work necessary to properly evaluate the proposed
project as directed by the City Planner.
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 and product. Such cost shall be based on the hourly rates, estimated
total labor hours, and estimated printing costs set forth in Cost Estimate Three on Garfield EIR
(Attachment 3). The APPLICANT has advanced the sum of $ 199,975.00 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 contractor
of the CITY and CITY shall not be liable for any negligent acts or omissions of the CONTRACTOR.
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 CONTRACTOR’s responsibility will be solely to the
CITY, and that the CONTRACTOR’s accountability will be solely to the CITY, and not the
APPLICANT, who is not an intended beneficiary of the CITY’s agreement with the CONTRACTOR
2 Rev. 01/31/2013
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
for the processing and monitoring of the Environmental Impact Report.
7. 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.
8. 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.
…
…
…
…
…
… … … … …
…
3 Rev. 01/31/2013
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
By:
(sign here)
Eric Lardy, City
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day
and year first above written.
Executed by APPLICANT this 5th day of October, 2022.
APPLICANT: Renee Schatz Wailes, as Trustee of the
Renee Schatz Wailes Revocable Trust dated February 10, 2000
(Name of Applicant)
Renee Wailes
(print name here/title) By:
(sign here)
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California
By:
Planner
ATTEST:
Tamara R. McMinn for FAVIOLA MEDINA City Clerk Manager
(print name here/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: CINDIE MCMAHON, City Attorney
By: Assistant City Attorney 4 Rev. 01/31/2013
j~ {(.. ~ ~
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
ATTACHMENT 1
J
SITE MAP THREE ON GARFIELD
PUD 2021-0003 / SDP 2021-0008 / CDP 2021-0010 / NCP 2021-0001 (DEV2020-0205)
SITE
PACIFIC OCEAN
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Three on Garfield EIR
RFQ 23-01 ATTACHMENT 2
Scope of Work and Schedule
Project Location and Description The subject 0.16-acre infill site is located at 2685, 2687, and 2689 Garfield Street within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ). The property is generally flat and is currently
developed with an attached three-unit residential air-space condominium. The development of the proposed
condominiums requires the processing and approval of a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan,
Coastal Development Permit and Nonconforming Construction Permit.
The project proposes the construction of three attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums. Vehicular access is proposed to be provided via Beech Avenue. Each home includes an attached two-car garage
with direct entrance into the unit. Two units contain two bedrooms and one unit contains three bedrooms. The
units range in size from 1,701 square feet to 1,713 square feet. All units include private balconies on the third
floor. The entry doors to all three units faces Garfield Street.
The underlying lot is currently held in common interest divided between the three air-space condominiums. The
common area includes, but is not limited to, the private drive aisle and landscaped areas. Topographically, the site
is mildly sloped with elevations ranging between approximately 46 feet and 53 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
The site is currently developed with a three-unit residential air-space condominium and does not contain any
sensitive vegetation. Grading for the proposed project requires a grading permit and includes 233 cubic yards of
cut, 93 cubic yards of fill, 140 cubic yards of export, and 434 cubic yards of remedial grading.
Based on the size of the lot (0.16 acres) and the allowed density on the property’s land use designation (R-15, or
8-15 dwelling units per acre), a maximum of two units are allowed on the property. Approval of a Nonconforming
Construction Permit (NCP) is required to allow the continuation of the legally established use of three dwelling
units on a property. The project meets the City’s standards for planned developments and subdivisions and is in
compliance with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and relevant zoning regulations of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (CMC).
1. Technical Studies/Analyses
Given that the project originally qualified for an exemption from CEQA, BCG is proposing an efficient
environmental review for the Three on Garfield project by focusing the EIR on topics with the greatest
potential for significant impacts, specifically Aesthetics, Cultural (Historical) Resources, and Land Use. These
three topics will be presented in the body of the environmental analysis, while the remaining topics identified
in the RFQ and contained in the CEQA Appendix G Checklist will be discussed in the “Effects Found Not to be
Significant” section of the EIR. This streamlined approach is defensible provided the analyses are based on a
strong administrative record containing project-specific studies available from the application submittal
and/or from technical analyses proposed as part of the EIR effort, including:
• Air Quality Memo (LSA)
• Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist (Applicant)
• Cultural Resources Study (LSA)
• Historical Analysis Letter (Applicant)
• Historical Resources Assessment Report (ASM)
• Geotechnical Evaluation (Applicant)
• Hydrology/Drainage Calculations and Stormwater Standards Questionnaire (Applicant)
• Noise and Vibration Memo (LSA)
• Traffic Analysis Memo (LSA)
All other environmental topics in the chapter will rely on environmental content in the City’s General Plan,
Local Coastal Program, Climate Action Plan, Environmental Protection Procedures, and staff technical
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Three on Garfield EIR
RFQ 23-01
knowledge, among other resources identified in the RFQ. Because of the significance of the historical
resources topic to the overall EIR process and content, a summary of ASM’s insightful approach to
addressing this topic is provided below:
Third-Party Peer Review - ASM will begin the project by reviewing the prior letter report prepared by Scott
Moomjian. After review of the letter report, ASM will prepare a peer review memo to provide an
independent professional opinion of the adequacy of the report and its findings and the qualifications of the
preparer. The brief memo will be prepared by ASM’s architectural historians who exceed the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards.
Historical Resources Assessment Report – To comply with federal, state and local regulations, ASM’s
architectural historians will survey the existing building constructed in 1980. During the intensive-level
architectural survey, digital photographs will be taken of the exteriors and interiors (if accessible). ASM will
document the features of the building and their condition. ASM will confirm the building’s dates of
construction and the general history of the property through review of the building permits (if available
through the City), historic aerial photographs, and newspaper searches. This research may draw upon
information and sources cited in the Moomjian report. ASM will conduct a chain of title to 1980 but given the
age of the building will only focus on the original owners of the property in assessing whether they should be
considered historically significant. Research will be conducted at local archival repositories only; current
closure of archives and government facilities may limit our access to archival records. As the City does not
have an official Historic Context Statement, ASM will draw from extant secondary accounts of the history of
Carlsbad to prepare a historic overview from which to evaluate the building and utilize overviews of local
history we have prepared for similar Carlsbad reports. ASM anticipates that the appropriate themes within
which to analyze the building’s potential significance are “Residential Development” and “Post-Modernism.”
ASM will then prepare the HRAR which will contain the requisite written documentation in compliance with
the CEQA process and City guidelines. The report will include a methodology, historic overview of Carlsbad,
architectural description, evaluation of significance, and provide recommendations for any further work
required for CEQA compliance. The building will be evaluated for eligibility for the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR), Carlsbad historic landmark, and as CEQA historical resource. The evaluation will
be conducted in conformance with guidance on conducting historic building assessments and evaluations,
specifically National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation, the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, and
Technical Assistance Series #7 How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources,
Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (2017) and other applicable City policies
and regulations. In evaluating the building, given that it is only 42 years old, ASM will apply CRHR’s guidance
as to whether sufficient time has passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals
associated with the resource.
If the building is recommended by ASM to be a CEQA historical resource, the report will also assess the
potential impacts of the project in accordance with CEQA (the area of potential impacts will be limited to the
specific development parcel only), and the next steps in the CEQA process will be identified. The evaluation
and assessment will be prepared by ASM’s architectural historians and historians who exceed the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Three on Garfield EIR
RFQ 23-01
2. Detailed CEQA Document Work Plan
BCG will prepare the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Draft and Final EIRs in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California
Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq.), the City’s implementing regulations and the scope of topics
outlined in the RFQ, as modified by this proposal. A preliminary Table of Contents is provided in the
Supplemental Documentation to this SOQ. If the City wishes to modify the proposed Table of Contents, BCG
will discuss the modifications before beginning the CEQA work.
Notice of Preparation (NOP). BCG will prepare the NOP by presenting a brief project description, describe
the project’s location, list of potential topics to be addressed in the EIR, and the anticipated permits. The
purpose of the NOP will be to solicit input on the contents of the EIR. The City will circulate the NOP for a 30-
day period. Comments received on the NOP will be taken into consideration during the EIR preparation,
which will include the following sections.
Executive Summary. The Executive Summary will be designed to provide a convenient overview summarizing
the contents of the EIR. It will begin with a brief narrative describing the proposed project features, which
will be followed by a tabular summary of the potential significant environmental impacts associated with the
proposed project and the mitigation measures available to reduce or avoid those impacts. The Executive
Summary will also include a description of project alternatives and comparison of the impacts of each
alternative with those of the proposed project in narrative and tabular format. Lastly, the Executive Summary
will describe any known areas of controversy, as derived from responses to the NOP.
Introduction. This section will introduce the purpose of the project with a brief discussion of the intended
use and purpose of the EIR. It will discuss how the decision to prepare an EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guideline,
and describe the parameters for such future use of the EIR. This section will also outline the scope and
content of the EIR and provide a summary of the report organization.
Environmental Setting. This section will describe the precise location of the project with an emphasis on the
physical features and environmental conditions of the site and the surrounding area and present the location
on a detailed topographic map and a regional map. The EIR will provide a local and regional description of
the environmental setting of the project and describe any upcoming changes to the area and any cumulative
changes that may relate to the project site.
Project Description. Per CEQA Guideline Section 15124, this section of the EIR will discuss the goals and
objectives and major features of the project; describe all the discretionary actions involved in the project; list
and explain the requirements for permits or approvals from federal, state, and local agencies; and describe
the proposed project’s components, landscaping concepts, and utility improvements. Project
implementation also will be discussed in this section.
Environmental Impact Analysis. This section will analyze the environmental categories having the greatest
potential for significant environmental impacts: Aesthetics, Cultural (Historical) Resources and Land Use. The
Draft EIR will include a complete discussion of the existing conditions, thresholds, impact analysis,
significance, and mitigation for all the environmental issue sections identified for detailed analysis. In general,
the EIR will discuss all potential direct and indirect impacts associated with each environmental issue area. In
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Three on Garfield EIR
RFQ 23-01
each environmental issue section, mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen impacts will be clearly
identified and discussed. The ultimate outcome after mitigation is applied will also be discussed (i.e.,
significant but mitigated, significant and unmitigated) in the EIR.
Effects Found Not to be Significant. The EIR will provide a more cursory discussion of the environmental
issue areas that are determined not to be significant due to compliance with regulations and in accordance
with the direction in the State CEQA Guidelines. For the project, we have assumed that the remaining issues
will be included in this section: Agricultural/Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources (Archaeology), Energy, Geologic Conditions, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards/Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Recreation, Public
Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. This section will
be based in part on project-specific technical analyses by the BCG team or others, outlined above, as well as
the expertise of our in-house and teaming partner staff.
Cumulative Impacts. This section will address potential impacts when the project is considered with other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project area whose implementation could
result in significant environmental changes, which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
Growth Inducement. BCG will address the project’s potential direct and indirect growth-inducing effects, as
required by Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion of growth inducement will be
based on the potential of the project to induce, either directly or indirectly, economic or population growth
resulting in the need for construction of additional housing or infrastructure beyond that proposed by the
project.
Alternatives. The EIR will evaluate up to three (3) project alternatives in detail, including a No Project/No
Development Alternative, Reduced Project Alternative, and Historic Resources Alternative that will be
determined and defined during the CEQA process. The alternatives will be focused on reducing or avoiding
the project’s significant impacts. Any alternatives “considered but rejected” through the project planning
process can also be discussed in a summary fashion if the City desires to document their rejection. A
comparative matrix of the impacts of the project alternatives and the project will be provided.
Other CEQA/Mandatory Findings of Significance. In accordance with Section 15126.2 of the CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR will include other sections required by CEQA and the City EIR procedures, including the
following: Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Significant and Irreversible impacts, References,
Individuals and Agencies Consulted and List of Preparers.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The EIR will also contain MMRP. At a minimum, the
MMRP will identify: 1) the department responsible for the monitoring; 2) the monitoring and reporting
schedule; and 3) the completion requirements.
Response to Comments. After public review of the Draft EIR is complete, the BCG team will prepare
responses to comments received during public review of the Draft EIR. It is assumed that the number of
comments received will not exceed 50 unique and substantive comments within the various comment letters.
If a substantial number of comments are received on the same topic(s), BCG will prepare Topical Responses,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Three on Garfield EIR
RFQ 23-01
which allow for more efficient and consolidated replies. If necessary, based on the comments received,
corresponding revisions will be made to the body of the EIR and/or MMRP in strikeout/underline format.
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. BCG will prepare Candidate CEQA Findings (Findings)
for the City to adopt during their decision-making process. The Findings will clearly identify the significant
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project and conclude whether the impacts would be
mitigated to below a level of significance or whether mitigation is the responsibility of another agency.
Where mitigation measures or alternatives may exist but are not considered feasible, the basis for this
conclusion will be clearly stated in the Findings. The Findings will also use the EIR to identify feasible
alternatives considered by the City, which could reduce the adverse impacts but are not being proposed. If
significant unmitigated impacts are identified in the EIR, BCG will prepare the draft Statement of Overriding
Considerations (SOC).
Specific to the topics and issues outlined in the RFQ, BCG is recommending the following modifications to the
EIR scope presented in the RFQ:
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions – CAP Consistency Checklist will be the basis of determining the project’s
consistency with the CAP.
• Hydrology/Water Quality – A Drainage/Hydrology Study with recommendations is not required due
to the size of the project, instead a review of the regulatory requirements and details on how the
project design will comply will be provided..
• Water Supply Assessment – Per the SB 610 Guidelines, this is not required for residential projects less
than 500 units in size; the EIR will provide this background.
• Transportation/Circulation –Topics to be addressed will reflect the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G amended in 2018.
In addition to preparing the number of screencheck drafts and final drafts requested in the RFQ, BCG’s
Senior Project Manager will attend a scoping meeting, project meetings and public hearings at the City’s
request. If the technical expertise of our team’s specialists is requested, we would make those team
members available.
3. Proposed EIR Schedule
An approximately 12-month timeframe is anticipated from the Notice to Proceed on the CEQA contract until
the project can go to Planning Commission and City Council hearings. We have developed the following
preliminary schedule for the City’s consideration when selecting a consultant team; refinements will be
made upon our selection to define key deadlines for interim deliverables not identified at this time. The
timeframes for the deliverables are taken from the Scope of Services in the RFQ.
The City would have the BCG team’s commitment to achieving this schedule, provided unanticipated delays
do not arise during the environmental documentation process. To accomplish this proactive schedule, we
would encourage the City to publish the NOP and conduct the Scoping Meeting shortly after the Notice to
Proceed to allow for the technical specialists and EIR preparers to incorporate concerns expressed during the
scoping process into the initial EIR preparation phase.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Three on Garfield EIR
RFQ 23-01
Task Completion Date
Notice to Proceed October 1, 2022
Preparation of 1st Screencheck Draft EIR (12 weeks) December 23, 2022
City Review (4 weeks) January 20, 2023
Preparation of 2nd Screencheck Draft EIR (4 weeks) February 17, 2023
City Review (2 weeks) March 3, 2023
Preparation of Public Review Draft EIR (2 weeks) March 17, 2023
City Distribution of Draft EIR (1 week) March 24, 2023
Public Review (45 days) March 27, 2023, through May 10, 2023
Preparation of 1st Screencheck Response to Comments and Final EIR (4 weeks) June 7, 2023
City Review (2 weeks) June 21, 2023
Preparation of 2nd Screencheck Response to Comments and Final EIR (4 weeks) July 19, 2023
City Review (2 weeks) August 2, 2023
Preparation of Final EIR, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding
Considerations (if needed) (2 weeks)
August 16, 2023
Baranek Consulting Group, Inc. | 18
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
PRELIMINARY TABLE OF CONTENTS
Three on Garfield Project Draft EIR
Chapter 1, Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Purpose of This EIR ............................................................................................................................
1.2 Intended Use of This EIR ....................................................................................................................
1.3 CEQA Environmental Review Process................................................................................................
1.4 Organization of the Draft EIR .............................................................................................................
Chapter 2, Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................
2.2 Project Location and Setting ..............................................................................................................
2.3 Project Objectives ..............................................................................................................................
2.4 Project Characteristics Summary .......................................................................................................
2.5 Project Approvals ...............................................................................................................................
2.6 Overview of Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................
2.7 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved ...............................................................................
2.8 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures that Reduce or Avoid
the Significant Impacts.......................................................................................................................
Chapter 3, Project Description .................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................
3.2 Existing Setting...................................................................................................................................
3.3 Project Site History ............................................................................................................................
3.4 Project Objectives ..............................................................................................................................
3.5 Project Characteristics .......................................................................................................................
3.6 Project Construction ..........................................................................................................................
3.7 Project Approvals and Regulatory Requirements..............................................................................
Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................
4.2 Aesthetics...........................................................................................................................................
Baseline Environmental Conditions..............................................................................................
Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................
Environmental Impacts.................................................................................................................
4.3 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................
Three on Garfield Project i City of Carlsbad Draft EIR October 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Baseline Environmental Conditions..............................................................................................
Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................
Environmental Impacts.................................................................................................................
4.4 Land Use Planning..............................................................................................................................
Baseline Environmental Conditions..............................................................................................
Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................
Environmental Impacts.................................................................................................................
Chapter 5, Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................
5.2 Criteria for Alternative Analysis .........................................................................................................
5.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration .......................................................................
5.4 Evaluation of Alternatives..................................................................................................................
5.5 Summary of Alternatives Analysis .....................................................................................................
5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...............................................................................................
Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations ..................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................................................
6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts...................................................................................................................
6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................................................................
6.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts ...............................................................................
6.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant ...................................................................................................
Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................................................
Air Quality .....................................................................................................................................
Biological Resources .....................................................................................................................
Energy ...........................................................................................................................................
Geology .........................................................................................................................................
Greenhouse Gas Emissions...........................................................................................................
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................
Hydrology/Water Quality .............................................................................................................
Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................
Noise .............................................................................................................................................
Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................................
Population and Housing................................................................................................................
Public Services ..............................................................................................................................
Three on Garfield Project ii City of Carlsbad
Draft EIR October 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Recreation.....................................................................................................................................
Transportation/Circulation ...........................................................................................................
Tribal Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................
Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................
Wildfire .........................................................................................................................................
Chapter 7, List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................... 7-1
Chapter 8, Organizations and Persons Consulted ..................................................................................... 8-1
Chapter 9, References................................................................................................................................ 9-1
Appendices
Three on Garfield Project iii City of Carlsbad
Draft EIR October 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Baranek Consulting Group Cost Estimate
Three on Garfield EIR Principal/Sr. Project Manager Senior Environmental Planner/Senior Biologist Senior GIS Specialist Word Processor ODCs and Subconsultants TOTALS $185 $140 $100 $75
1. Project Initiation/NOP Scoping/Technical Studies
Review Application/Site Visit/Technical Studies 12 $2,220
Air Quality Memo $5,260 $5,786
Cultural Resources Study (Archaeology) $5,350 $5,885
Historical Resources Peer Review and Assessment Report $17,400 $19,140
Noise and Vibration Memo $4,900 $5,390
Traffic Analysis Memo $2,890 $3,179
Notice of Preparation (Draft and Final) 4 16 2 3 $200 $3,625 Task 1 Total 16 16 2 3 $36,000 $45,225
2. Draft EIR
First Screencheck Draft EIR
Executive Summary 4 20 $3,540
Introduction/Environmental Setting 16 $2,240
Project Description 16 $2,960 Aesthetics 24 $4,440
Historical (Cultural) Resources 4 $3,000 $4,040
Land Use and Planning 28 $3,920 Effects Found Not to be Significant 8 16 $35,525 $42,798
Project Alternatives 4 32 $5,220
Cumulative 4 $560
Other CEQA Sections (Growth, Signif Irrev.) 8 $1,120
References Cited and Certification 6 $840
Mitigation Monitoring Plan 2 12 $2,050
Quality Assurance Review 12 $2,220
Candidate Findings (Draft and Final) 24 4 $5,000
Word Processing/Production/GIS 12 20 $2,700
Other Direct Costs (Printing, Messenger, Materials) $750 $750 First Screencheck Draft EIR Subtotal 98 146 12 20 $39,275 $84,398
Second Screencheck Draft EIR 16 28 4 16 $750 $9,230
Public Review Draft EIR 8 8 2 8 $2,500 $5,900
Task 2 Total 122 182 18 44 $42,525 $99,528
3. Final EIR
First Screencheck Responses to Comments (RTC) 40 40 16 $13,000 $28,500
Second Screencheck RTCs/Final EIR 16 24 8 $6,920
Draft Final EIR 8 8 8 $3,200 Certified Final EIR 2 $370
Other Direct Costs (Printing, Messenger, Materials) $2,500 $2,750
Task 3 Total 66 72 0 32 $15,500 $41,740
4. CEQA Process Mgmt/Meetings/Hearing
Process Management (12 months @ 4 hrs per mon) 48 $8,880
Project Meetings/Hearings (10 @ 1.5 hrs each) 14 $240 $2,854
Hearings (2 @ 3 hrs each) 6 $480 $1,638
Other Direct Costs (Mileage, Parking Fees) $100 $110 Task 4 Total 68 0 0 0 $820 $13,482
Total EIR Cost $199,975
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
Fee Proposal Assumptions:
1) Technical Studies outlined in scope of services will be prepared by LSA, ASM and Applicant; additional or expanded technical studies will be considered out of scope services.
2) All but two of the team meetings and all of the hearings will only be attended by BCG's Senior Project Manager, with the exception of ASM's Historian who will
attend one meeting and one hearing.
3) No Initial Study will be required to accompany the Notice of Preparation; City will publish NOP and make scoping meeting arrangments.
4) Prints will include up to 20 bound copies of the NOP, 5 bound copies of two screencheck Draft EIRs, 20 bound copies of Public Review Draft EIR, 5 bound
copies of technical appendices, and 25 bound copies of the Final EIR and 5 copies of Certified Final EIR with all appendices.
8/15/2022 C-Three on Garfield EIR_Cost Table.xlsx
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93262D8E-6263-44C3-A7CA-967C93A8218B
ATTACHMENT 3
BCG Team Staff and Rate Schedule
Staff Person Title/Role Services to be Provided Hourly Rate
Baranek Consulting Group
Kim Baranek, Senior Project Manager Contract and Project Management,Draft EIR Chapters $185
Sheryl Horn, Senior Environmental Planner Draft EIR Chapters $140
Justin Palmer, GIS Manager Prepare EIR Graphics $100
Joel Miller, Document Production Manager Technical Edit EIR Documents $75
LSA
Ashley Davis, Principal Principal review of EIR Chapter 6.0 and RTC; Project Management $275
Adrianne Beazley, Associate Draft Chapter 6.0 $185
Laurel Frakes, Associate Draft Chapter 6.0 and RTC $180
Scott Verbuff, Senior Environmental Planner Draft Chapter 6.0 $185
Cara Carlucci, Senior Environmental Planner Draft Chapter 6.0 and RTC; Project Management $155
ASM
Shannon Davis, Project Manager Principal in charge of Historical Resources Analyses $160
Marilyn Novell, Architectural Historian Draft Historical Resources Analyses $120
Laura Taylor Kung, Architectural Historian Draft Historical Resources Analyses $120
Sherri Andrews, Technical Editor Quality Control Historical Resources Report $140
Suzanne Slade, Word Processing Technical Edit Historical Resources Documents $85
Delane
John Prince Draft Chapter 6.0 $195