Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAcacia Investors LLC; 2008-11-19;- I *• ,to ^'<°.5<3JoTjon NO. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND APPLICANT FOR PAYMENT OF EIR CONSULTANT BRIDGES AT AVIARA EIR 06-01 THIS AGREEMENT is made this / ^ day of /}<TMr*lw,200 %, between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and Acacia Investors, LLC. hereinafter referred to as "APPLICANT". RECITALS WHEREAS, the APPLICANT has filed with the CITY a request for approval of a proposed project identified as The Bridges at Aviara requiring an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, CITY has determined that its current staff is inadequate in number to process the Environmental Impact Report in a timely and thorough manner; and WHEREAS, APPLICANT in order to ensure the expeditious processing of said Environmental Impact Report desires to pay to CITY the amount necessary to hire a CONSULTANT. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions, it is agreed as follows: 1. The CITY will engage the firm of BRG Consulting Inc. hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR" to perform the necessary work in the processing and monitoring of the Environmental Impact Report for that area more particularly depicted upon a site map attached as Attachment 1 and made a part of this agreement. 2. It is understood that the CONTRACTOR services shall conform to 1 Rev. 07/31/00 the Proposal attached as Attachment 2 and made a part of this agreement, and may require: a) Field exploration; b) Weekly communication with the City staff; c) Written reports; and d) Such other work necessary to properly evaluate the proposed project as directed by the Planning Director. 3. It is understood that the CITY will direct the CONTRACTOR to complete a draft and final Environmental Impact Report at the earliest feasible time. The CITY will advise the APPLICANT in writing of any impacts which may render the proposed project infeasible within a reasonable time after CITY has received the CONTRACTOR 's conclusions in writing. 4. The APPLICANT shall pay to the CITY the actual cost of the CONTRACTOR 's services. Such cost shall be based on the costs set forth in Attachment 3. The APPLICANT has advanced the sum of $211,702.00 as payment on account for the actual cost of the CONTRACTOR'S services. In the event it appears, as the work progresses, that said sum will not be sufficient to cover the actual cost, the CITY will notify the APPLICANT of the difference between the amount deposited and the new estimated cost. CITY will ensure, to the extent feasible, that no further work will be performed by the CONTRACTOR incurring an obligation beyond the amount advanced without an appropriate amendment to this Agreement. If the actual cost of preparing the report is less than the APPLICANT'S advance, any surplus will be refunded to APPLICANT by CITY. 5. It is understood that the CONTRACTOR shall be an independent 2 Rev. 07/31/00 contractor of the CITY and CITY shall not be liable for any negligent acts or omissions of the CONTRACTOR. The APPLICANT agrees to permit the CONTRACTOR to enter upon his property and to perform all work thereon as the CONTRACTOR deems necessary to complete the Environmental Impact Report. It is agreed that the APPLICANT will not interfere with the CONTRACTOR in the performance of such work or attempt to influence such CONTRACTOR during the course of his investigation and report. 6. It is understood that the CITY will attempt to bring the Environmental Impact Report to Planning Commission and City Council as soon as possible, barring no delays from the APPLICANT. 7. The City shall not be required to defend any third party claims and suits challenging any action taken by the City with regard to any procedure or substantive aspect of the City's environmental process and approval of development of the property. If the City, in its sole and absolute discretion defends such action or proceeding, the Applicant shall be responsible and reimburse the City for whatever legal fees and costs, in their entirely, may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding. The City shall have the absolute right to retain such legal counsel as the City deems necessary and appropriate. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any award of court costs or attorney fees made against City in favor of any third party challenging either the sufficiency of a negative declaration or EIR or the validity of the City's approval of the application. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. Rev. 07/31/00 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written. Executed by APPLICANT this 29th day of September, 2008. APPLICANT: ACACIA INVESTORS, LLC (Name of Applicant) By: Its Manager, Arlen Capital, LLC By: Its, Manager, Don Augustine //// s-IL&x. c&t^^jZ&f^ CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California City Manager or Mayor ATTEST: DON AUGL187TINE, Manager .ORRAJfljE M. WOOD,'City Clerk By: Its Manager, Vantaggio Management Partners, LLC By: Its Manager, Homeplace Investment Corporation By: Stephen L. Taylor, President '"o,*,^ STEPHEN L. TAYLOR, President (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 officers) signing to bind the corporation.) (If signed by an individual partner, the partnership must attach a statement of partnership authorizing the partner to execute this instrument). APPROVED AS TO FORM: RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney ant City Attorney Rev. 07/31/00 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO On October 1, 2008 before me,Judith M. Glasgow personally appeared Don Augustine Notary Public, _, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(tf) whose namejX) is/at* subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they- executed the same in his/hor/thoif authorized capacity^es), and that by his/her/their signature^ on the instrument the personffi, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(X5 acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. \ConwMMton* 1737530 Notary Jutottc - CaHforrria | Ian Otogo County MyComm.HalmApre.aOH Rev. 12/17/2007 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO On October 2. 2008 before me, Judith M. Glasgow Stephen L. Taylor Notary Public, , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactorypersonally appeared evidence to be the person!/) whose name(X> is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies)> and that by his/her/their- signature(^) on the instrument the person(#), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(XI acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. _.<;S i^nature of Notary) CommlMton* 1737530 Nototy Public - California i Ian Otago County - MyComm. Bplm/»f». 2011 \ Rev. 12/17/2007 SITEMAP NOT TO SCALE Bridges atAviara a a EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES BRG will prepare an EIR for the proposed project that addresses all project components as well as current and future discretionary actions associated with implementation of the project. We understand that the CEQA document must ultimately be certified as reflecting the independent judgment of the City. We understand that City staff will review screencheck documents and provide comments, and our work will be responsive to the guidance provided by the City. BRG will work closely with the City throughout the CEQA process and follow the City Environmental Review Procedures. BRG will prepare environmental documents that comply with the criteria, standards and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) as amended, the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), and the regulations, requirements and procedures of any other responsible public agency or any agency with jurisdiction by law over the project. If there are any conflicts between the City of Carlsbad's requirements and those of any other agency, the City's shall prevail because the City is the CEQA Lead Agency. The EIR will assemble all available data, provide an independent evaluation of any existing data, originate new studies [where applicable), and provide an assessment of the probable short and long-term significant impacts and cumulative impacts of the project. The EIR will provide an evaluation of all feasible mitigation measures that could be carried out to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of the proposed project. BRG will work closely with City staff to identify project alternatives, which avoid or reduce project-related impacts and provide a quantitative, comparative analysis of each alternative. The following provides a detailed description of our proposed scope of services: Task 1 Project Initiation Project initiation will involve attendance at a kick-off meeting (see Task 10), initial data collection, and a site visit. In preparation for the kick-off meeting, BRG will prepare a list of data needs and a refined project schedule. As an outcome of the meeting, the project team will have a clear understanding of the roles of each team member. The overall program approach will be discussed and the schedule will be refined. Project goals and objectives will be identified as well as potential alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. Subtask 1.1 Data Collection and Site Visit BRG will conduct initial data collection for the project (e.g., obtain current ambient air quality data, obtain farmland mapping categories from the Department of Conservation, etc.) and review the existing environmental database. We will conduct a site visit to obtain a full understanding of the existing environmental setting of the project site and surrounding land uses and determine potential locations for view simulations. Site photos will also be taken of the project area. Subtask 1.2 Project Description BRG will prepare a Project Description of the proposed project, suitable for inclusion in the EIR. The purpose of this task is to ensure that we have a complete understanding of the project prior to commencing If September 17,2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project environmental analysis. The City will be responsible for the preparation and distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Task 2 First Screencheck Draft EIR BRG will prepare a First Screencheck Draft EIR for the project. We understand the need for the environmental analysis to follow the thread of logic from beginning to end (i.e., setting, threshold of significance, impact, mitigation and conclusions) and that conclusions must be supported by fact. We understand that the role of an EIR is to identify substantial evidence that there may be a significant effect and where there is disagreement among experts, disclose the disagreement and state the lead agency's position. The EIR will include the sections listed below. Table of Contents The EIR will begin with a list of its contents including identification of all tables, figures and Technical Appendices. Introduction The Introduction will define the purpose, scope and legislative authority of the EIR, requirements of CEQA and other pertinent environmental rules and regulations. This section will also describe the EIR process, structure, intended uses of the EIR, required contents and its relationship to other potential responsible or trustee agencies. Supporting maps and figures will be provided. Executive Summary The Executive Summary will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15123. This section will summarize the proposed project including the project's technical and economic characteristics. This section will identify each significant effect of the project, with proposed mitigation measures which would reduce that effect; known areas of controversy including issues raised by agencies and the public; and, issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant effects. The Executive Summary will also include a list of required discretionary approvals and corresponding agency with approval authority. Project Description The Project Description will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15124, and provide the project location, including project location maps, within the regional context, and a description of the proposed project, including the proposed land use site plan and circulation. This section will provide an overview of the project's background and history. The Project Description will list the basic goals and objectives of the project. In addition, the section will identify the scope of the proposed project that will serve as the "Basis of Analysis." Lastly, the Project Description will include a discussion of the environmental procedures and intended uses of the EIR, as well as list the discretionary permits and approvals required for project implementation. Maps and figures will be provided to support text descriptions as necessary. September 17, 2008 l'"\ i EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project Environmental Setting The Environmental Setting will be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline §15125. The section will provide an overview of the local and regional physical environmental conditions. This section will describe the existing site conditions, including a description of the existing land uses and natural resources occurring on the project site. The Environmental Setting section will be detailed enough to constitute the baseline physical conditions by which impact significance can be determined. Environmental Impact Analysis The Environmental Impact Analysis section will address all the environmental topics listed as potentially significant in the City's CEQA checklist, some of which will be readily identified as having no potential for an adverse environmental effect and can be treated briefly as "effects found not to be significant" (CEQA Guidelines §15128). Each of the environmental topics with the potential for significant impacts will be fully addressed pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15126, with the EIR analysis including a description of the relevant environmental setting, criteria for determining significance of environmental impacts, potential environmental impacts, level of significance of environmental impacts, recommended mitigation measures to significantly reduce or avoid the significant impacts, and an analysis of significance or residual impacts after mitigation measures are applied. The EIR will provide an evaluation of feasible mitigation measures that could be carried out to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of the proposed project. Where several mitigation measures are available, the basis for selection from among these measures will be discussed. The discussion of mitigation measures will provide the background for findings under CEQA Guidelines §15091 (a). Mitigation measures will be discussed in sufficient detail to provide the basis for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and comply with CEQA Guideline § 15126.4. The following section summarizes the BRG Team approach to the primary technical analyses for the EIR. All text will be supported by figures, tables, and charts as appropriate. BRG will perform all EIR analyses, with the assistance of its subconsultants for specific technical studies, as identified below. Aesthetics. The project site is visible from Poinsetttia Lane. Surrounding land uses include townhomes to the north, single-family homes to the east, and apartments to the west. These land uses currently have views of the project site. Potential aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project include public viewsheds and the design and orientation of the proposed project. The following approach is envisioned: 1. The existing aesthetic setting will be described in terms of public viewsheds, elevations, and topography, and existing views onto the site, landscape features, and applicable plans and ordinances related to visual aesthetics and grading (e.g.. Scenic Corridor Guidelines, General Plan policies. Local Coastal Program policies). 2. Photos will be taken of the project area from public viewshed areas, including Poinsettia Lane facing both east and west at the existing terminus and Ambrosia Lane to help characterize the existing aesthetic setting of the project area. II September 17, 2008 62 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project 3. Up to five (5) visual simulations will be prepared showing existing conditions and the proposed development conditions including proposed graded pads and graded pads with the proposed maximum building heights depicted. We assume the project engineer will provide existing and proposed topographical information to BRG in CAD format. A maximum of five views/visual simulations have been assumed for this scope of work. 4. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified. 5. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated including compliance with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Scenic Corridor Guidelines, and Local Coastal Program. 6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant aesthetic impacts. 7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated. Agricultural Resources. The project site is disturbed and has been in agricultural use in the recent past. The site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and will require compliance with the agricultural conversion requirements. The following approach is envisioned: 1. The agricultural setting will be described in terms of the historical context of farming activity on the site. County-wide trends in agricultural conversion, the acreage of each of the various important farmlands inventory mapped farmland on the site, the economic value of any farmland that will be converted to non-agricultural use. BRG will contact the Department of Conservation and obtain Important Farmlands Maps for the site. The areas of important farmlands will be quantified using GIS Arcview. 2. The agricultural soils on site will be evaluated using U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Survey data for the project site. The soils Capability Classes and Storie Index ratings will be identified. 3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified. 4. The potential agricultural impact associated with implementation of the proposed project will be evaluated. This evaluation will include a discussion of the agricultural conversion requirements of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, conversion of agricultural lands, and the project's consistency with City of Carlsbad General Plan policies related to agricultural uses. 5. Mitigation measures will be identified (if applicable) for any significant agricultural impacts. 6. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated. Air Quality (including Greenhouse Gas Analysis). BRG will utilize Brian F. Smith & Associates (BFSA) to prepare an air quality impact assessment will analyze air quality impacts from the proposed project. A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis will also be included in the air quality assessment. All air quality impacts will be based upon Federal, State and Local Significance Thresholds. The following approach is envisioned: September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project Existing Ambient Site Vicinity Air Quality Levels • Existing ambient air quality data will be collected from the California Air Resources Board. Identified ambient pollutants will be quantified to show attainment status under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Construction Modeling Identify air quality construction impacts per the methodologies within the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook developed by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A list of construction grading equipment, earthwork quantities and phasing will need to be provided for the analysis to commence. • Calculate the health risk associated from the particulate matter due to diesel emissions as generated from either assumed or proposed construction equipment at each phase of the development. • Best Management Practices (BMPs) and or mitigation measures will be recommended to control onsite construction emissions and dust levels. Project related Vehicular Trip Assessment • Operational impacts utilizing related to the proposed project trip generation will be identified. The average trip generation and anticipated round trip distance for the proposed project will be needed. Air Quality impacts will be determined utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 model which utilizes emission assumptions obtained from the EMFAC 2007 model. Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Provide a greenhouse gas emission analysis for the proposed project consistent with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32), which requires that by 2020 the state's greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopt regulations requiring the reporting and verification of statewide (GHG) emissions and requires that CARB adopt statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions in 1990, to be achieved by year 2020. CEQA is not explicitly addressed in AB 32. However, because a key objective of CEQA is public disclosure of the reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects, case law has established that CEQA documents should disclose a project's contribution to climate change. Furthermore, the Attorney General's office argues that AB 32 requires a climate change analysis. The Attorney General's position is that AB 32 is an "adopted air quality plan" requiring the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Any project that adds to emissions, conflicts with the goal of reducing those emissions, according to the Attorney General. September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges ot Aviarg Project Projects that conflict with or obstruct implementation of an "applicable air quality plan" should analyze that conflict in an EIR. This argument is based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which lists one factor for determining if an air quality impact is significant the consideration of whether the project would conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of an air quality plan. The dilemma for EIR practitioners and CEQA Lead Agencies is that there are no statewide significance criteria or approved mitigation methods concerning GHG emissions. BRG would look to other Agencies and recently prepared EIRs throughout the State to develop an appropriate, legally-defensible threshold for significance. This threshold would be presented to the County of Imperial for approval prior to beginning detailed analysis in the EIR. BRG will present feasible measures to offset or reduce project GHG emissions, as identified in AB 32. We will work with the County of Imperial and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District to identify features that can be incorporated into the project that would reduce the project related greenhouse emissions (e.g.'s, solar, energy efficiencies). Other potential impacts associated with potential climate change issues, such as flooding, drought, wildfire hazards), would be addressed within the context of the appropriate EIR section, such as Hydrology, the Water Supply Assessment, and Hazards. The proposed greenhouse gas emissions of the business-as-usual plan and recommend mitigation measures to reduce emissions as required by AB 32 will be estimated. Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated. Biological Resources. BRG will utilize Merkel & Associates (M&A) to conduct a third party review of the applicant-provided 2006 Dudek and Associates biological survey and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) compliance report will be conducted. The review would include: evaluation of the methodologies and conclusions contained in the reports for legal and scientific adequacy and accuracy to ensure that the analyses are of a scale and level of effort appropriate to the requirements of the project; and identification of any flaws in the methodologies and/or conclusions. We will rely on the HMP consistency analysis provided in the HMP compliance report to evaluate the project's consistency with the HMP in the EIR. We also assume that the biological survey addresses the whole project; however, as part of the third party review, any additional impact to open space and habitat areas resulting from the project will be identified. Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated. We assume that Dudek and Associates will be responsible for making any necessary changes to the biological survey and HMP compliance report and that the survey and report will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR. 1 September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges al Aviara Project Cultural Resources. BRG will utilize ASM Affiliates (ASM) to prepare a cultural resources study for the proposed project. The study will consist of a review of the literature and site records on file with the South Coastal Information Center (Information Center) at San Diego State University, followed by an intensive survey of the proposed project area. All existing and newly identified prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, features and isolates identified during the survey will be appropriately mapped, documented and recorded with the Information Center for assignment of permanent trinomials. If potentially significant archaeological sites are identified, evaluation may be necessary and the scope of any such work will be provided to the City for review and approval prior to initiating work. Upon completion of the survey (and, if necessary, evaluation), a draft technical report will be prepared and submitted for review. This report will consist of a description of the project's natural and cultural setting, study methods, results, potential impacts, and mitigation recommendations. Following review and comment, prepare the final technical report for incorporation in overall submittal. The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be contacted to conduct a search of their files for any recorded Traditional Cultural Properties or Native American heritage sites located within one mile of the project property. NAHC will respond with records of any such sites and will provide a listing of all Native American tribal representatives that may have further knowledge of such sites within the project. This information will then be provided to the City of Carlsbad for its SB-18 Tribal consultation. Tribal consultation under SB-18 is necessary when a project requires a general plan amendment and/or a specific plan. SB-18 requires the City to provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings and any other means the county deems appropriate. The proposed project requires a general plan amendment; therefore, consultation under SB-18 is required. Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated. Contingency - As part of this scope of work and cost estimate, we have included a cost contingency in the proposed budget to test and evaluate up to one (1) potentially significant archaeological site, if identified on the project site. Geology/Soils. BRG will utilize Petra Geotechnical (Petra) to conduct a third party review of the applicant-provided Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities Report (June 22, 2006). The review would include: evaluation of the analysis and conclusions contained in the report and evaluate the adequacy of the impact analysis, particularly with regard to unstable soils, remedial earthwork, landslides, rocky soils, fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, subsidence, settlement, surcharging, liquefactions, proposed slope stability, and groundwater impacts. Petra will identify any flaws/inadequacies in the analyses and conclusions. September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project Criteria used to determine significance will be identified as significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the project. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated. We assume that Geocon will be responsible for making any necessary changes to the Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities Report and that the report will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site and vicinity has the potential to be impacted by a number of different types of hazards including past agricultural hazardous materials and high fire hazard areas. BRG will utilize Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment JESA) for the project area. The following approach is envisioned: 1. Prepare Phase I ESA ERM proposes to perform the Phase I ESA in conformance with ASTM E 1527- 05 and AAI standards. ERM will seek to identify conditions indicative of releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products at, in, on or under the subject property through gathering information regarding: (1) current and past property uses and occupancies; (2) current and past uses of hazardous substances and petroleum products; (3) waste management and disposal activities; (4) current and past corrective actions and response activities at the subject property; (5) engineering controls at the subject property, (6) institutional controls at the subject property; and (7) properties adjoining or located nearby the subject property. 2. The City's Fire Marshall will be contacted to determine the acceptability of proposed development sites adjacent to any high fire hazard areas. 3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified. 4. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated including fire hazards and hazardous materials. 5. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts. 6. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated. Hydrology and Water Quality. BRG will utilize Fuscoe Engineering (Fuscoe) to conduct a third party review of the applicant-provided Hydrology and Preliminary Drainage Reports (PDC, May 2007). Fuscoe will identify any flaws/inadequacies in the analyses and conclusions. We assume that PDC will be responsible for making any necessary changes to the Hydrology and Preliminary Drainage Reports and that the reports will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR. BRG will utilize Fuscoe to prepare a CEQA-level Storm Water Management Plan for the proposed project. Fuscoe will prepare a CEQA-level Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) consistent with the EIR level analysis and City of Carlsbad standards. SWMP shall include source control, site design and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for use by the City to certify temporary and permanent onsite water quality control. SWMP will include impact analysis per CEQA guidelines. September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project Criteria used to determine significance will be identified for hydrology and water quality, and significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the project. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated. Land Use Planning. Surrounding land uses include townhomes to the north, vacant land and an elementary school to the south, single-family homes to the east, and apartments and single-family homes to the west. The project covers an area consisting of approximately 61 acres. The project includes the proposal to change the General Plan designation from Residential Low-Medium Density (0-4 du/ac) and Open Space to Residential High Density (15-23 du/ac) and Open Space. A significant increase in density above the RLM density range would result if the proposal is approved. The project will require the approval of numerous discretionary actions, with the major actions including a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Local Facilities Management Program Amendment, Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Site Development Plan, and Habitat Management Plan Permit. The following approach is envisioned: 1. The land use setting will be described in terms of all applicable land use plans and policies, existing on-site and off-site land uses, and planned on-site and off-site land uses. Exhibits will be provided depicting the location of existing and planned land uses, and the project's context to other applicable plans. 2. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified. 3. The project's consistency with land use plans will be analyzed. This analysis will include a detailed project with respect to the project's consistency with the General Plan, Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) including the Growth Management Chapter, McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Landscape Manual, Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21, and Local Coastal Program. A detailed analysis of the project's consistency with Coastal Act policies including coastal access, recreation, and the preservation of coastal resources will be provided. 4. The project's compatibility with surrounding existing and proposed development will be addressed. This analysis will focus on the single-family residential development to the east and southwest and the apartment project located to the west. In addition, we understand that from the RFP, a 90-unit multi-family residential project has been approved north of the site. The future views of these residences will be considered during the compatibility evaluation. The project's compatibility will be assessed in terms of types of land uses, proposed densities, and buffer techniques. Of particular concern is the significant increase in density proposed by the project as compared to the current allowable density. 5. The Land Use section will identify all significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from project implementation. September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project 6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant land use impacts. 7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) will be clearly stated. Noise. It is anticipated that portions of the project will experience noise from the extension of Poinsettia Lane. During the construction phase of the project, the area will experience a temporary increase in the ambient noise level and due to the project's increase in traffic volumes, the ambient noise level may be increased on some adjacent roadways. BRG will utilize BFSA to prepare a noise study for the proposed project. The study prepared by BFSA will provide an exterior site assessment that focuses on both the project related noise impacts to offsite land uses as well as potential offsite construction noise impacts generated during construction. The study will also provide exterior noise predictions due to the future roadway geometries and volumes for the residential uses proposed onsite. The following approach is envisioned. Field Monitoring • Ambient sound levels will be taken at four separate locations onsite. Each monitoring position will be selected based upon the locations of future noise sensitive areas shown within proposed project site plan. Traffic counts will also be taken simultaneously during the monitoring event for noise modeling calibration. • Ambient sound levels along two nearby offsite roadways will be taken in order to quantify existing offsite noise levels. Traffic counts will also be taken during the monitoring event. • Acoustical noise monitoring will conform to the City of Carlsbad's general plan. Construction Noise Assessment • BFSA will coordinate with the project manager to get a list of construction equipment and phasing. This information will be utilized in order to quantify construction noise levels along any nearby sensitive land uses. Construction related noise contours will be generated based upon these assumptions. Traffic Noise Modeling (Residential Areas) • Future Traffic noise will be predicted at sensitive residential receptor locations within the proposed site. BFSA will utilize the proposed project traffic study and proposed grading plans for future input assumptions. Noise modeling will be conducted utilizing either the TNM 2.5 noise prediction software or the CALTRANS Sound32 noise prediction software. 10 September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project • Once the initial noise model is set up, BFSA will calibrate the prediction model utilizing the ambient noise measurements, geographical locations of those measurements and the simultaneous traffic counts performed above. Traffic Noise Modeling (Offsitel • BFSA will utilize the CALVENO noise emission regression equations to calculate offsite noise impacts. A comparison analysis will be performed between sound predictions between both the existing traffic volumes and the future predicted traffic volumes. These calculations will be performed on roadway segments within the project traffic study. Mitigation Design BFSA will utilize the TNM 2.5 noise prediction software to develop noise mitigation (as needed) for the special education school site. Noise mitigation will be designed per the procedures outlined within the City's Noise Element within the General Plan. The acoustical design will be based upon both economic and functional goals. Should mitigation be required, BFSA will provide 11x17 attachments to the final acoustical report for easier identification of the exact locations for each proposed barrier. Criteria used to determine significance will be identified, and significant, less than significant, direct, and indirect impacts resulting from the projects. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures (if applicable) would be clearly stated. Popu/of/'on/Hous/ng. The proposed project may indirectly induce growth through the provision of the Poinsettia Lane road extension. An amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 21 is required to update the existing and future development potential for the zone and the anticipated infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project. The following approach is envisioned: 1. The existing population/housing setting will be described in terms of existing population and housing on-site. General Plan, LFMP Zone 21, and the Local Coastal Program allowances for the site, and housing/populations for the project area and the City and region as a whole. We will utilize information in the City's existing database and supplement this information with census data as appropriate. 2. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified. 3. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated. This will include quantification of the increase of housing and population on the project site, and a comparison to the General Plan, LFMP Zone 21 unit allowances, and the Local Coastal Program. Based on a conversation with City staff, we understand that the Applicant has conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment analysis and that it will be available for assessment and inclusion in the EIR. 11 September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project 4. An analysis of whether the project will induce, either directly or indirectly, substantial growth in the area will be provided. 5. An analysis of whether the project will displace a substantial number of existing dwelling units or people will be provided. 6. An analysis of whether the project will result in exceeding the City's growth control point will be provided. 7. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant population/housing impacts. 8. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated. 9. An analysis of the project's impact to public services and utilities will be provided in the ensuing section. Public Services and Utilities. The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 21. An amendment to the LFMP for Zone 21 is required to update the existing and future development potential for the zone and the anticipated infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project. The following approach is envisioned: 1. The existing public services and facilities setting will be described in terms of existing services and facilities serving the site and shall determine the demands of the project for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities, water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste facilities, and gas and electric service. 2. This section will evaluate water, wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste facilities, gas and electric service, fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Stormwater drainage facilities will be addressed in the Water Quality/Hydrology section of the EIR. 3. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified, including LFMP Zone 21 requirements. 4. The potential impact of the project will be evaluated. This will include quantification of the increase of demand on the various public services and utilities, the ability to meet the demand, and any expansion or new construction of facilities created by this demand that may cause a physical impact to the environment. Based on a conversation with City staff, we understand that the Applicant has conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment analysis and that it will be available for assessment and inclusion in the EIR. 5. The City's emergency response plans will be evaluated in conjunction with the proposed project to determine if the project will interfere with existing plans. 6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant public services and utilities impacts. 7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated. 12 September 17, 2008 b! EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges ot Aviara Project Recreation. The project site is located within the LFMP for Zone 21. BRG will analyze and compare the proposed project's impacts to the Zone 21 LFMP. The following approach is envisioned: 1. The existing recreational setting will be described in terms of existing facilities serving the project area, and their locations. 2. The ability of the agencies providing the recreational services to meet the demands of the proposed project will be provided. 3. The project's potential impacts on recreation will be analyzed and compared against the Zone 21 LFMP. Based on a conversation with City staff, we understand that the Applicant has conducted the LFMP Zone 21 Amendment analysis and that it will be available for assessment and inclusion in the EIR. 4. Thresholds to determine the significance of impact will be identified, including the LFMP Zone 21 requirements. 5. The potential impact of the project will be analyzed and compared to the Zone 21 LFMP. This will include quantification of the increase of demand on the existing facilities, the ability to meet the demand, and any expansion or new construction of facilities created by this demand that may cause a physical impact to the environment. 6. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant public services and utilities impacts. 7. The level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures will be clearly stated. Traffic /Circulation/Parking. BRG will utilize LOS Engineering (LOS) to conduct a third party review of the Applicant provided traffic impact analysis for the proposed project. LOS will identify any flaws/inadequacies in the analysis and conclusions. We assume that the Applicant's traffic engineering consultant will be responsible for making any necessary changes to the traffic impact analysis report and the report will be suitable for inclusion in the EIR. Other CEQA Mandated EIR Sections The EIR will contain the following CEQA mandated sections: Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes - In accordance with Article 9 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will contain a discussion of the irreversible environmental changes that will result from the proposed project and unavoidable significant impacts. This section will discuss uses of nonrenewable resources, long-term commitments of resources, and potential irreversible environmental damage that may result from environmental accidents associated with the project. (mpacfs Found Not To Be Significant - Areas of no significant impact identified in the Initial Study and subsequent analysis for the EIR will be listed. The justification for such findings will be based on the Initial Study and results of the Draft EIR analysis. 13 September 17, 2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project Cumulative Impacts - The discussion of cumulative effects is an increasingly important analysis in EIRs. The Cumulative Impacts section will evaluate whether individual project impacts are cumulatively significant when viewed in combination with other projects. The section will discuss the potential of the proposed project to compound or increase adverse environmental impacts when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and project impacts. BRG will work closely with City staff to identify cumulative projects. This section will discuss any indirect, cumulative impacts and evaluate compliance with adopted threshold standards and applicable policies and programs. Growth-Inducing Impacts - The Growth Inducement section will assess the potential of the proposed project to induce economic or population growth and the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The analysis will evaluate the project relative to the phasing of community services and facilities to serve new development. An analysis of the LFMP/Growth Management Plan and its ability to provide adequate infrastructure to meet the demand as the project builds out will also be included. The section will discuss the potential for the use of large amounts of fuel or energy and evaluate the project's compliance with regional and local growth management policies. Alternatives The Alternatives section of the EIR will identify a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but reduce significant impacts. Alternatives evaluation will be a critical component of the environmental review and mandated by CEQA. The alternatives will be fully defined and analyzed in the First Screencheck Draft EIR submitted to the City. This section will include, at a minimum, three project alternatives: 1) the "No Project" which analyzes what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on the current General Plan and consistent with available infrastructure and community services; 2) a "Thirty Townhomes", which would analyze the alternative of developing the southwestern most proposed area with 30 market- rate townhomes instead of the 65 age restricted apartments; and 3) a "Reduced Project", which would include an analysis of a reduced level of development intensity on the project site. BRG assumes that the Thirty Townhome and Reduced Project alternatives would be developed in consultation/coordination with City staff. The analysis for each alternative will include a qualitative and qualitative comparative analysis for the relative environmental impacts and merits of each. References, Persons and Agencies Contacted and EIR Preparation This section will include lists of all references and persons and agencies contacted in the preparation of the EIR. This section will also list all persons involved in the preparation of the document, their title and role. Technical Appendices The EIR Appendices will include an Initial Study (if prepared, and provided by the City), a copy of the NOP, public comments on the NOP, and any technical studies prepared for the project. H September 17,2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviora Project Task 3 Second Screencheck Draft EIR BRG will revise the First Screencheck Draft EIR in response to City comments and provide five (5) copies of the Second Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring binders (including Appendices) for City review and comment. Task 4 Draft EIR BRG will incorporate City comments on the Second Screencheck Draft EIR and perform a quality control review. BRG will then provide the City with the required amount of copies of the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices. The Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be available for public review. Our scope of work assumes the City will be responsible for the preparation and posting of the Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR, and distribution of the EIR to the appropriate agencies and individuals. Task 5 Screencheck Final EIR BRG will prepare five (5) copies of the Preliminary Final EIR including Responses to Public Comments (not to include the Technical Appendices unless revised) for City review and comment. Upon close of public review of the Draft EIR, BRG understands our role will be to review all comments and prepare a summary of general comment categories. We will meet with City staff to discuss the general approach to responding to public comments. After agreeing to the approach, BRG will number each individual comment and prepare corresponding responses, including identification of responses that affect or supplement information contained in the Draft EIR. BRG will modify the text of the Draft EIR or add footnotes to the margins identifying relevant responses to comments. Of course. City staff shall make final determination on the adequacy of responses to comments. The fee proposal included herein assumes a total of 200 individually numbered comments will be received on the Draft EIR. Please note a single comment letter may contain numerous numbered comments. The estimate of the level of effort in responding to comments is based on a moderate to high level of controversy. Contingency - As part of this scope of work and cost estimate, we have included a cost contingency to provide responses to comments if the number of individual comments exceeds 200. Task 6 Draft Final EIR BRG will incorporate City comments on the Screencheck Final EIR in response to City comments. Task 7 Final EIR BRG will incorporate City comments on the Draft Final EIR and perform a final quality control review. 15 September 17, 2008 / u<-•• / EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project TaskS CEQA Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Subtask 8.1 Screencheck CEQA Findings/SOC BRG will prepare the Candidate CEQA Findings pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15091 for ultimate submittal to the City Planning Commission and City Council. BRG will prepare draft Candidate Findings to be submitted for City staff review at the Second Screencheck Draft EIR. BRG will identify project changes, alterations and required mitigation identified in the Draft EIR, which avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. If there are mitigation measures or alternatives to the project identified in the EIR which could reduce the adverse consequences of the project but which are determined infeasible, BRG will provide the required CEQA findings, giving the specific economic, social or other conditions which render the mitigation measure or alternatives infeasible. Please note that development of these findings of infeasibility will likely require the active participation of the City and/or applicant to provide sufficient facts to support the findings. BRG will coordinate development of the necessary arguments to support CEQA Findings. In addition, the Candidate Findings will identify any changes or alterations that are within the jurisdiction of another public agency. Should the EIR conclude an impact is significant and unmitigable, BRG will prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15093. BRG will work closely with the City to identify the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project, which outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects. BRG will coordinate with the City to establish the evidence in the record to support overriding considerations. The Findings will follow the format and style specified by the City. Subtask 8.2 Final CEQA Findings/SOC BRG will prepare a final set of CEQA Findings/SOC based on City review and changes to the Draft EIR that may have resulted from public comment. Task 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program fMMRPl Subtask 9.1 ScreencheckMMRP We understand the need for preparation of an MMRP in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(l) and California Code of Regulations Section 15091. The MMRP will include a brief summary of the environmental impact. However, the associated mitigation measure will be included verbatim from the EIR in order to provide sufficient detail to address impacts at the project level. Each mitigation measure will reference the appropriate implementing permits to facilitate mitigation monitoring. For each project change, condition, or mitigation measure the program will include the following: • Specific monitoring activities; • Implementation phase or milestone; • Identification of the party responsible for implementation; • Identification of the party responsible for monitoring; Criteria for evaluating the success of each mitigation measure; and, • Compliance verification criteria. 16 September 17,2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project Subtask 7.2 Draft MMRP BRG will prepare a Draft MMRP incorporating City comments on the Screencheck MMRP. The Draft MMRP will be available for public review with the Draft Program EIR. Subtask 9.3 Final MMRP BRG will prepare a Final MMRP based on any changes to mitigation measures as a result of public review and comment on the Draft EIR. Task 10 Meetings and Hearings BRG understands that project management and staff support are crucial elements to preparation of a legally-defensible EIR. BRG commits attendance of our Project Manager for the following meetings: • One (1) kick-off meeting with City staff to initiate the project, discuss work products and overall project schedule. • One (1) public scoping meeting to solicit input from the public on the scope and content of the EIR. • Two (2) staff meetings to discuss and resolve issues related to preparation of the Screencheck Draft EIR, etc. • Two (2) staff meetings to review comments on the First and Second Screencheck Draft EIRs. • Two (2) staff meetings to review the responses to comments and Final Draft EIR. • Up to three (3) public hearings with presentations as necessary as determined by City staff. • One (1) additional meeting as necessary. In addition to providing our Project Manager, BRG commits principal-level attendance at the three (3) required public meetings/hearings. BRG assumes a maximum of four (4) hours each for the project initiation, scoping meeting, and public hearings. DELIVERABLES BRG anticipates the following deliverables to be submitted to the City. All documents will be readable by Microsoft Word 2000: (5) Copies of the first Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring loose-leaf binders (5) Copies of the second Screencheck Draft EIR in three-ring loose-leaf binders (includes appendices) (5) Copies of the Screencheck MMRP (5) Copies of the Screencheck Candidate CEQA Finding of Fact (50) Copies of the City-approved Draft EIR, Exhibits and MMRP consisting of: - 25 spiral-bound copies - 25 digital copies on CD 17 September 17,2008 EIR Scope of Work for the Bridges at Aviara Project (30) Copies of the Technical Appendices consisting of: - 15 spiral-bound copies - 15 digital copies on CD (1) Master CD Copy of the Draft EIR with appendices, exhibits, and MMRP for City's website (5) Copies of the first Screencheck Final EIR (including Response to Comments, Final EIR and any amendments to the technical appendices) (5) Copies of the second Screencheck Final EIR (including Response to Comments, Final EIR and any amendments to the technical appendices) (51) Copies of the City-approved Final EIR, Exhibits and MMRP consisting of: - 25 spiral-bound copies - 25 digital copies on CD - 1 camera-ready copy (30) Copies of any amended Technical Appendices consisting of: - 15 spiral-bound copies - 15 digital copies on CD (1) Digital copy on CD of the Findings of Fact (1) Digital copy on CD of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1) Master CD Copy of the Final EIR with any amended appendices, exhibits, and MMRP for City's website (5) Copies of the Certified Final EIR, Appendices, Exhibits, MMRP, and CEQA Findings of Fact, which incroporate any changes made to the Final Draft EIR during the public hearing and certification process, if necessary (1) Master CD copy of the Certified Final EIR with appendices, exhibits, and MMRP 5.0 SCHEDULE This section presents BRG's proposed task-by-task work schedule to complete the services requested by the City. The attached schedule assumes a start-date in September 8, 2008; however, this date will be revised upon further direction by the City. BRG's schedule to complete the CEQA process according to our proposed scope of work is provided on the following page. BRG and our subcontractors have the resources and commitment to the City to complete the CEQA process in approximately one year. 18 September 17, 2008 Bridges at Aviara EIR Cost Estimate Task 1- Project Initiation 1.1 Data Collection and Site Visit 1 .2 Project Description Subtotal Task 1 Task 2 - First Screencheck Draft EIR Visual Simulations (5) Subtotal Task 2 Task 3 - Second Screencheck Draft EIR Task 4 - Draft EIR Task 5 • Screencheck Final Em' Task 6 - Draft Final EIR Task 7 - Final EIR Task 8 - CEOA Fmdinos of Fact/SOC 8.1 Screencheck FMinos/SOC 8.2 Final Flndinas/SOC Subtotal Task 8 Task 9 MMRP 9.1 Screencheck MMRP 9.2 Draft MMRP 9.3 Final MMRP Subtotal Task 9 Task 10 Meetinos and Hearings Kickoff Meeting Staff MeetinQs - Issue Resolution Staff Meeting ~ Re view Screenctiect EIR comments Staff Meeting - Review Screenctieck EIR comments Hearings Subtotal Task 10 TOTAL Rale (i/hr) Principal 2 2 4 8 2 10 8 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 8 16 59 315 Project Manager 4 8 12 10 4 44 24 16 1C . s 4 4 4 8 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 8 16 152 170 Environ Analyst III 3 32 40 60 0 60 32 16 24 16 a 0 0 0 4 2 z o 0 0 0 4 4 208 100 Environ Analyst H 12 0 12 120 0 120 32 4 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 90 CADD/G1S 0 e a 40 120 160 24 16 a 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 95 Environ Analyst 1 24 0 24 140 0 140 SO 32 0 8 8 16 a 24 e 2 z 0 0 0 0 4 4 332 75 Subconsultants LOS Engineering (traffic) Merkel and Associates (biological resources - third-paftyreview) ASM Affiliates (cultural resources) Brian F. Smith & Associates (air quality (inducing GHG) and noise) Petra Geotechnical. Inc. (oeoiofly/sotls - thirt^part review) Fuscoc Enqineenng (Water Quality and Hydrology - third-party review) Environmental Resource Manaqemcnt (Phase 1 ESA) Administrative Cost (10%) Total Contlnoency Task. - hduded In Buctoet Total ASM AfNiates - Cultural resources evaluation and testing (one archaeological site) BRG Consulting • Responses to Comments Total Other Direct Costs Mileage & Postage, delivery, miscellaneous printing First Screen Draft EIR (5 copies - 3-ring binders) Second Screen Draft EIR (5 copies • 3-ring binders) Screencheck MMRP (5 copies) Screencheck CEQA Findings (5 copies) Draft EIR + Technical Appendices (25 spiral-bound and 25 CDs t 15 spiral-bound and 1 5 CDs + 1 Master CD) Draft MMRP (S copies) Screencheck Final Elft (5 copies) Draft Final EIR (5 copies) Final EIR + Any Amended Techncial Appendices (25 spiral-bound and 25 CDs * 1 5 spiral-bound and 1 5 CDs + 1 Master CD) Final MMRP. CEQA Findmgs/SOC (1 CO) Certified Final EIR + Any Amended Technical Appendices * Final MMRP. CEQA Findngs (5 copies and 1 Master CD) Total Expenses TOTAL EIR COST Production 4 4 S 40 0 40 18 18 16 S 8 2 2 4 4 2 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 as 51,800 54,162 54,443 510,100 52,500 510,100 53,800 53,690 540,595 520,000 5350 5425 5425 510 510 54.750 510 5500 5500 53.000 52 51,750 511.732 $ 211.702 Total BRG Hours 54 54 108 448 126 574 218 106 84 56 32 24 If 40 IS S S 35 4 4 4 4 24 32 1.1 59 TOTAL COST S5.330 S6.290 SI 1.620 143.820 S12.7W S56.530 S 22.490 S11.390 S3.940 16.600 13.580 S2.680 12.080 $4. 760 S1.S95 11.005 S1.005 54.005 1970 1370 }S70 SS70 S4.580 S8.460 139.375 1 Indudes tin l for rcspondnq to 200 individual comments. BRG Coruutting. inc.Sepletribtv 17, 20O8 STANDARD HOURLY RATES AND TERMS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES BRIDGES AT AVIARAEIR STAFF RATE Principal - Tim Gnibus $315 Project Manager - Patrick O'Neill $170 Environmental Analyst/Planner III - Kathie Washington $100 Environmental Analyst/Planner II - Mary Bilse $90 Environmental Analyst/Planner I - John Addenbrooke $75 CIS Specialist - Totran Mai $95 Documents Manager - Mary Brady $85 The following standard terms apply unless otherwise agreed: All subconsultants and other direct project-related expenses are reimbursable at cost plus ten percent. Invoices will be presented monthly for work completed during the preceding 30 days, and are due and payable upon receipt. Invoices aged more than 60 days will be increased by 1.5 percent per month carrying charges. Effective January 1, 2008 Rates will increase by 10% per year effective January 1 of each year.