Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Summerhill Apartment Communities; 2018-12-05;
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMEND AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY ANO APPLICANT FOR PAYMENT OF EIR CONSULTANT This Amendment No. 1 is entered Into and effective as of the 6th day of June , 2020, amending the agreement dated December 5, 2018 (the "Agreement'') by and between the City of Carlsbad, a municipal corporation, ("City"), and Summertlill Apartment Communities, ("Applicant") (collectively, the "Parties") for payment of EIR consultant. A. The Parties have negotiated and agreed to a supplemental scope of work and feeschedule, to be performed by Contractor which is attached to and incorporated in by this reference as Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, City and Applicant agree as follows: 1. In addition to those services contained in the Agreement, as may have beenamended from time to time, Applicant agrees to pay for those services described in Exhibit "A". With this Amendment, the total Agreement amount shall not exceed two hundred forty-four thousand sixty-five dollars ($244,066). 2. The Applicant shall pay to the City the actual cost of the Contractor's services.Such cost shall be based on the costs set forth in Exhibit "A". the Applicant has advanced the sum of fifty-five thousand six hundred ten dollars ($55,610) as payment on account for the actual costs of the Contractor's services. 3.All other provisions of the Agreement, as may have been amended from time totime, will remain in full force and effect. 4.All requisite insurance policies to be maintained by the Contractor pursuant to theAgreement, as may have been amended from time to time, will include coverage for this Amendment. Ill Ill . City Attorney Approved Version 1/30/13 DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC 5.The individuals executing this Amendment and the instruments referenced in it onbehalf of Contractor each represent and warrant that they have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind Contractor to the terms and conditions of this Amendment. APPLICANT: Summerhill Apartment Communities, a California car ration By: Jason Biggs (�Mfl§�/title) CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California Don Neu, City Planner ATTEST: for BARBARA ENGLESON City Clerk If required by City, proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Contractor must be attached. If a corporation, Agreement must be signed by one corporate officer from each of the following two groups: Group A Chainnan, President, or Vice-President Group BSecretary, Assistant Secretary, CFO or Assistant Treasurer 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. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CELIA A. BRE\NER, City Attorney BY: ---,----------Assistant City Attorney City Attorney Approved Version 1/30/13 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC SCOPE OF SERVICES AND FEE 1. Revisions to the Health Risk Assessment On June 4, 2019, Project Manager Danielle Griffith alerted the city that, due to circumstances outside ofESA's control, the HRA would need to be revised (original request is provided in Attachment l ). In response, the city, via email, asked that we hold off on amending the contract until there were other potential contract amendment needs (June 5 email from Chris Garcia, Attachment 2). Further, it was noted that the city would pass along the estimate to receive acknowledgement from the applicant of the increase in cost for the HRA. As detailed in the June 4, 2019, letter to Chris Garcia, because of refinements to the construction schedule, the construction HRA required remodeling. The HRA focuses on chronic, carcinogenic and non- carcinogenic risks in accordance with guidelines developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. ESA proceeded with revising and re-running the current AERMOD model to include the provided division of labor between the east and west parcels based on the city's direction to proceed, with the mutual understanding that we would amend the contract at a later time for this effort. 2. Accommodation of Multiple EIR Commenters and Revision Rounds When ESA entered into the EIR contract with the City of Carlsbad, it was anticipated that only one set of comments would be received from the city each time we submitted a preliminary draft, and that work would be directed solely by city staff. As specified in the 2018 Agreement between the City of Carlsbad and ESA, a first and second screencheck Draft EIR were to be submitted to the city for staff review, and BSA was to make revisions requested during these two rounds of review to create a final public review Draft BIR. This is reinforced by the Agreement between the City and the Applicant for Payment of BIR Consultant dated October 29, 2018 (Item 6 in the Agreement). While BSA is comfortable working under any comment/revision approach, our original scope of work did not anticipate the level of applicant involvement and the multiple roW1ds of review and revisions that would be necessary due to the applicant's significant involvement. As well, often comments in later versions supplemented, and were in addition to, previous comments made by the applicant. For example, after submitting comments in August 2019, in January 2020 the applicant raised new questions regarding the Friant Ranch Case, which required additional communication between the air quality team and the applicant. The additional conversations resulted in an expanded analysis of health impacts from regional emissions pursuant to Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch Case). In most of the review and revision efforts, the city's comments were minimal. The additional level of effort required to address comments on the submitted screencheck drafts of the EIR were primarily due to the applicant's heavy involvement. At one juncture, the city directed ESA to use our own judgement in considering whether or not to implement the applicant's requested DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC revisions. However, when we did so, we received specific feedback from the applicant and the city that the applicant did not understand why we did not implement their suggested revisions. In order to address this issue and to allow completion of the EIR without further question, ESA Director Bobbette Biddulph spent considerable time in ESA's February 2020 submittal to provide specific explanation where we chose not to implement the applicant's edits. This level of effort was not expected in our original contract; as such, ESA is requesting a budget augmentation to fairly compensate ESA for this effort. 3. Supplemental Information Requested In the Noise Analysis The applicant provided comments in the Noise and Vibration section of the EIR requesting detailed clarifications to a level not considered In ESA's original scope of work. For instance, the applicant requested a greater level of effort in defining and explaining tenninology generally used in technical sections of environmental documents, such as in the noise and vibration methodologies and analyses. In addition, the applicant provided comments requesting noise analyses of incidental activities and equipment not nonnally required nor provided in environmental documents. The comments included requesting analysis of incidental landscaping noise, which is not an everyday occurrence and thus not a meaningful contributor to off-site community noise, and swimming pool pump and maintenance equipment noise, which would be located in the interior of the project site and shielded from view and from noise-sensitive receptors and thus not a meaningful contributor to off-site community noise. 4. Expanded Policy Consistency Analysis In multiple rounds of review and various sections of the screencheck Draft EIR, the applicant requested additional policy and ordinance consistency analyses. While this issue was partially addressed by BSA explaining that CEQA requirements typically do not require an exhaustive analysis, as requested (January 22, 2020, conference call), it was also agreed that ESA would pUBh the policy consistency analyses further to ensure that the applicant was satisfied with the work product. This level of effort was not anticipated in ESA's original contract. The increased level of analysis did not change any significance conclusions of the EIR. Specific examples of effort we implemented for this task include the addition of policy consistency analyses for: • Public Safety • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Recreation • Noise and Vibration • Utilities and Service Systems The CEQA Guidelines and other supporting guidance documents, such as the "Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines" (November 2018), make clear that the focus of a policy consistency analysis should not be on the "conflict" with the plan, but instead, on any adverse environmental impacts that might result from any conflicts. DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC Policy consistency analysis should be focused on environmental policies. Any additional information included in the EIR is not necessary for CEQA compliance, but can be included at the lead agency's discretion. When the EIR was originally contracted, this level of effort was not anticipated or included. For this reason, ESA is requesting additional funding to support the additional effort we invested in this task. 5. Addltfonal Effort Resulting from Schedule Delay The original project schedule anticipated delivery of the public review Draft EIR approximately 6 months after contract initiation. ESA anticipated the level of effort for project management commensurate with this schedule. While it is acknowledged that some of the delays were due to changes in ESA's management structure, other considerable delays were outside ofESA's control. Specifically, the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) required significant back-and- forth between the city and the applicant's traffic consultant, resulting in multiple rounds of revision. ESA received the completed TIA in November 2019, 11 months after the EIR was kicked off in December 2018. During this time period, ESA was actively managing the project, including emails, phone calls, and conference calls with the city and, at times, the applicant. It was clear that during this time period the applicant ancl the city expected ESA' s continued engagement in project activities and coordination, including conference calls and other management activities. Thus, ESA is seeking coverage for 4 months of additional project management effort (note that 1 month is deducted from the request due to ESA project management transitions, which will be borne by BSA). Our estimate for this task is based on our typical monthly expenditures for ESA's Project Management Task (approximately $1,850/month), which comports with the original project budget set forth forthis task considering the original schedule. Further, in January 2020, the city alerted ESA that there would be additional delays as a result of the detennination that the city's Climate Action Plan included a calculation of vehicle miles traveled based on an incorrect input, which essentially invalidated \he Climate Action Plan as a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction plan. This city finding resulted in the need to revise the approach to the EIR's GHG analysis. ESA is awaiting the final GHG analysis in light of the necessary revised approach. While this is an additional delay, it is acknowledged that ESA has not been actively working between January and ettrly April. However, approximately two more additional months will be required to see the completion of the public review Draft EIR (estimated at June 2020). 6. Revisions Resulting from Climate Action Plan Error As noted above, due to issues with the city's Climate Action Plan, the applicant and ESA will need to revise the approach to the project's GHG analysis. As well, these changes will also have ripple effects to other sections of the EIR. Although a final version of the GHG analysis has not yet been provided to ESA, we have reviewed a draft version (March 16, 2020), which was submitted to the city by Helix on behalf of the applicant. Ascent Environmental is currently peer reviewing this document and a final version is expected to be submitted to ESA sometime in April 2020. Once received, ESA will need to revise the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions sections of the EIR. DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC ESA will review the final version of the Aviara Apartments Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis to be provided to ESA by the city after submittal by Helix Environmental Planning. ESA's review will focus on the sources of emissions that show a quantitative change in the emissions calculations as compared to the prior version of the report from July 2019. However, this scope assumes that ESA will not be required to assist in developing GHG mitigation measures for the Draft EIR or review the adequacy of the analysis given Ascent is currently peer reviewing the document. Based on ESA's review of the preliminary draft report dated March 16, 2020, it appears that construction-related GHG emissions have very slightly increased for the West Site building construction and East Site paving phases of construction and that operational- related GHG emissions have moderately increased primarily from vehicular (mobile) sources. Despite these increased GHG emissions, the preliminary draft report concludes that impacts are less-than-significant. Upon receipt ofa final version of the Aviara Apartments Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, ESA will update Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, including the regulatory setting and methodology discussions and the analyses in Impact 4.7-1 and Impact 4.7-2, in accordance with the revised final version of the Aviara Apartments Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. Furthermore, as the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR is dependent upon much of the same data as the technical analyses related to GHO emissions, ESA will also provide revisions to Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Additionally, although the revisions to the emissions appear to be relatively modest, ESA will also need to revise the construction health risk assessment to reflect the updated modeling runs. BSA will prepare the updates to the emissions modeling and construction health risk assessment and update the results in Section 4.2. Given the modest changes to the emissions, ESA does not anticipate changes to the impact determinations nor the need to modify the existing mitigation measures. ESA will also update Section 4.5, Energy, including the regulatory setting and methodology discussions and the analyses in Impact 4.5-1 and Impact 4.5-2 in accordance with the revised information. Based on a review of the preliminary draft report dated March 16, 2020, there have been revisions to the construction and operational GHG emissions modeling; therefore, ESA will need to update the criteria air pollutant calculations for construction and operations, which will include remodeling using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). ESA assumes the very slight change in construction GHG emissions will not reflect a change in the intensity of construction activity or equipment and that revisions to the construction noise modeling are not required. Furthermore, according to the preliminary draft report, the mobile source GHG emissions are based on the same daily trips and daily trip lengths, inclusive of Transportation Demand Management reductions, as the prior version of the report from July 2019. Therefore, ESA assumes that operational traffic volumes have not changed and that revisions to the operational traffic noise modeling is not required. DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC P dF ropose ee Task# Task Description Fee 1.0 Revisions to the Health Risk Assessment $13 540 2.0 Multiple EIR Commenters and Revision Rounds $ 11,130 3.0 Supplemental lnfonnation Requested in the Noise Analysis $2,910 4.0 Expanded Policy Consistency Analysis $ 4 300 5.0 Schedule Delay $ 10.980 6.0 Revisions Resultin11: from Climate Action Plan Error $ 12.450 l.Abor Subtotal $55.310 Reimbursable Exvenses $ 300 Total Proposed 1ree $ 55,610 With this approval of this amendment, ESA's total contract value would be increased to $244,065. Schedule for Completion ESA will commence work on the public review Draft EIR once (1) authorization is received on this contract amendment, and (2) the final Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis is complete. Also, ESA understands that there are some revisions forthcoming for the TIA, but it is assumed those revisions will not affect any of our analyses. As such, we need to receive the final TIA only 2 weeks prior to public review Draft EIR publication. Based on the above stipulations, the following is our anticipated schedule for completion of the public review Draft EIR: Anticipated Milestone Task Duration Comoletion Date Approval of Contract Amendment and Receipt of Final Greenhouse --April 24, 2020 Gas Emissions Analysis Resubmittal of Air ~uality, 3 weeks from completion of above May 15, 2020 Greenhouse Gas, an Energy Sections task City{ Applicant Review of New 2 weeks from submittal May 29, 2020 Sections Publish Pub! ic Review Dra1t EIR 3 weeks from receipt of final June 19, 2020 comments As directed by the city, this schedule and scope of work anticipates that ESA will submit only the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas sections of the EIR for additional review. All other sections of the EIR have been thoroughly reviewed by the city and the applicant, and remaining revisions are minor. Any additional rounds of review not explicitly noted above in the schedule would require an additional contract amendment. As well, additional any additional review/revision process would most likely jeopardize the above schedule. Attachments: 1. June 4, 2019, Letter to Chris Garcia, City of Carlsbad, "Aviara Apartments AQ and HRA Cost Modification" 2. Email exchange between Chris Garcia and Danielle Griffith, June 4 and 5, 2019. DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC ES_\~ .-' 1?69•2019 June 4, 2019 Chris Garcia Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 LO$ Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax Subject: Aviara Apartments AQ and HRA Cost Modification Dear Chris, Attachment 1 Based on the refinements to the construction schedule, the construction health risk assessment (HRA) will need to be remodeled. The HRA will focus on chronic, carcinogenlc and non-carcinogenic risks in acc-ordance with guidellnes developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD. This will entail revising and re-running the current AERMOD model to include the provided division oflabor between the east and west parcels. The unitized concentrations from the AERMOD modeling will be input into a revised spreadsheet to determine the cancer and non-cancer risks related to project construction. If risk from the project exceeds the 10 in one million threshold set by the SCAQMD, mitigation will be added (such as Tier 4 equipment) to reduce emissions to the greatest extent possible. Once modeling is completed, the results will be summarized and included in the Air Quality section oftheEIR. It is estimated that it will talce up to 3 days (not counting lhc time in which the model is running) to complete the modeling effort and provide the write up. ESA could provide the work product one week (S business days) atler receipt ofa notice to proceed .. See Table 1, RequestedB11dget, to see a detailed break.down ofbours. Name of Employee Eric Ruby Heather DuBois Danielle Griffith Victoria fuu Marlie Long Justin Hall Total COllt Table l Requested Budget Employee Hours BWing Required Rate (per hour) $260 2 $175 24 $175 12 $17' 24 $135 8 $120 12 -- Total Coet mo $4,200 $2,100 $4,200 $1,080 $1,440 $13,540 DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC Error! Reference source not found. June 4, 2019 Page2 Thank you for considering this request. and please let us know if you need any further infonnation. Thank you. Sincerely, Danielle Griffith Senior Managing Associate DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC Bobbette Biddulph From: Sent: To: Subject; Importance: Bobbette Biddulph Senior Vice President Bobbette Biddulph Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:45 PM Bobbette Biddulph FW: HRA -revision work High ESA I Environmental Science Associates 619.719.4181 direct 619.890-1435 mobile From: Chris Garcia lmallto:Chrls.Garcla@carlsbadca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 11:13 AM To: Danielle Griffith <DGrifflth@esassoc.com> Cc: Erle Ruby <ERuby@esassoc.com>; Justin Hall <jahall@esassoc.com> Subject: RE: HRA -revision work Good morning, Attachment 2 I discussed this amendment with my supervisor Teri Delcamp. She recommended that if you were comfortable, holding off on amending the contract until after the review period closes on the Draft EIR. That way only if there are any other needs, it could be wrapped into that amendment. However, it is up to you if you prefer to have the contract amended now. I can pass along the estimate to the developer and have him acknowledge the increase for the health risk assessment. Let me know how you would like to proceed. City of Garlsbad Chris Garcia Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov P: 760-602-4622 F: 760-602-8558 chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov Appointment-Based Submlttals and Resubmlttals are required. Appointments can be made by Phone: 760•602-2723 or t:mall: devappt(!!>cartsbadca.gov 1. DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC From: Danielle Griffith <DGrifflth@esassoc.com> Sant: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:47 PM To: Chris Garcia <Chrls.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Eric Ruby <E8uby@esassoc.com>; Justin Hall <lahall@esassoc.com> Subject: HRA -revision work Hi Chris -Attached please find the drat cost mod we discussed yesterday. Please let me know If you need additional Information, changes, etc. Danlolle Grtfflth Senior Managing Associate ESA I Environmental Science Associates Celebrating 50 Years of Work that Matters! 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 main 1213.599.4301 fax 213.599.4337 direct I 562.719.6467 cell dgrjffittt@esassoc.com I esassoc.com Follow us on Un1:rgt11 I ra~elxiQ.b I Twitter I !fil!l!l.t>i.PI I Vimeo 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: CA10E934-0DE5-439A-A0AF-D2C261DC5CDC AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND APPLICANT FOR PAYMENT OF EIR CONSULTANT THIS AGREEMENT is made this .5-fh day of ~~ 8, between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and SUMMERHILL APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "APPLICANT". RECITALS WHEREAS, the APPLICANT has filed with the CITY a request for approval of a proposed project identified as Aviara Apartments requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 2018-001 ); 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 Environmental Science Associates, 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's services shall conform to the Proposal attached as Attachment 2 and made a part of this agreement, and may require: a) Field exploration; b) Weekly communication with the City staff; c) Written reports; and 1 Rev. 01/31/2013 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. Such cost shall be based on the costs set forth in Attachment 3. The APPLICANT has advanced the sum of One Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty-Five Dollars ($188,455) 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 Environmental Impact 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. The APPLICANT agrees to permit the CONTRACTOR to enter upon his property and to perform all work thereon as the CONTRACTOR deems necessary to complete the Environmental Impact Report. It is agreed that the APPLICANT will not interfere with the CONTRACTOR in the performance of such work or attempt to influence such CONTRACTOR during the course of his investigation and report. 6. It is understood that the CONTRACTOR's responsibility will be solely to the CITY, and that the CONTRACTOR's accountability will be solely to the CITY, and not the 2 Rev. 01/31/2013 APPLICANT, who is not an intended beneficiary of the CITY's agreement with the CONTRACTOR 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 Applicant shall be responsible and reimburse the City for whatever legal fees and costs, in their entirely, may be incurred by the City in the defense of any third party claims and suits challenging any action taken by the City with regard to any procedural or substantive aspect of the City's environmental process and approval of Applicant's proposed proJect. 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 the EIR or the validity of the City's approval of Applicant's proposed project application. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings involving Applicant's proposed project have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval of Applicant's proposed project is not validated. 3 Rev. 01/31/2013 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written. Executed by APPLICANT this APPLICANT Jason Biggs Secretacy (print name here/title) lOO CARLSBAD, a municipal f State of California By: ~RBARA ENGLE (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: CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney Bynuw Assistant City Attorney 4 Rev. 01/31/2013 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County ~J'\'.tnC,Mrc,, } On N~~lZ-12ol2 before me, N\~UWk,,. ~,avr,Na-b.v1.-{~~l;c... Date Here Insert Name and Title of the okicer personally appeared])O~\as, tv'lcu:nad ~ ij,a9cn '2>·~ Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~ whose name~is/@);ubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/~xecuted the same in his/her~ authorized capacity(~. and that by his/he~signature(.s)..on the instrument the person!.fil._ or the entity upon behalf of which the person~cted, executed the instrument. 'aft : .. • e :H~E7ou.~E ;C7Hl;r f < .• ~... Notary Public -California z j ·-· · Siinla Clara County ~ Commiss10n # 2229066 - My Comm. Expires Jan 20, 2022 Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. s;gnatu~ Sigreof NotaryPub/ic OPTIONAL Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an u · ended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: --------~~------------------ Document Date: ____________ -,,,,c.-__________ Number of Pages: ____ _ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: _,,,..... ______________________ _ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer( Signer's Name: Signer's Name: • Corporate Officer -Title(s · ______ _ • Corporate Officer -Title(s): _______ _ • Partner -• Limited eneral • Partner -• Limited • General D Individual Attorney in Fact • Individual • Attorney in Fact • Trustee • Guardian of Conservator • Trustee • Guardian of Conservator • Other: • Other: Signer is Repr enting: __________ _ Signer is Representing: __________ _ o:oa I ICI 1:1lll]0:[1611311:0:o:o:s:o:o:o:11:1 El El E€afflti:I &:O:ll8CJO:o:ou 1:1 II I I a§a IJ a I Cl eca 1[1:11:11:1 II 1:110:0:0:0:s II a I Cl a a Ill 13131:1 Cl II 1:0:1 Cl DQJ ©2017 National Notary Association ATTACHMENT 1 NOT TO SCALE SITE MAP Aviara Apartments CT 2018-0002 I SOP 2018-0002 / CDP 2018-0005 / HOP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033) ATTACHMENT 2 WORK PROGRAM The following presents ESA's approach to management of the project from inception to final deliverable. Task 1 : Project Management ESA understands the City of Carlsbad is the lead agency for this project and will coordinate project management through the Planning Division of the Community & Economic Development Department. Eric Ruby, ESA's project director, and Danielle Griffith, ESA's project manager, will oversee the project throughout the EIR preparation and certification process. Eric, Danielle, and as- required ESA supporting staff will interface locally with City staff and with other affected agencies as necessary as well as participate in discussions with the City Council and presentations with members of the public at periodic project milestones. Based on review of the RFQP, ESA assumes that Eric, Danielle, and any other appropriate technical leads will attend any critical meetings (including the scoping meeting) as required by the City, Planning Commission, and City Council. Subtask 1 . 1 Kickoff Meeting Within 1 week of notice to proceed, ESA's Management Team will coordinate with the City to schedule and conduct an initial kickoff meeting with City staff and, if the City desires, the Applicant team. ESA will prepare a meeting agenda prior to the meeting, and will provide meeting minutes subsequent to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting would be to: • Establish procedures for communication, product review, progress reporting, and task completion. • Establish team roles and clear lines of communication between the City, ESA, and the Applicant team and their consultants. • Obtain any additional relevant plans, technical reports, ordinances, and studies. • Provide a list of additional data needs to the Applicant. • Establish a mutual understanding of the key issues to be addressed in the EIR, as well as to delve into project-related issues. • Discuss the project description and project objectives. • Confirm the project schedule and key milestones, including delivery of and timeline for review of the Applicant technical studies, and ESA-prepared studies. Subtask 1.2 Project Description ESA will finalize the Project Description within 1 week after the kickoff meeting, assuming all of the adequate project description details are provided. Task 2: Preliminary Work, Technical Studies, and Optional Initial Study The ESA team will obtain and review existing available information relevant to the impact analysis for the proposed project, beyond the project-specific materials. ESA will review the Site- Specific Reports/Letters/Exhibits prepared by the Applicant team, including the following: Tentative Parcel Map; Conceptual Architectural Design; Conceptual Landscape Plan; Fire Master Plan; Fuel Modification Plan; Slope Analysis Map; Preliminary Grading Plans (West and East); GHG Analysis/Climate Action Plan Consistency; Biological Resources Letter Report; Cultural Resources Survey Report; Geotechnical Evaluation; Drainage Study {West and East), Noise Study, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.; Storm Water Quality Management Plan (West and East); Traffic Impact Analysis Report; Aeronautical Studies; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report; Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report; Preliminary Title Report; Sewer Study; and Water Study. The ESA team will also conduct the following technical analyses: • Air Quality Analysis, including a Health Risk Assessment • Energy Modeling For all technical analyses under ESA's control, if potentially significant impacts are identified, we will immediately inform the City; beyond that, we will provide possible scenarios under which the potentially significant impact(s) would not occur. This will allow the City and the Applicant to determine whether the development plan or the construction plan could or should be altered to avoid or reduce the impact. As one example, if an air quality impact were to be identified, a possible solution might be to extend the construction schedule to reduce the peak daily emissions. We anticipate one round of review and comment for the following studies, the ESA prepared Air Quality/Heath Risk Assessment, peer review of Applicant provided studies, and Optional Initial Study. Subtask 2.1 Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment ESA will prepare an Air Quality Assessment to support the Draft EIR that will analyze the potential air quality impacts that may arise from implementation of the proposed project. The construction activities at the project site along with long-term project operation would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants (such as particulate matter) and ozone precursors. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is under the local jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The air quality analysis will be conducted in accordance with the procedures and methodologies set forth in the County of San Diego CEQA Guidelines and the County Guidelines for Air Quality. ESA will briefly discuss pertinent air quality statutes and regulations at the local, regional, state, and federal level that are applicable to the project. ESA will define the air quality significance thresholds applicable to the project based on County of San Diego CEQA Guidelines and the County Guidelines for Air Quality. The air quality impact assessment will include an evaluation of the proposed project's conformance with the applicable Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the SDAB focusing on RAQS regulations and strategies directly applicable to project-related emission sources. ESA will review the emissions modeling conducted for the project in the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Checklist Consistency for the Laurel Tree Apartments Project Report, prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., dated September 26, 2017. Based on the information contained therein and updated information regarding the project description (as well as any additional revisions based on ESA's peer review of the Checklist Report), ESA will quantify the project's construction and operational regional criteria air pollutant emissions using the SDAPCD-approved California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and will evaluate the emissions in comparison to the applicable SDAPCD significance thresholds. Operational emissions from mobile sources will be estimated based, in part, on traffic data provided in the traffic study. ESA will assess the project's potential effect on local carbon monoxide concentrations based on the screening criteria in the County Guidelines for Air Quality. Potential odor emissions, which would occur primarily during temporary construction activities at the site, will be addressed in the analysis based on compliance with applicable SDAPCD rules as well as California Air Resources Board (CARB) and county land use compatibility guidance and the project's compliance with regulatory measures to minimize odorous emissions. Cumulative impacts from concurrent nearby development projects, including nearby related projects, will be evaluated consistent with the County of San Diego CEQA Guidelines and the County Guidelines for Air Quality. If potentially significant air quality impacts are found, ESA will identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project's air quality impacts. With regard to the air quality analysis, ESA assumes that the Project Team will provide reasonably complete and comprehensive data regarding construction and operations. Such data include but are not limited to: construction schedule and fleet information; construction materials; size and location of buildings to be demolished; cubic yards of soil to be excavated, hauled, or imported; and a final traffic/parking report that evaluates intersection impacts upon project build-out. If these data are not known, ESA can assist in developing reasonable assumptions, which could be subject to approval of additional fees. For the purposes of this scope of work, it is assumed that no more than one project option (schedule) and one build-out year will be analyzed in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR. Additional project options can be analyzed under a separate scope and fee. In conjunction with the Air Quality Assessment, ESA will also prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the project. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted updated health risk assessment guidance in 2015. The 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments incorporates advances in risk assessment including consideration of increased health sensitivity for infants and children using age-sensitivity factors, and different assumptions for breathing rates and length of residential exposures. Given the scale of the proposed project and the proximity of sensitive receptors, including single- and multi-family residential uses to the west and south of the project site, ESA recommends a quantitative HRA be prepared to evaluate potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from construction of the project. The HRA will be performed in accordance with the OEHHA guidance to quantify potential impacts from toxic air contaminants (TACs) emitted during construction (primarily diesel particulate matter). Sources evaluated as part of the HRA will include on-site heavy construction equipment exhaust and project- related heavy-duty diesel trucks operating within 0.25 mile of the site. Maximum health risk impacts will be evaluated at nearby sensitive receptors. The analysis will incorporate compliance with applicable regulations that limit diesel emissions, such as the CARB anti-idling Air Toxic Control Measure, as well as project design features that will be incorporated to minimize construction emissions. If potentially significant health risk impacts are identified, ESA will develop mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to the extent feasible. The potential for operational TAC impacts will be assessed qualitatively based on land use compatibility recommendations from CARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Based on our understanding of the project, increases in long-term operational TAC emissions would be minimal. ESA assumes that the project site will not generate more than 50 heavy-duty diesel truck trips per day and will not include routine (non- emergency) use of diesel generators or other industrial-sized equipment. Therefore, a qualitative analysis of operational TAC impacts is appropriate. If the City determines that a refined operational HRA is required, ESA can provide the analysis under a separate scope and fee. The HRA will be included in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR, with supporting data included in the appendix (no separate technical report is proposed). Subtask 2.2 Peer Review of Applicant- Provided Technical Reports ESA's technical experts will conduct a third-party review of the Applicant-prepared technical reports respective to their environmental topics. ESA will review the technical reports pursuant to CEQA, City requirements, and all other applicable regulations, ordinances, and requirements to verify that each report provides the necessary information and data to support the technical analyses in the EIR. ESA will prepare a technical memorandum for each technical report summarizing the results of the peer review to be submitted to the City and Applicant team. ESA will identify any flaws in the methodologies and/or conclusions used in each technical report and, if no flaws are found, will incorporate the findings of the review, including the mitigation measures, into the text of the EIR. If inconsistencies/flaws are identified, ESA will work with the City and the Applicant's Consultant who prepared the study to revise the analysis/conclusions as appropriate. ESA assumes one round of review with preparation of a technical memorandum summarizing the results of the peer review for each report for this task. This scope of work does not include additional rounds of review for revised versions of the technical reports. If additional rounds of review are requested by the City, additional funds would be required. Subtask 2. 3 Optional Initial Study If requested by the City, ESA will prepare an Initial Study for the proposed project that is consistent with the procedural and substantive provisions of CEQA Sections 15063 and 15082. The Initial Study will include the Project Description and will clearly identify those environmental issues that will be evaluated in the EIR and those that would be scoped out of the EIR. The Initial Study will include a characterization of the site and area baseline conditions at a level of detail necessary to make the preliminary impact determinations. ESA will also prepare a Draft Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Environmental Document Transmittal (EDT) and a draft distribution list, which will identify all relevant agencies and stakeholders for the proposed project. Based on one round of review and comments, ESA will revise the Initial Study and NOP/EDT and the distribution list. Up to 20 hard copies and 35 CDs of the Final Initial Study and NOP will be reproduced. One electronic version of the Final NOP/EDT and distribution list in a PDF format will be provided to City staff. ESA will distribute 15 of the 20 hard copies of the Final Initial Study and NOP to the State Clearinghouse along with one hard copy of the Final NOP/EDT. ESA will provide City staff with up to 5 hard copies and 5 CDs of the Final Initial and NOP and the remaining 30 hard copies and 30 CDs will be distributed by certified mail with return receipt to a City-approved distribution list. The Initial Study will accompany the NOP. Task 3: Notice of Preparation and Attend Scoping Meeting As discussed above, ESA will prepare and circulate the NOP of the EIR to State Clearinghouse, local agencies, and interested persons. ESA understands that City staff will be primarily responsible for posting notices. ESA will conduct a Public Scoping Meeting (typically 1 hour in duration) for agencies and for the public. ESA will respond to any environmental questions/concerns raised during the Public Scoping Meeting. The Public Scoping Meeting and all public hearings will be attended by Eric Ruby, project director, and Danielle Griffith, project manager (and any technical staff as requested by the City). ESA will identify thresholds of significance for use in the EIR and develop baseline conditions. ESA will redefine the scope of environmental analysis, if necessary, based in the response to the public scoping process. Task 4: First Screen Check Draft Environmental Impact Report Subtask 4.1 First Screen Check Draft EIR The objective of this task is to prepare a comprehensive, accurate, and objective project- level EIR for the proposed project that fully complies with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and all applicable guidance and procedures established by the City of Carlsbad for the purpose of environmental review. This task assumes preparation of a First Screen Check Draft EIR for City review. The main purpose of the First Screen Check Draft EIR will be to thoroughly and accurately analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The document will be as free as possible of jargon so that the information it contains is accessible to the public. The methodology and criteria used for determining the impacts of the project will be clearly and explicitly described in each section of the EIR, including any assumptions, models, or modeling techniques used in the analysis. Furthermore, ESA will identify the criteria used to determine significance; identify any significant and less than significant, as well as direct and indirect, impacts resulting from the project; recommend appropriate mitigation measures as may be required; and, identify any impacts remaining after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. The First Screen Check Draft EIR will follow the format provided in the RFQP, which includes the following sections: • Table of Contents • Introduction • Executive Summary, including a comprehensive summary table of impacts and mitigation measures, areas of controversy, issues to be resolved, and a summary discussion of the proposed project and its alternatives • Project Description, including project objectives, purpose and need, project location, project characteristics, scope of project, project alternatives, and required approvals • Introduction to the Environmental Analysis • Environmental Topics (for each issue area evaluated): Environmental Setting Regulatory Framework (applicable federal, state, local, plans, policies, and standards) Thresholds of Significance Project Environmental Impacts (short- term, long-term, direct, and indirect) Mitigation Measures (for potentially significant environmental issues) Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Environmental Impacts (short- term, long-term, direct, and indirect) • Alternatives • Long-Term Implications, including growth- inducing impacts, a summary of project- related and cumulative significant unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes or commitments of resources • List of EIR Preparers • References • Appendices To ensure a common understanding of the scope and content of the EIR, ESA will prepare: (1) a comprehensive list of each of the thresholds that would be evaluated in the EIR; (2) a list of every impact statement that would be addressed to respond to each of the thresholds; and (3) a general discussion of the approach to the analysis for each impact statement. These items will be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to beginning work on the EIR (some thresholds may contain more than one impact statement). We find that this overview of the EIR allows for meaningful discussion and conversation before significant analysis is completed. ESA will also develop appropriate Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRPs) for any impacts associated with short-and long-term development of the site. ESA assumes that all geographic information system (GIS} data needed to create figures, maps, and/or exhibits to present data visually in the EIR will have been prepared by the Applicant's consultants during the preparation of the technical reports and will be provided to ESA at the beginning of this task. If the Applicant's consultants cannot provide the GIS data, additional funds would be necessary for ESA to duplicate the data. Specific details of the First Screen Check EIR will include the following components. INTRODUCTION AND f:::vE,·, 1 JTIV'E-:: ~' 1 f\ ll M /\ l""')Y _/, tJ\... _ vUIVI t·\, The introductory chapter and executive summary (chapter) are required sections under CEQA. These sections should provide sufficient detail to evaluate and review the environmental impacts of the project, but not give excessive detail. They may be used together as a "stand alone" document. As described in the RFQP, ESA will prepare an introductory chapter and executive summary pursuant to all applicable CEQA requirements. These sections will identify the project location and boundaries on detailed regional maps. They will include a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, and a list of the agencies that will use the EIR in their decision-making and the approvals. The executive summary will itemize and discuss briefly each significant effect of the project, as well as proposed mitigation measures required and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that impact. It will identify areas of controversy and issues raised by agencies or the public during the scoping process. Issues that would remain to be resolved will be called out, including the choices among alternatives and whether and/or how to mitigate the significant impacts. The EIR will comprehensively address and analyze the scope of issues identified for the El Ras described below. AESTHETICS/GRADING ESA will review the Applicant-prepared and submitted visual simulations for the project. ESA will describe the visual simulations and the impacts of the project to the visual quality of the area after review by the City, and ESA would include any necessary mitigation measures into the EIR. ESA will describe the existing visual setting of the project site, including public and private view sheds, elevations, and topography. The changes to the visual setting and the appropriateness of the quantity of grading as well as the grading design will be analyzed based on conformance with the General Plan and City's Hillside Development Ordinance to determine whether the project would result in a significant negative visual impact. ESA will identify the criteria used to determine significance; identify any significant and less than significant, as well as direct and indirect, impacts resulting from the project; recommend appropriate mitigation measures as may be required; and identify any impacts remaining after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. AIR QUALITY ESA will prepare an EIR section summarizing the findings of the Air Quality Technical Report and HRA, including the potential for any significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on air quality, and associated mitigation measures. The section will be closely coordinated with the El R's Project Description and GHG analysis to ensure the project and associated environmental effects are consistently characterized. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES In the Biological Resources EIR section, ESA will describe the biological setting and regulatory setting applicable to the project site based on our review of the Biological Resources Letter Report for the Laurel Tree Aviara Project, prepared by Helix. Additionally, ESA biologists will review available maps, photographs, and data to assess the potential for impacts to biological resources. The results of the analysis will be incorporated into the Biological Resources EIR section. The analysis will address whether implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to biological resources, and include appropriate mitigation to minimize those impacts. In addition, ESA will evaluate the project for consistency with the Carlsbad HMP and all other applicable requirements within this EIR section. ESA currently acts as the City of Carlsbad's Preserve Steward. ESA will not, as the Preserve Steward, be involved in any part of environmental compliance or review regarding this project. CUL TURAUPALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Following the finalization of the Cultural Resources Report after ESA's peer review, the environmental setting and results included in the report will be incorporated into the Cultural/Paleontological Resources section of the EIR. The Cultural Resources Report will serve as the basis for the analysis and will be included as an appendix to the EIR. The Cultural/Paleontological Resources section will include the regulatory setting applicable to the project site and will evaluate the project's potential to impact cultural resources. As determined through the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the project by HELIX, it appears that the primary cultural resources issues of concern for the proposed project would be previously undocumented archaeological resources found during construction, and that archaeological and Native American monitoring during construction is proposed as mitigation. ESA will review the technical report and available maps and historical aerial photos to assess the potential for impacts to cultural resources. The results of the analysis will be incorporated in18 the cultural resources section. The analysis will address whether implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to cultural resources, and include appropriate mitigation to minimize those impacts. Based on a preliminary review of available documents, including the cultural resources assessment prepared by HELIX, paleontological resources have not been addressed in any of the technical studies. However, impacts to paleontological resources will need to be addressed in the EIR as one of the four specific impacts assessed in the cultural resources section. To assess impacts to paleontological resources, ESA will request a records review and fossil locality check from the San Diego Natural History Museum. The results of the records check, as well as pertinent geological maps, will be reviewed by an ESA paleontologist to prepare a CEQA impacts analysis, including mitigation measures as required, in the cultural resources section. To reiterate from the RFQP, any and all research, report preparation, and determinations of significance shall be done in accordance with the requirements of the "Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines" dated September 2017. ENERGY Section 21100(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a detailed statement setting forth mitigation measures proposed to minimize a project's significant effects on the environment, including but not limited to measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines states that, in order to ensure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the potential energy implications of a project shall be considered, to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. ESA will prepare an Energy section for the EIR that identifies relevant information that addresses the energy implications of the proposed project. ESA will use the information from the project's air quality, GHG, and transportation analyses to quantitatively evaluate construction energy demand from construction equipment, haul trucks, vendor trucks, and construction workers. ESA will also quantify the project's anticipated operational energy needs, including from the project's water demand, which results in electricity usage from the supply, conveyance, distribution, and treatment of potable water. The operational energy needs will take into account compliance with the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, California Green Building (CALGreen) Code, and additional energy or water efficiency measures beyond regulatory requirements. ESA will also estimate the project's operational transportation-related energy needs based on the estimated fuel consumption for vehicle trips to and from the project site using trips rates in the project's transportation study and the estimated vehicle miles traveled found in the air quality, GHG assessments, and/or transportation analyses. ESA will summarize the project's anticipated energy needs and conservation measures. ESA will describe project commitments, design features, and mitigation measures that would minimize and reduce the project's consumption of fuel and energy and determine the potential for energy impacts based on the evidence. If potentially significant impacts are found, ESA will recommend additional feasible energy efficiency design features or mitigation measures to reduce impacts. For the purposes of this scope of work, it is assumed that no more than one project option (schedule) and one build-out year will be analyzed. Additional project options can be analyzed under a separate scope and fee. The section will be closely coordinated with the El R's Project Description and Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis to ensure the project and associated environmental effects are consistently characterized. GEOLOGY /SOILS Based on a brief review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by GeoSoils, the primary geology issues of concern for the proposed project would be unsuitable soils (undocumented fill; corrosive soil), unstable soils (e.g., expansive soils), erosive soils, and seismic shaking. Recent research indicates the Rose Canyon Fault, which passes about 5 miles west of the project site and appears to extend to the active Newport-Inglewood Fault, may have the potential to subject the property to strong seismic shaking in the event of an earthquake. ESA will address the potential geology-, seismicity-, and soils-related impacts of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA requirements. The evaluation will address whether implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the public or the environment. ESA will review reports, maps, and GIS data published by the U.S. Geological Survey, California Geological Survey, San Diego County, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and other sources to identify and summarize geologic, seismic, and soil resources conditions in the project area and develop comprehensive understanding of potential issues of concern. This would include incorporating the information and data provided in the geotechnical evaluation to assess the potential risks from seismic events, unstable soils, and other CEQA Appendix G criteria. ESA will identify the relevant regulations, building codes and standards, and local ordinance codes that would apply to construction and operation of the project, and will determine the manner and extent to which compliance would address potential impacts. This will include discussing how the State Construction General Permit and the California Building Code would address erosion and seismic issues. The degree to which such requirements will reduce potential effects and any additional actions that might be required will receive careful consideration. ESA will describe project grading and construction, including amount of disturbance, cut and fill, and final topographic configuration; explain the methods to manage stormwater to prevent erosion· and determine if where, and to what extent geoiogic hazards to ' structures would remain after compliance with building codes and geotechnical recommendations. If any impacts are determined to be significant, ESA will present mitigation, where applicable and feasible, to reduce the impacts to below applicable significance thresholds. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ESA will prepare a Greenhouse Gas Emissions section for the EIR, based on the CAP Checklist Consistency for the Laurel Tree Apartments Project Report, prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., dated September 26, 2017 (revised as necessary pursuant to ESA's peer review). The Greenhouse Gas Emissions section will assess the potential impacts associated with the project's generation of GHG emissions during construction and operations. ESA will summarize the CAP, describe measures that are applicable to the proposed project, and document the project's consistency with applicable CAP measures. ESA will discuss the project features that would reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the CAP. A significance determination will be made based on the project's consistency with the CAP. GHG emissions impacts are exclusively cumulative in nature and there are no project-level only impacts from a GHG emissions perspective. Therefore, the GHG analysis will also satisfy the CEQA requirement for a cumulative impact analysis. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Based on a cursory review of the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, the primary hazards and hazardous materials issue would be previous uses of the project site and whether any residual contamination may be present that would affect the construction or operation of the project. The resu Its of the previously noted Phase 11 assessment have indicated that a Soil Management Plan is recommended and that asbestos-containing pipes are present that will require removal as hazardous waste. Although hazardous materials would be used during the construction of structures, the transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials is heavily regulated and compliance with the law is anticipated to reduce risks of exposure. In addition, we understand that available aeronautical studies are available to analyze the potential impacts relative to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). ESA will address the potential hazards and hazardous materials related impacts of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA requirements. The evaluation will address whether implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the public or the environment. ESA will develop a site-specific setting of the environmental conditions using the published site- specific reports and maps, along with other relevant reports from property owners, and the state Geo Tracker and EnviroStor database websites. The information will be reviewed to identify data gaps, if any. We will use the setting and the proposed construction plans to identify the hazards and hazardous material issues that could result from the implementation of the plan. ESA will identify the relevant regulations and local ordinance codes that would apply to construction and operation of the project, and determine the manner and extent to which compliance would address potential impacts. If any impacts are determined to be significant, ESA will present mitigation, where applicable and feasible, to reduce the impacts to below applicable significance thresholds. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Based on a preliminary review of the various hydrology and water quality reports, the primary hydrology and water quality issues of concern for the proposed project would be erosion and water quality impacts. The analysis will incorporate the findings and recommendations in the various hydrology-related reports. ESA will address the potential hydrology and water quality related impacts of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA requirements. The evaluation will address whether implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the public or the environment. ESA will review reports, maps, and GIS data published by the state, county, FEMA, and other sources to identify and summarize hydrologic and water quality conditions in the project area and develop comprehensive understanding of potential issues of concern. This review would include considering the existing slopes around the borders of the property. ESA will independently review, verify, and incorporate, as appropriate, information and findings provided in project-specific investigations provided by the Applicant. In particular, we will evaluate the project design features proposed to control run-on and runoff. ESA will identify the relevant regulations, building codes and standards, and local ordinance codes that would apply to construction and operation of the project, and will determine the manner and extent to which compliance would address potential impacts. This will include discussing how the state Construction General Permit, local Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit, and low-impact development (LID) requirements would address erosion and runoff issues. The degree to which such requirements will reduce potential effects and any additional actions that might be required will receive careful consideration. ESA will also describe project grading and construction, including changes to site drainage, the methods to manage stormwater, and determine if, where, and to what extent impacts would remain after compliance with building codes and geotechnical recommendations. If any impacts are determined to be significant, ESA will present mitigation, where applicable and feasible, to reduce the impacts to below applicable significance thresholds. LAND USE PLANNING As stated in the RFQP, the project site is designated as R-30 Residential, zoned as Residential Density- Multiple (RD-M) zone, and is located in the Coastal Zone and Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program. In conjunction with the information provided in the RFQP, ESA will describe the environmental and land use setting of the project. This will include a discussion of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the City's adopted General Plan and Zoning Code, the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program, the City's HMP and HDP, and any other applicable land use plans. Using the visual simulations prepared by the Applicant's consultant, ESA will evaluate the project's compatibility with the surrounding existing and proposed development (i.e., increase in density, height, light/glare, multi-modal connections, etc.). ESA will examine the existing physical conditions as well as the potential future conditions and shall perform a detailed land use analysis on the appropriateness and timing of the proposed use. In addition, ESA will perform a detailed project review to confirm the project's compliance with City ordinances and policies. The ordinances and policies shall include the: (1) Carlsbad General Plan, (2) Carlsbad HMP, (3) Carlsbad Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19), (4) Carlsbad Subdivision regulations (Title 20), (5) Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance (Title 21), including the Growth Management, lnclusionary Housing, Hillside Development, and Coastal Resources regulations, (6) McClellan Palomar Airport ALUCP, (7) Landscape Manual, and (8) Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan. NOISE Based on a cursory review of the Aviara Apartments Updated Noise Study, prepared by Charles M Salter Associates, Inc., the primary noise and vibration issues of concern for the proposed project wou Id be project construction noise and vibration and operational noise on nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with the City of Carlsbad noise regulations. ESA will use the report (revised if necessary) to address the potential noise and vibration impacts of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA requirements. The evaluation will address whether implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the public or the environment. ESA will describe the existing noise environment of the project site and surrounding land uses, identifying noise sources and receptors in proximity and using the ambient noise measurements of the project noise study. This analysis assumes the noise measurements are suitable for the CEQA analysis based on number, locations, and type of data provided to complete the CEQA noise analysis of project construction impacts and operational impacts, including the proposed building operation and traffic noise increase from project operational vehicle trips generated on City noise standards and temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise levels at nearest noise-sensitive receptors. No additional ambient noise measurements are assumed to be conduction for this scope and fee. ESA will identify the relevant applicable noise and vibration construction and operational regulations and standards from the local general plan noise element and municipal code noise ordinance (i.e., the City of Carlsbad) that would apply to construction and operation of the project, and determine the manner and extent to which compliance would address potential impacts. ESA will compile a data needs list of project construction and operation data needed for estimating project construction and operational noise with calculations, spreadsheets, and modeling of construction noise and operational traffic noise. Vehicular noise impacts will be assessed based on data from the project traffic impacts analysis, which would be provided by the client, using computer noise prediction models that incorporate Federal Highway Administration traffic noise model (FHWA RD-77-108). ESA will assess the project site demolition and grading and building construction, and truck hauling of equipment, building materials, and demolition debris and excavated soil, including haul routes. ESA assumes project construction would occur within the allowable hours of the City noise ordinance. Any off-hours construction noise analysis (e.g., off-hours concrete pours) would be an optional task under separate scope and fee. ESA would identify applicable vibration background, regulations, and guidance for impact analysis to human annoyance and structural damage. Based on distance attenuation to nearest humans and structures, this analysis is assumed to be minimal and below vibration criteria due to distance, assuming no impact pile driving for building construction. ESA will assess the operational noise impacts of the proposed building and vehicle trips generated and contribution to traffic volumes on adjacent area roadways and incremental increase in traffic noise on receptors on adjacent roadways. ESA will assess the CEQA impact criteria on the exposure of humans in proximity to airports, i.e., nearby Palomar Airport, in accordance with it Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and City's General Plan. ESA will provide an analysis of the cumulative noise impacts of the project's construction and operation. ESA will identify which, if any, impacts are significant, and present mitigation, where applicable and feasible, to reduce the impacts to below applicable significance thresholds. POPULATION AND HOUSING Based on review of the June 2018 Development Monitoring Report prepared by the City, the City has 2,346 potential additional residential dwelling units, which could be allocated from the City's Excess Dwelling Bank. ESA understands that the project site was allocated224 dwelling units in 2015 by the City Council. However, the project is proposing 329 dwellings units, thereby increasing the residential density of the project site above the number of residential units anticipated in the General Plan. With this excess of dwelling units in mind, ESA will analyze the project to determine whether it will induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. ESA will analyze the project for compliance with the City's Housing Element and state and regional housing goals. PUBLIC SERVICES ESA will describe the project setting and shall determine the demands of the entire project for: (a) fire protection; (b) police protection; (c) schools; (d) parks; and (e) other public facilities (government offices, etc.). ESA will determine the ability of the agencies providing the services to meet the demands of the project in order to conclude whether a significant impact will be created. ESA will evaluate if sufficient public utilities are provided for the intensity of development proposed to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facility plan for Zone 5 will not be adversely impacted. ESA will review the emergency response plans of the City of Carlsbad shall be analyzed in conjunction with the proposed project to determine if the project will interfere with existing plans. ESA will identify the criteria used to determine significance; identify any significant and less than significant, as well as direct and indirect, impacts resulting from the project; recommend appropriate mitigation measures as may be required; and identify any impacts remaining after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The Transportation and Traffic section of the EIR will incorporate the findings of the project Traffic Impact Analysis report prepared by STC Traffic in January 2018 (and revised if necessary) and will provide an evaluation of intersection and roadway impacts associated with the addition of project- generated traffic, public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, construction, and the amount and adequacy of available parking (including bicycle parking). In addition, site access and related circulation issues (e.g., safety issues and hazards related to proposed circulation improvements, including pedestrian and bicycle access, will be evaluated. ESA, in coordination with the City and the traffic consultant, will develop mitigation measures, where feasible, to address any transportation and traffic impacts identified as significant. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The Cultural Resources Report, prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, included a records search, Sacred Lands File search and Native American outreach, review of historic maps and aerial photographs, an intensive survey of the project site by a HELIX archaeologist and Native American monitors (Luisefio and Kumeyaay), and preparation of a letter report. No archaeological resources were observed during the survey. However, the project site is situated within a culturally rich location, indicated by the numerous resources representing a range of uses that have been previously recorded within the surrounding area. ESA understands the City will manage consultations under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. In addition to the Cultural/Paleontological Resources section, the EIR would also address tribal cultural resources, per revisions to CEQA as required by AB 52. The assessment of impacts to tribal cultural resources will be based on outreach and consultation efforts conducted by the City with tribes on the City's AB 52 consultation list. ESA assumes that the City will provide a summary of outreach efforts and AB 52 consultation results, including contacted tribes, a summary of consultation efforts, and consultation findings, including any identified tribal cultural resources and any tribal cultural resources-specific mitigation measures developed through consultation. Following CEQA Appendix G, impacts to tribal cultural resources will be analyzed in a separate section of the EIR, unless ESA is directed otherwise. All work conducted by ESA, and contents of the EIR and appendices, shall strictly adhere to confidentiality requirements relating to AB 52, SB 18, and all other applicable regulations regarding Native American cultural resources including the City of Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ESA will describe the project setting and shall determine the demands of the entire project for: (a) wastewater treatment facilities; (b) water facilities; (c) storm water drainage facilities; and d) solid waste facilities. ESA will determine the ability of the agencies providing the services (described above) to meet the demands of the proposed project in order to conclude whether a significant impact will be created. ESA will review the sewer and water facilities proposed against the City of Carlsbad's Master Sewer and Master Water plans for conformance and shall incorporate the findings of the review, including any mitigation measures, into the text of the EIR. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE As required by and consistent with CEQA, the EIR will address all mandatory findings of significance. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The development of the proposed project may lead to cumulative impacts that need to be addressed. As required by CEQA, the EIR shall address cumulative impacts for the proposed project. This would include an identification of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, and would include a summary of the environmental impacts expected to result from those projects. The EIR will contain analysis of the cumulative impacts of relevant projects and any reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative impacts of the proposed project. ESA will identify the criteria used to determine significance; identify any significant and less than significant, as well as direct and indirect, impacts resulting from the project; recommend appropriate mitigation measures as may be required; and identify any impacts remaining after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. GROWTH INDUCEMENT As required by CEQA, the EIR will address the impacts of growth inducement created by the proposed project. ESA will identify the criteria used to determine significance; identify any significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the project; recommend appropriate mitigation measures as may be required; and identify any impacts remaining after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. ALTERNATIVES As required by CEQA, the ESA will analyze various project alternatives and provide an assessment of the potential impacts associated with each alternative. ESA will include in the EIR some discussion of why each of the selected alternatives was chosen for analysis. ESA will provide a listing of the environmental advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. Based on public input received during the public comment period for the NOP and at the Scoping Meeting, City staff and ESA will discuss possible alternatives to the project and agree upon which alternatives will be included in the EIR. Depending on the types of public comment received, the project alternatives will include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: 1. Project Alternative 1-"No Project" Alternative. This alternative shall analyze the impacts associated with the existing·conditions at the time the NOP is published as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved, based on the current General Plan and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. 2. Project Alternative 2 -"Alternative Site Analysis." ESA will analyze one alternative site for the proposed project. This off-site alternative analysis shall provide a general level review of all of the environmental issues that were evaluated for the proposed project site. The alternative site will be identified in consultation with City staff. 3. Project Alternative 3 -"Density Bonus" Alternative. ESA will provide a general level review of all of the environmental issues associated with a project that complies with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.86 "Residential Density Bonus and Incentives or Concessions." 4. Project Alternative 4 -"Reduced Project" Alternative. ESA will evaluate a variation of the project, such as a design that includes "tiny houses" on the East Parcel, which would allow for a reduced level of development intensity. CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS The EIR will include all sections mandated by CEQA. Additional sections required to be in the EIR, other than those mentioned above, include but are not limited to the analysis of effects found not to be significant, growth-inducement potential, significant irreversible environmental changes, and significant and unavoidable impacts, if applicable. Deliverables: ESA will provide five first screen check copies and five digital copies on CD of the Draft EIR documents for City staff review that will be consistent with CEQA and the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) within 12 weeks after entering into agreement with the City. Subtask 4.2 Second Screen Check Draft EIR ESA will respond to the City's comments on the First Screen Check Draft EIR, complete necessary revisions, and provide the City with a Second Screen Check Draft EIR for review and comment. ESA will coordinate with the City's project manager, who will assemble comments on, and suggested revisions to, the First Screen Check Draft EIR. One set of unified City staff comments will be provided to ESA. The City will reconcile conflicting review comments, if needed, between City staff. One complete set of revisions to the First Screen Check Draft EIR, pursuant to review comments, will be completed. The revisions will be prepared in conformance with the scope of work. (If additional revisions are required based on factors such as substantial changes to the proposed project, changes to the alternative project descriptions, or changes in report format, additional funds may be required.) Deliverables: ESA will provide five copies and five digital copies on CD of the revised Second Screen Check Draft EIR document, including appendices and exhibits, which incorporates staffs' written recommendations and revisions to the First Screen Check Draft EIR, and a first draft of an MMRP and Candidate Findings of Fact within 4 weeks after receiving First Screen Check comments from the City. Task 5: Public Review Draft EIR Upon receipt of final comments from the City, ESA will prepare the Draft EIR and submit it to City staff as a "Proof Check" Draft EIR for public circulation approval in a web-supportable format. In addition, ESA will prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC) and the Electronic Transmittal Form (ETF) for City review and approval. After City approval, ESA will forward the NOC and ETF to the State Clearinghouse with 15 hard copies of the Executive Summary and 15 CDs of the entire EIR. ESA will provide 20 spiral-bound hard copies and 25 digital copies on CD of the City-approved Draft EIR; 5 hard copies and 25 digital copies on CD of the technical appendices; 1 digital copy on CD of all documents in PDF format that can be easily posted (i.e., broken down into individual chapters and sections) to the City's website; and 1 digital copy on CD of all documents in original software format (Microsoft Word) within 2 weeks from receiving second screen check comments from the City. ESA will prepare the Notice of Availability (NOA) for review and approval by City staff. A final version of the NOA will be sent to the City in a PDF format. ESA assumes the City will post the NOA and the Draft EIR on the City's website as well as publish the NOA in the local newspaper. CEQA requires the newspaper publication of the NOA to occur for a minimum of 1 day. ESA will email the NOA in PDF format for the City to publish in the newspaper. Task 6: Final EIR Subtask 6.1 First Administrative Draft Final EIR The objective of this task is to prepare written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR that raise significant environmental issues and submit them for City staff review after the close of the public comment period. The responses to comments will be prepared based on the CEQA Guidelines. ESA assumes that the City will compile and transmit all written comments on the Draft EIR throughout the public review period as one unified set of comments following the close of the public review period. ESA will prepare a matrix of comments, which will include each comment letter, the comment number within the comment letter, the issue area of the Draft EIR to which it applies, and whether the response will be an individual response or a topical/master response. Responses that are within this proposal's scope of work and budget consist of explanations, elaboration, or clarification of the data contained in the Draft EIR with a budgeted effort of up to 20 comment letters consisting of an average of 4 pages for ESA technical staff to prepare responses and publish the First Administrative Draft Final EIR (Response to Comments Document). If more than 20 comment letters with an average length of 4 pages are received during the public comment period, additional funds may need to be allocated for ESA to prepare additional responses. The Response to Comments volume of the Final EIR will include all comment letters, responses to those comments, and standard introductory material. All comments will be numbered (to indicate comment letter and comment number), and the responses to those comments will be similarly numbered to allow easy correlation. In addition, where the text of the Draft El R must be revised, the text will be isolated as "text changes" in the Response to Comments volume, indicating deleted text by strikeout and inserted text by double-underline. The text of the Draft El R will not be revised. ESA will transmit the First Administrative Draft Final EIR (Response to Comments) to City staff for review and comment. This scope of work includes providing electronic copies of the First Administrative Draft Final EIR, and up to five hard copies, if requested. Subtask 6.2 Second Administrative Draft Final EIR Based on one round of unified comments on the First Administrative Draft Final EIR, ESA will revise the document and prepare the Second Administrative Draft Final EIR. The revisions will be prepared in conformance with this scope of work, which includes providing electronic copies of the Second Administrative Draft Final EIR (which will show in track changes the revisions that have occurred from the First Administrative Draft Final EIR) and up to 10 hard copies, if requested. This will allow City staff to focus on the revisions. After City staff provides final comments on the Second Administrative Draft Final EIR, ESA will proceed in finalizing and producing the Final EIR. ESA will produce 25 spiral-bound hard copies, 25 digital copies on CD, and 1 unbound reproducible copy of the Final Draft EIR; 5 hard copies and 25 digital copies on CD of any amended technical appendices; 1 digital copy of the Findings of Fact; 1 digital copy of the MMRP; and 1 digital copy on CD of all documents in PDF format that can be easily posted (i.e., broken down into individual chapters and sections) to the City's website. ESA will also provide the City one Master CD, from which copies can be made, that incorporates-in a clean format without underline, strikeouts, or comments-any changes made to the Final Draft EIR documents during the public hearing and certification process. ESA will prepare a draft NOA for review and comment. After receipt of comments on the draft NOA, a final version of the NOA will be prepared a submitted to the City electronically in Word format for distribution. ESA will also provide a draft version of the Notice of Determination to City staff for submittal to the County Clerk, if the project is approved. Subtask 6.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, ESA will prepare a comprehensive MMRP. The MMRP will contain all mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, as well as any text changes that are identified in the Final EIR, and it will provide columns for necessary actions, timing, and parties responsible for verification. The Draft MMRP will be provided during the Second Administrative Draft Final EIR submittal and the Final MMRP will be provided following the submittal of the Final EIR submittal. The Final MMRP will be provided in an electronic version, including all exhibits and graphics, in a web-supportable format. Subtask 6.4 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the lead agency must adopt findings for each of those significant effects identified in the EIR. Accordingly, ESA will prepare the Findings of Fact necessary to allow for certification of the EIR. This task assumes one round of review/City comment on the Draft Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the lead agency is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations outlining the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the B I Project Understanding and Work Plan project that outweigh its environmental consequences if the decision makers elect to override significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and proceed with approval of the project. As such, if the EIR concludes that any impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, ESA will prepare the Statement of Overriding Considerations with input from City staff regarding the benefits of the project. This task assumes one round of review/City comment on the Draft Statement of Overriding Considerations. The final version of the Findings of Fact (including the Statement of Overriding Considerations) will be provided in a digital version including all exhibits and graphics, in a web-supported format. Schedule of Completion Schedule and Deliverables ESA is prepared to begin the project and attend a kickoff meeting with the City within 1 week of receipt of a fully executed task order authorization and the City's written notice to proceed. Key milestones include: • Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting within 4 weeks of entering an agreement with the City and project kickoff. • Screericheck Draft EIR within 12 weeks from entering agreement with the City. • Second Screencheck Draft EIR within 4 weeks from receiving comments from the City. • Public Draft EIR and Public Circulation within 2 weeks of approval of second Screencheck Draft EIR. • Response to comments and Final EIR within 4 weeks of close of public review period. • Planning Commission Hearing June 2019. • City Council Hearing June 2019. ESA is able to achieve this aggressive schedule because we have a depth of resources across the firm of over 525 strong, so we can fully staff this project. Figure C-1 following this page, shows our Project Schedule. Figure C-1 Task 1 Project Management (Includes meetings requested by City) Kick-Off Meeting· Project Description Planning Commission Hearing City Council Hearing - Task 2 Preliminary Work, Technical Studies, and Optional Initial Study 2.1 Air Quality/ Health Risk Assessment/Energy 2.2 Peer Review Applicant-Prepared Technical Report 2.3 Optional Initial Study Task 3 Notice of Preparation 3.1 Attend Scoping Meeting Task 4 Administrative Draft EIR 4.1 First Screen Check Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Second Screen Check DEIR Task 5 Public Review Draft EIR 5.1 Public Review Period i Task 6 Final EIR · -----------1-- 6.1 First Screen Check Draft Final EIR 6.2 Second Screen Draft Final EIR 6.3 Submit Final EIR 2018 2019 AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN I - * ---- -Document Duration ll!ll!Bllilllll Task Duration * Meetings • Milestones Hearings Cost Proposal for Avlara Apartments DEIR ATTACHMENT 3 ESA Labor Detail and Expense Summary ......,.,_ --::::::-. ::::::. :=-. --------TM=• TM=• . . ' Tasll:I Tnk NamelOncrl-.... ,.. • ,,. • 211 • 20I • "' • 175 • 100 • 111 • 120 • 100 120 • 100 1.0 l"l'otKt--..-.~ ........ ,.......,.Cttr, 15 '3 20 ,.,,. 71).00 • ,,.,,. """°"" ,,., 12.00 2.2!0 1.2 --12 l.!110 . 19.00 2.300 ,.. 100 1.00 • 100 .. ,. IHllll!Rlllf~IW ,. • fZf70 ... 01.00 • 12,730 2.2 --• • ~R-..-11 , .... 11.00 • 1 .... -... 3.00 • ... ~ ... Slopelilap,~f'W\GeoT«:tncal .., ,.00 • .,. --·-7.00 • ,..,. 1&~1 .., ,.00. "" Fh ..... ~lmdf'lan "" •.00 • 700 --'·"" 5.00 • 1.025 &Rdt(Wllllandf.llQ ,.,,. 12.00 • 2-'20 --cw-ne..q ,.,,. 12.00 • 2.320 ,...., "" • •.00 • 700 r, • .....,1111c.'CW.allklfl 12 ""' ' 12.00 • 2,100 ---'·"" • 5.00 • 1.720 ,., ---. • • ., -d~ • "" ' 8.00 '"' Anlnd&copirG ......-ci '·"" • 8.00 ,, .. ... fhtaa-CMdl:Dnfta..wlro!lfflMtal~llepo,t "" 10 10 2200 22.00 • 2,470 ., -"' 1.00 "' .. ..-......., 2 ,_.., 11.00 , .... -• 3,710 . 25.00 • 3.710 --22 '·"" s 36.00 • . ... ,.,...., 12 ,.., . "" ,.00 • 2.490 -·-,. 12 7,156 • ... 82.00 • 8,115 .. ·-,. " , .... 53.00 • """ """' ,. . ,.. • ,00 35.00 • . .... 21 '·"' • S•O 34.00 •.7115 ""-,. '·"" • 200 33.00 •,OS -22 , .... ... 32.00 • . ... _....., 22 , .... • S•O 32.00 ' .... ..-dU.F'l9rrir'G " 22 . ,,. 37.00 ,., . ' " 15 .... S•O 36.00 .,.. ---12 '·"" 13.00 , __ -,. . .., 25.aJ ' 3.020 4,710 31.00 S 4710 flllll~R-'·""' 5.00 ' ,...,, rd&MYic:aS.-,,,. ,. . .., 21.00 ..... WlndllbyF"1l'IClrlllol~ . t,1,0 7.00 1,150 -10 "" 15.00 ' 2,310 nu:mert.-clat.'CEQ,. ~ • ,.., 13.00 ' 2.D•O -20 .,., mo .. .oo ' .... ., lecoftd acr-CMd:Dnlll:Bl ,. 12 ,. .,., " ,.,. 68.20 ' 9.700 ,., l"IIMlc ....... Dnft. 12 ,. ' '·""' 38.00 ' '-"" ... --• ., FlntAdn'iriltr..,_DrlftA'aEIR 20 " ,. 10,'20 ...00 10,420 ,.2 Slool'.:l~Dlll'IANIEIR ,. ,. • .... <12.00 . ..,. .. ..... " f,100 11.00 ' 1,100 •.. ~ol~eor.der~ 12 ,_,., 22.00 ' 35•0 Toia,Hola', 71) " 13 115 ,. 45 '" 74 145 ,on ,. ., " 1114 ToWLebofCo.b: 18.200 ' J.1110 ' 15_._, $ ' ' ,..,. • ""' • • .. ~' ·-. 14.!IUJ S HIP,510 $ .... • 4520 s ,.200 17>770 P9fcento1EltDlt•L.-HQw'l0rw ..... , ..... .,,, 0,-i'ft 1,1,7<JI, ,,,. ..... ,, .... ,,,. 12.1'1t """ ,.,,. ,..,. r.," .,,,. Pan:entcr1E91:Nt-Tobll Co,< ,.,,,. 221< .,,. . ..,. ,. .... 25" ...... ,,.,,. ..... "'" , .... 25" ... ,,. IESAL.abotC:0.t 111.no ESA NoM.abor EJqlll'nM9 ·--2,345 SuMoulUANon-l.abof~ ,.,.. PROJECT TOTAL $ 1,1,11s I Ootional Initial Study Task ., • .,...SIi.di 12 " . .... . • s '"' ,. ,~ " " Toi.I Hours . 12 " . •• ,. Subtota• • Labor Cosb ' .... '•00 ' .. . ' 1,620 $ . ' 2,400 $ 8,-460 $ .... 400 • .... ,, .. • 7340 EIA Lab« C:0.ll 7340 Ootional Task Total 7 :MO