255278v1
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (Amendment) made and entered into effective upon execution by both parties 21st of November 2024, amends the Consultant Services Agreement between the CITY OF FRESNO, a California municipal corporation (City), and Wallace, Roberts, a nd Todd (WRT), a Limited Liability Company California corporation (Consultant).
RECITALS
Whereas, the City and Consultant entered into an Agreement on April 28, 2022 (Agreement) for Consultant Services for a total fee not to exceed $400,000 and for a term effective through December 30, 2024.
WHEREAS, City and Consultant entered into First Amendment, dated June 7, 2023 to increase the Agreement fee by $170,590, for a total fee not to exceed $570,590; and
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant now desire to increase the scope of work by requiring additional services beyond those services referred in the Project, increasing Consultant’s total compensation by $334,528 and extend the term of the Agreement to December 30, 2025, to complete the terms of the Agreement.
WHEREAS, with entry into this Second Amendment, the Consultant agrees it has no claim, demand, or dispute against the City.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, which recitals are contractual in nature, the mutual promises herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the aforesaid Agreement be amended as follows:
1. The Consultant’s sole compensation for satisfactory performance of all services required or rendered pursuant to this Amendment shall be a total fee of $334,528 for a total contract value of $905,118.
2. The term of the Agreement shall be extended to and including December 31, 2025.
3. Compliance with Federal Provisions. As applicable, the Consultant and City shall comply with all applicable requirements of 2 CFR Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, including the provisions contained in Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements, and Subpart E – Cost Principles. The City shall be responsible for determining the applicability of the foregoing and intends to utilize cost re covery under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) for this project.
4. In the event of any conflict between the body of this Amendment and any Exhibit or Attachment hereto, the terms and conditions of the body of this Amendment shall control and take precedence over the terms and conditions expressed within the
255278v1
Exhibit or Attachment. Furthermore, any terms or conditions contained within any Exhibit or Attachment hereto which purport to modify the allocation of risk between the Parties, provided for within the body of this Amendment, shall be null and void.
5. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Agreement entered into by the City and the Consultant on April 28, 2022, and amended on June 7, 2023, remain in full force and effect.
[Signatures follow on the next page.]
255278v1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement at Fresno, California, on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF FRESNO,
A California municipal corporation
By:
Georgeanne A. White Date
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ANDREW JANZ
City Attorney
By:
Kristi Costa Date
Supervising Deputy City Attorney
ATTEST:
TODD STERMER, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Deputy Date
Wallace, Roberts, and Todd (WRT)
LLC
By:
Name:
Title:
(If corporation or LLC., Board Chair,
Pres. Or Vice Pres.)
By:
Name:
Title:
(If corporation or LLC., CFO,
Treasurer, Secretary or Assistant
Secretary)
Addresses:
CITY:
City of Fresno
Attention: Nadia Salinas
Project Manger
2600 Fresno St, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 621-8150
Email: Nadia.Salinas
@fresno.gov
CONSULTANT:
Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, LLC (WRT)
Attention: Peter Winch, AICP
Principal
120 2
nd Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 882-7853
Email: [email protected]
Attachments: Scope of Work
WRT, INC | 478 T ehama Street, Suite 2B | San Francisco, CA 94103 James Stickley CA LA-4251 wrtdesign.com | 415.575.4722 John Gibbs CA LA-4417
N:\8000\8687 Fresno Tower District Specific Plan\1-Administration\2-Agreements & Proposals\WRT Proposals\2024-09-17 Add Service s\2024-10-01 Tower District Additional Services Memo.docx October 1, 2024
Adrienne Asadoorian, Supervising Planner
City of Fresno | Planning and Development
2600 Fresno Street Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Via email
Re: Tower District Specific Plan Update: Additional Services WRT #8687.01
Dear Adrienne:
WRT is pleased to have completed narrative and graphics for the Public Review Draft of the Tower District Specific Plan Update, in collaboration with you and your staff. Some 90 pages of public comments were received during the public comment period, which ended August 12. Two meetings were held in August with the Tower District Implementation Committee to receive comments, and two more scheduled in September. In addition to evaluating and responding to extensive public and Committee comments, additional work remains on the Utilities and Implementation chapters. The Design Standards task also requires some additional resources to support engagement with the Implementation Committee, and a small set-aside for illustrations. As for CEQA, the contract currently supports an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, but a full EIR may be needed.
This proposal provides a scope and fee for a full EIR; if approved, the existing environmental task would be replaced with this new task. Finally, additional project management budget is required to support the extended schedule.
The additional work is expected to require additional fee, as follows:
x Specific Plan Refinement - $80,908
x Design Standards Refinement - $15,010
x Full EIR, including reimbursable expenses and contingency - $224,830 x Additional Project Management - $13,780
This would amount to a total of $334,528. The proposed scope of work and fee tables can be found on the pages that follow.
Page | 2
October 1, 2024
This proposal differs from the proposal sent on 9/17/24 only in that the budget for additional project management has been increased from $9,964 to 13,780 to account for the full projected schedule of the EIR.
Signed,
Peter Winch, AICP, Principal
Attachments:
Additional Services Scope of Work
Additional Services Fee Table
CC: Sophia Pagoulatos, City of Fresno; John Gibbs, WRT
Tower District Specific Plan Update
WRT Proposed Scope of Work: Additional Services | September 17, 2024
The WRT Team, including WRT and LSA, have prepared a scope and budget to respond to the City’s interest in adding three tasks to the Tower District Specific Plan Update project. We look forward to discussing and prioritizing these enhancements with City staff.
TASK 1: SPECIFIC PLAN REFINEMENT
Task 1.1: Evaluation of and Approach to Public and Committee Comments WRT will collaborate with City Staff on defining the approach to addressing comments on the Draft Specific Plan received from the public and from the Implementation Committee.
City Staff will have responsibility for coding public comments and preparing comment matrices.
Task 1.2: Expansion of Health & Equity Narrative
One of the main themes of public and Committee comments is the desire for health and equity to be more thoroughly woven into the Plan. WRT will ensure that health and equity are clearly introduced in the Introduction, including narrative that addresses the history of redlining in the District, and providing clear health and equity discussion sections in each topical chapter. We will also complete a health and equity policy evaluation matrix.
Task 1.3: Other Narrative and Graphic Edits and Additions WRT will complete all other narrative and graphic edits that are needed to address public and Committee comments, based on the proposed approach.
City Staff will have responsibility for edits to policies.
Task 1.4: Admin Draft Utilities Chapter
WRT will complete narrative and graphics for a Utilities chapter for the Specific Plan. The chapter will be based on capacity analysis provided by City Staff.
Task 1.5: Admin Draft Implementation Chapter
WRT will complete the Implementation Chapter, which has been partially drafted as of this writing and features a table summarizing the Plan’s policy direction, responsible parties, timing, and other relevant information.
Task 1.6: Revised Draft Specific Plan Update
WRT will complete a revised Draft Specific Plan, incorporating edits produced by WRT and by City Staff, and following comments from Staff and the Implementation Committee on narrative and graphics. We anticipate a screencheck version for Staff review, followed by a Public Review Draft.
Task 1.7: Implementation Committee Meetings (up to 4) - virtual WRT will participate in up to four (4) Implementation Committee meetings to walk through proposed changes to the Draft Specific Plan, and rollout of the Revised Draft Specific Plan.
Task 1.8: Final Specific Plan Update
Following Planning Commission and City Council review and comment, additional public comments on the Revised Draft Specific Plan Update, and taking into account any needed changes that emerge from the environmental review process, WRT will produce a final document, to be delivered as an electronic file. We anticipate one screencheck version for Staff review, followed by a final document.
Task 1 Meetings:
x Implementation Committee (up to 4)
x Team meetings as needed
Task 1 Deliverables:
x Draft narrative and graphic edits
x Admin Draft Utilities Chapter
x Admin Draft Implementation Chapter
x Committee presentations
x Screencheck and Public Review Draft Specific Plan Update x Screencheck and Final Specific Plan Update (for adoption)
TASK 2: DESIGN STANDARDS REFINEMENT
Task 2.1: Committee Meetings (up to 3) - virtual
The Design Standards task currently in process was not scoped to include a Consultant role in working with the Implementation Committee or Design Review Committee. Here we would add facilitation of up to 3 meetings with the Implementation and/or Design Review Committee to work through updates to the Design Guidelines and Standards.
Task 2.2: New Illustrations
The current scope does not anticipate illustrations. New illustrations may be desirable to enable the Design Guidelines and Standards to reflect current understandings, and/or guide objective review. An hours-based, not-to-exceed amount of $10,060 is provided here.
Task 2 Meetings:
x Implementation and/or Design Review Committee meetings (up to 3) Task 2 Deliverables:
x Committee presentations
x Guideline/Standard illustrations
TASK 3: FULL EIR
Task 3.1: Project Initiation
As described in LSA scope.
Task 3.2: Technical Studies
As described in LSA scope.
Task 3.3: Draft Environmental Impact Report
As described in LSA scope.
Task 3.4: Final EIR
As described in LSA scope.
Task 3.5: EIR Certification Hearings
As described in LSA scope.
Task 3.6: Project Management and Meetings
As described in LSA scope.
Task 3 Meetings:
As described in LSA scope.
Task 3 Deliverables:
As described in LSA scope.
TASK 4: ADDITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Task 4.1: Regular Meetings and Additional Project Management The original contract anticipated a 14-month schedule, between June 2022 and July 2023. Currently, we anticipate a 42-month schedule ending in November 2025 and involving a full EIR. A portion of this schedule expansion involved a period of limited work while the engagement approach was being reconsidered, and will include a period when environmental review is underway and WRT’s involvement will be limited. Nevertheless, an estimated 10 months of managing additional active project time is accounted for in this task.
Task 4 Meetings:
x Ongoing regular team calls (typically biweekly)
Task 4 Deliverables:
x Additional invoices and progress reports
LSA is a business name of LSA Associates, Inc.
9/17/24
CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 112, Clovis, California 93611 559.490.1210 www.lsa.net
September 17, 2024
Peter Winch, AICP
WRT
478 Tehama Street, Suite 2B
San Francisco, CA 94103
[email protected]
Subject: Revised Proposal to Prepare Environmen tal Documentation for the City of Fresno Tower District Specific Plan
Mr. Winch:
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this revised proposal to provide environmental review services for the City of Fresno (City) Tower District Specific Plan (TDSP), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on updated information and in response to the City’s request, LSA has prepared a scope for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and associated technical studies for the proposed project. The revised scope of services and cost estimate reflects this level of effort.
SCOPE OF WORK
The following tasks to complete the EIR will be undertaken as part of this scope of work. Please note that because the Specific Plan has not been finalized, and some components of the plan have not been defined, the following scope of work provides an outline of the tasks that LSA will complete to ensure that the Specific Plan is evaluated under CEQA. As noted below, the specific scope of work for each of the anticipated technical studies will be reviewed and finalized following continued coordination with the project team. In addition, it may be required to include amendments to technical studies based on further coordination with the project team.
The overarching goal in preparing the focused EIR is for LSA to provide a legally-defensible and well- written document that is easy to understand not only for the public, but for City decision-makers, City staff, and responsible agencies. To that end, LSA has developed an approach and work program designed to result in a comprehensive, legally-robust EIR that meets the City’s requirements. The focused EIR and environmental review process, in general, will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed project. Our scope of work is designed to achieve the following key objectives:
x Collaborate with the Project team to define the project for CEQA purposes, and craft a detailed Project Description that accurately reflects all elements of the proposed project including anticipated uses and requested project approvals.
x Prepare a focused EIR that responds to and meets the specific requirements and interests of the diverse group of government agencies and organizations that are expected to review the focused EIR and may be responsible for specific project approvals.
9/17/24
2 x Provide a rigorous, project-level analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project to minimize subsequent environmental review.
x Create an EIR that is accessible and relevant through thoughtful and concise writing and use of data-rich graphics.
This scope of work also assumes that the City will provide a Water Supply Assessment (WSA), if required, or a hydrological analysis of the availability of potable water and the water required for operation of the project at full buildout.
Task 1. Project Initiation
Project initiation will include several subtasks, including a preliminary teleconference meeting with the project team, a site visit, preparation of a base map, compiling and distributing relevant documents, data gathering, and contacting responsible agencies and City departments, as necessary. The Project Description for the environmental document will also be prepared as part of project initiation subtasks.
1.1 Kick-Off Meeting and Site Visit
LSA will meet with the Project team to discuss expectations regarding the tasks to be undertaken as part of the environmental documentation effort for the proposed project. In this meeting, LSA will want to:
1. Confirm the proposed scope of work and expectations for use of any previously prepared technical materials or other background materials that may be available for the project site;
2. Discuss the significance criteria for each topic to be addressed in the focused EIR;
3. Discuss the City’s desired approach to involving the various City departments and the Project team during preparation of the focused EIR (e.g., review of the administrative and screencheck drafts, communications); and
4. Discuss the desired schedule for the review process with the Project team.
Following the Kick-Off Meeting, Mr. Simpson and will visit and photograph the project area and its surroundings to familiarize ourselves with the area, document existing conditions and site features, and confirm information provided by the Project team.
1.2 Project Description
LSA will prepare a Project Description that details the purpose, phasing and physical elements of the proposed project. The Project Description will include a map showing the location and boundaries of the project area and a general description of the project’s technical and environmental character- istics. LSA will work closely with the Project team to ensure that the Project Description provides a level of detail appropriate for the focused EIR. As a part of the Project Description, LSA will work with the Project team to prepare a list of project objectives consistent with the City’s goals for the proposed project.
9/17/24
3 The Project Description will also include a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the focused EIR, including a list of agencies expected to use the focused EIR, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the proposed project and a list of related environmental review and consultation steps required by federal, State or local laws, regulations and policies. LSA will submit a draft of the Project Description to the Project team for review and acceptance before the LSA team begins conducting any technical analyses.
1.3 Notice of Preparation
LSA will prepare a draft Notice of Preparation (NOP) in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA. LSA will prepare a Public Review NOP in response to one round of review by City staff. LSA will submit the NOP to the State Clearinghouse. The City will be responsible for local distribution.
1.4 Public Scoping Meeting
If the City determines that a scoping meeting is needed, Mr. Simpson will participate in a public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR. LSA will develop materials for this meeting, including hand-outs which may include an overview of the objectives of CEQA, the EIR process and schedule, and the topics to be addressed in the EIR. LSA will make a short presentation at the scoping meeting that outlines the project’s environmental review requirements and process. Following the 30-day comment period on the NOP, LSA will review all comments, recommend any needed changes to the proposed scope of work, and ensure that all submitted concerns are adequately covered by the EIR.
Deliverables
x Draft Project Description, MS Word and PDF
x Draft Notice of Preparation, MS Word and PDF
x Public Review Notice of Preparation, PDF
Task 2. Technical Studies
Based on our current understanding of the proposed project, LSA believes that several technical studies would be required to identify potential environmental impacts. Once project components are determined, and City staff provides input on the Specific Plan, technical analyses for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Traffic/Transportation are expected to be needed. Detailed scopes of work for the technical studies listed below will be reviewed once project components are determined, and if additional studies are required an augment may be needed. Please note that the City’s requirements for the traffic analyses are highly variable and are dependent on several factors that could greatly increase the scope and cost of the Traffic Impact Assessment.
2.1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Development activity associated with the proposed project could increase pollutant concentrations in Fresno through increased vehicle trips and building operations. Construction activities associated with future implementation of the proposed project, including grading and ground disturbance, could increase concentrations of particulate matter. This increase could contribute to existing air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.
9/17/24
4 Typically, an individual project does not generate sufficient greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to influence global climate change significantly on its own; therefore, the issue of global climate change is cumulative in nature. Implementation of the proposed project, through construction and operational activities, would generate GHG emissions that would cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Additionally, the proposed project would utilize energy associate with both construction and operational activities.
Following the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), LSA will identify existing air quality and GHG conditions and potential air quality, GHG emissions, and energy impacts resulting from the proposed project by undertaking the following subtasks:
x Describe Existing Environmental Setting: LSA will provide a summary of information related to air quality and global climate change along with the climate/meteorological conditions in the project vicinity.
x Describe the Existing Regulatory Framework: The existing regulatory framework for air quality and global climate change will identify applicable federal, State, and City of Fresno policies, regulations, and programs.
x Determine the Project's Consistency with Adopted Plans. LSA will review adopted plans related to clean air and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the State of California and the SJVAPCD to determine the project's consistency with these plans. x Assess project construction emissions. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate increased particulate emissions associated with site preparation, grading, soil hauling, and other construction activities on the project site. Construction equipment exhaust would also be a source of air pollution. LSA will calculate the regional construction emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod).
x Assess project operation-period air quality impacts. The proposed project would generate new vehicular trips within the region. Regional emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with long-term operations from vehicle trips will be calculated with CalEEMod. In addition, emissions associated with stationary sources, such as on-site energy consumption and landscaping equipment, will be estimated.
x Assess Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. LSA will evaluate the proposed project's impacts on GHG emissions by providing a quantitative assessment of GHG emissions using CalEEMod. LSA will further analyze the potential GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project using the project attribute thresholds of significance recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to show if a project is implementing a “fair share” of GHG emission reductions necessary to support achievement of State emission reduction goals and policies. LSA will consider any proposed building design features that would contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions. In addition, since the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and rezone, LSA will estimate GHG emissions under both the proposed project and the
9/17/24
5 maximum buildout of the existing designation using CalEEMod to determine if the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions. x Analyze energy use. LSA will evaluate the proposed project’s impacts related to energy use in response to the environmental checklist questions. This discussion will address the proposed project’s compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards and will cross reference the discussion provided in the greenhouse gas emissions section, as necessary. Energy data estimated using the CalEEMod model will be reported.
x Determine the project's consistency with energy efficiency standards. The analysis will also address the project’s compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards and will cross reference the discussion provided in the GHG emissions discussion as necessary. For purposes of this analysis, impacts to energy resources will be considered to be significant if the project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy. x Identify mitigation measures. LSA will identify, where necessary, practical mitigation measures to address any significant project or cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures designed to reduce the project’s short-term construction and long-term air quality and GHG impacts to the extent feasible will be identified. Mitigation measures established by the SJVAPCD for dust suppression will be identified to reduce construction impacts. Both an evaluation of the potential mitigation measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided.
LSA will submit one digital copy of the draft Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Impact Analysis to City staff for review with submittal of the Administrative Draft Initial Study and Draft EIR. Based on one set of consolidated comments from the City, LSA will prepare a final Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis.
2.2 Biological Resources Assessment
LSA will conduct a thorough biological resources evaluation of the proposed project to ensure compliance with environmental review regulations. This will include a records search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (iPAC) online system to identify sensitive or special- status biological resources that have potential for occurring within or adjacent to the project site.
The results of the database searches will be field verified to the extent feasible where access is available.
LSA will conduct a windshield survey of the project site plus a 500-foot buffer for potential sensitive resources. The project site is largely developed; however, some special-status species that are adapted to urban environments, such as San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), may be present depending on the specific conditions of the area. The location of any sensitive natural resources detected on-site, as well as all vegetation communities and other land cover types within the biological study area, will be mapped.
9/17/24
6 The results of the database search and field survey efforts will be summarized in a Biological Resources Evaluation (BRE) report designed to comply with CEQA. The BRE will include a general description of the habitats and land cover types occurring in the project site, a graphic of representative site photographs showing the existing conditions in the project site, a figure displaying the location of plant communities and other land cover types on site, and a discussion of any special-interest biological resources observed or with potential to occur within the direct and indirect disturbance limits of the project. Project-related impacts to biological resources will be evaluated in accordance with current CEQA Statute and Guidelines and other relevant federal, State, and local regulations. As applicable, measures will be identified for avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of project impacts. The BRE will be an attachment to the environmental document, with the key CEQA impact findings summarized in the text of the environmental document.
A formal delineation of aquatic resources is not included in this scope. If such features are detected during the field survey, LSA will determine if a formal delineation is required based on the project description and will provide a separate proposal for that work.
2.3 Cultural Resources Assessment
LSA will prepare a standalone Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment to determine the baseline conditions and sensitivity for potential impacts to known archeological and built environment cultural resources in the approximately 12,500-acre Tower District Specific Plan. LSA will prepare the Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment by completing the following subtasks:
x Record Search. LSA will request staff of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), at California State University, Bakersfield, to conduct a cultural resource record search through the regional California Cultural Resources Information System (CHRIS) Center. The SSJVIC is an affiliate of the California State Office of Historic Preservation and is the official State repository for cultural resource records and reports for Fresno County.
The objectives of this research will be to (1) establish the status and extent of previously recorded resources and studies in the Tower District as bounded and depicted on the city’s website for the Tower District Specific Plan
1; and (2) note what types of previously
undocumented resources might be expected to occur within the Plan Area, based upon the existing data of known cultural resources and studies in the CHRIS database. x Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment. A letter report of results will be prepared, including methods, results, findings regarding baseline conditions and sensitivity for cultural resources and recommendations. Field surveys or supplemental archival research or interested parties’ consultation are not included in this scope of work.
x Response to Comments. LSA stipulates response to one round of minor comments from the Client (requiring 8 hours or less). In the event more than one round of comments require response or substantive issues develop necessitating any unanticipated effort (not included in
1 Tower District Specific Plan. City of Fresno. 2024. Website, https://fresno-tower- cityoffresno.hub.arcgis.com/pages/maps, accessed September 16, 2024.
9/17/24
7 this scope of work and estimate), a contract amendment (budget modification) will be required, and a schedule adjustment may also be necessary.
2.4 Noise and Vibration Impact Report
LSA will prepare a Noise and Vibration Impact Report that quantifies existing ambient noise levels in the area, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, assesses the potential for future noise impacts, and identifies noise reduction measures to avoid or minimize noise impacts. The Noise Impact Analysis will be completed by undertaking the following subtasks. x Describe the existing regulatory framework. Applicable State, County, and City noise criteria for the project area will be identified. Noise standards, including General Plan noise policies and Noise Ordinances, will be discussed. If necessary, any changes in regulatory criteria from the FTDSP will be discussed. LSA will also provide a summary of the fundamentals of noise and vibration. Noise level standards for the proposed land uses will be identified. x Characterize existing noise environment. In order to assess changes in the noise environment described in the FTDSP, LSA will conduct up to three (3) long-term noise measurements with a minimum duration of 24 hours at the project site and within the surrounding area. These measurements will help identify the existing noise levels and help to calibrate the modeling of future noise level impacts.
x Assess short-term construction noise impacts. Noise levels generated from project construction will be evaluated based on the equipment expected to be used, its distance to existing adjacent off-site uses, the length of a specific construction task, the equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), the load factor, and the percentage of time in use. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommended equipment noise emission levels will be used to describe construction noise levels in terms of maximum instantaneous noise levels (L max) and hourly
equivalent continuous sound levels (Leq). Potential construction noise impacts will be assessed based on the City’s Municipal Code. Short-term construction noise impacts will also be compared to the results within the FTDSP.
x Assess short-term construction vibration impacts. Vibration levels generated from project construction will be evaluated based on the equipment expected to be used and its distance to existing adjacent off-site structures. The FTA-recommended equipment vibration levels will be used to describe construction vibration levels in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV, measured in inches per second [in/sec]) for potential building damage and vibration velocity decibels (VdB) for potential human annoyance. Potential construction vibration impacts will be assessed based on the sensitivity of the area directly adjacent to the project site and the FTA recommendations. Short-term construction vibration impacts will also be compared to the results within the FTDSP.
x Calculate project and cumulative noise impacts. Based on the estimated increase in vehicle trips, LSA will evaluate noise impacts from project-related and cumulative vehicular trips using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise modeling program. Model input data will include average daily traffic levels, day/night percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks,
9/17/24
8 vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. Projected future noise levels along selected roadway and highway segments will be provided in a table format to show the relationship between vehicle-related noise and distance from the roadway. Long-term traffic noise impacts will also be compared to the results within the FTDSP. x Assess long-term operational noise impacts. In addition to analyzing project-related traffic noise impacts, LSA will qualitatively assess noise impacts associated with project-related stationary source noise, such as loading and unloading activities, parking lot activities and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Long-term operational noise impacts will also be compared to the results within the FTDSP. x Identify noise reduction measures. If necessary, LSA will identify practical measures to address any potential project-level or cumulative-level noise impacts. Any measures necessary to reduce the project’s short-term construction and/or long-term impacts to acceptable noise levels will also be identified. Both an evaluation of the potential measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided.
2.5 Trip Generation Assessment and Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis Subtask 2.5.1 Trip Generation Assessment
It is LSA’s understanding that the Specific Plan update will affect zoning and land use designations of several areas within the Tower District. As such, these updates would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA). However, it is uncertain whether the proposed modifications will result in more or fewer traffic than the approved specific plan. Therefore, a trip generation assessment will be conducted to determine whether the proposed modifications would generate any additional trips than the approved land uses.
The current project is proposing changes in approximately 13 different areas within the specific plan. LSA will obtain land uses for the existing specific plan uses and proposed specific plan uses for these areas. A trip generation analysis will be conducted between the two scenarios. The result of this analysis will determine whether an in-depth level of service (LOS) analysis will be required for the specific plan update. Additional scope and budget will be required for such detailed LOS analysis.
Subtask 2.5.2: CEQA Transportation Assessment
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) required changes be made to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations introducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the new metric for determining project traffic impacts. The VMT evaluation for the project will be based on the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (VMT Guidelines) dated June 25, 2020. LSA will utilize the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Activity Based Model (ABM) for the VMT analysis of the project. LSA will run the model in-house and extract project generated VMT and select zone distributions for the project.
It is LSA’s understanding that the Specific Plan update will require a GPA as it will affect zoning and land use designations of several areas within the Tower District. Since the project is a specific plan, it
9/17/24
9 qualifies as a land use plan. Therefore, the project’s VMT analysis needs to be prepared using the criteria set forth in the City’s CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds, adopted June 2020 for land use plans. The City’s VMT Guidelines require that for land use plans, the project’s VMT per capita and VMT per employee under forecast/cumulative scenario be compared to the corresponding base year VMT per capita/employee to determine whether the project would have a significant VMT impact.
Additionally, if required, LSA would provide VMT per capita and VMT per employee under the no project cumulative scenario (no changes to the General Plan) for uses within the Tower District area.
Although analysis of this scenario is not required per the City’s Guidelines, the findings from this analysis may help develop a narrative regarding whether the proposed project would be beneficial in reducing VMT per capita and VMT per employee under cumulative conditions.
The detailed scope of work for the project VMT is as follows:
x Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update. The first step in preparation of this analysis will be to update the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in the model that includes the project area. The Tower District comprises of approximately 23 model TAZs. In case any TAZ partially covers a part of the specific plan, they will be split into two separate TAZs to isolate the specific plan areas. One part will include the specific plan area within that TAZ while the second part will include the remaining land uses within that TAZ. This is because the project should be isolated to estimate its VMT impact.
Upon completion of updating the TAZ structure for the specific plan as required, the next step would be to incorporate the proposed changes in the specific plan. The current project is proposing changes in approximately 13 different areas within the specific plan.
LSA will obtain land uses for the existing specific plan uses and proposed specific plan uses for these areas. The land uses for these specific areas will be converted into modeling socioeconomic categories using generic land use to socioeconomic conversion factors. Upon conversion of the land uses to appropriate socioeconomic data, the General Plan land uses socioeconomic data will be removed from existing 2046 model data set and the proposed specific plan land uses will be added back into the model.
It is our understanding that no roadway network changes are being proposed as part of this project. However, roadway network may need to be updated as well if necessary. x Project VMT Analysis. Upon completion of the socioeconomic data updates for the with project scenario, LSA will conduct a model run for the proposed horizon year/cumulative (2046) with project scenario. LSA will utilize the model run outputs to develop project VMT for the with project conditions.
For land use plans, the City’s Guidelines recommend use of VMT per capita to evaluate residential land uses and VMT per employee to evaluate non-residential land uses. Since the project contains both residential and non-residential uses, LSA will estimate VMT per capita for
9/17/24
10 the project’s residential land uses and VMT per employee for the non-residential land uses. The project VMT metrics will be compared with City’s baseline thresholds to assess project impacts.
It should be noted that LSA may need to conduct conduct a model run for the cumulative no project (no changes to the specific plan area) scenario for disclosure purposes. x VMT Mitigations. If it is identified that the project has a VMT impact, appropriate VMT mitigation measures will need to be identified to offset the project’s impact. VMT mitigation measures will be identified based on coordination with City staff. For this scope of work, VMT mitigation has not been included since the nature of VMT profile is unknown at this time. In case VMT mitigation is required, the scope and budget need to be modified.
LSA will prepare a draft Trip Generation and VMT memorandum documenting analysis methodologies, and findings. The draft memo will be submitted to the City for review. This scope and budget include one review/revision of the memo to address City comments. Additional rounds of review/revision or provision of copies in excess of that stated in this proposal will require an amendment to this scope and cost estimate.
Upon revision, the final report will be submitted to the City as an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) file.
Deliverables
x Draft Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Impact Analysis, PDF x Final Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Impact Analysis, PDF x Draft Biological Resources Assessment, PDF
x Final Biological Resources Assessment, PDF
x Draft Cultural Resources Assessment, PDF
x Final Cultural Resources Assessment, PDF
x Draft Noise and Vibration Impact Report, PDF
x Final Noise and Vibration Impact Report, PDF
x Draft Trip Generation Assessment and Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis, PDF x Draft Trip Generation Assessment and Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis, PDF Task 3. Draft Environmental Impact Report
3.1 Administrative Draft Initial Study and Draft EIR
Following the close of the public scoping period, LSA will prepare an Initial Study and a Draft EIR for the proposed project. The Initial Study will be released with the Draft EIR to provide substantial evidence to support the preparation of an EIR that focuses on areas that could be adversely affected by the proposed project.
Administrative Draft Initial Study
The analysis included in the Initial Study will be referenced and based on thorough analysis in order to address environmental topics and exclude further analysis in the focused EIR. The
9/17/24
11 following environmental topics will be evaluated in the Initial Study, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
x Aesthetics
x Agriculture and Forestry Resources
x Air Quality
x Biological Resources
x Cultural Resources
x Energy
x Geology and Soils
x Greenhouse Gas Emissions
x Hazards and Hazardous Materials
x Hydrology and Water Quality
x Land Use and Planning
x Mineral Resources
x Noise
x Population and Housing
x Public Services
x Recreation
x Transportation
x Tribal Cultural Resources
x Utilities and Service Systems
x Wildfire
Based on the components of the proposed project, it is expected that several environmental topics will be addressed in the Initial Study and will not be included in the EIR. LSA will prepare an Administrative Draft Initial Study with figures and tables will be provided as appropriate to illustrate the project site, the proposed project and the study's findings.
Administrative Draft EIR
In conjunction with preparation of the Administrative Draft Initial Study, LSA will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR to address potential environmental effects not fully addressed in the Initial Study. It is expected that several environmental topics will not be included in the EIR, such as, but not limited to, energy, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire. LSA assumes that the following resource topic areas will be addressed in the EIR:
x Air Quality
x Biological Resources
x Cultural Resources
x Energy
x Greenhouse Gas Emissions
x Noise
x Transportation
With each environmental topic included, each section will describe the current conditions of the project site and will include an impact analysis to evaluate the potential environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Where relevant, impacts will be separately identified in terms of whether they would occur during the construction or operation periods. A set of feasible mitigation measures (as well as the residual impacts or effects of each measure) will be identified.
Each section will also include a discussion of cumulative impacts to address the potential impacts associated with the project in conjunction with other projects that are under-
9/17/24
12 construction, approved, or reasonably foreseeable. The preferred methodology for conducting the cumulative impacts analysis will be developed and agreed upon during the early stages of the focused EIR preparation.
The focused EIR is expected to include the following components:
x Introduction
x Executive Summary
x Project Description
x Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures
x Alternatives to the Proposed Project
x CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions
x List of Persons and Organizations
Contacted
x Bibliography
x Technical Appendices
Digital versions (in both Word and PDF formats) of the Administrative Draft Initial Study and Draft EIR will be submitted to the City for review and comment. LSA can meet with staff, either in person or via teleconference, to discuss comments on the Administrative Draft Initial Study and Draft EIR.
3.2 Screencheck Draft Initial Study and Draft EIR
LSA will provide one electronic version in MS Word and PDF formats for review by City staff to verify that all requested changes have been made and all appendix materials, references, and final graphics are acceptable. LSA will also provide the City with an electronic compare version of the Screencheck Draft. This version will show text changes made to the Administrative Draft in underline and strikeout for the City toverify that all requested changes have been made and all appendix materials, references, and final graphics are acceptable.
We have allotted time for responding to changes; however, if this task exceeds the cost allotted in the budget due to changes in the Project Description or requests for additional analysis, the additional cost would be billed on a time and materials basis (or use of contingency funds would be requested).
3.3 Public Review Initial Study and Draft EIR
LSA will amend the Screencheck Draft in response to a single set of consolidated and non- contradictory comments from City staff. Digital versions will be prepared in PDF formats and will be distributed to the City for website posting. Should printed copies of the document be requested by the Project team, LSA will bill production at cost.
Prior to publication of the Public Review Draft EIR, LSA will prepare the Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) and will submit both to the City in MS Word and PDF. LSA will be responsible for electronic submittal of the Public Review Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse. The City will be responsible for local distribution and noticing.
Deliverables
x Administrative Draft Initial Study and Draft EIR, MS Word and PDF x Screencheck Draft Initial Study and Draft EIR, MS Word and PDF x Public Review Initial Study and Draft EIR, MS Word and PDF
9/17/24
13 x Notice of Completion for the State Clearinghouse, PDF x Notice of Availability, MS Word and PDF
Task 4. Final EIR
4.1 Administrative Draft Final EIR
The LSA team will formulate responses to written comments on the Public Review Draft EIR, including review period comments received from the public and agencies. The Administrative Draft EIR will include: 1) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; 2) copies of written comments received; 3) responses to environmental comments raised in the review process; and 4) any necessary text, table or figure changes to the Public Review Draft EIR. LSA will discuss the best approach to the responses document with City staff following the close of the comment period.
Our budget estimate shows the level of professional effort assumed for this task (see Task 4.1 in the Cost Estimate, included separately). Should an unexpectedly large volume of comments be submitted (e.g., an organized letter-writing campaign by project opponents or a substantial package of comments by a law firm representing labor union interests), an adjustment in the budget (and/or use of contingency funds) to cover work beyond the assumed level would be needed. LSA will submit one digital version (in MS Word and PDF formats) of the Administrative Draft Final EIR for review by City staff.
4.2 Screencheck Draft Final EIR
After review by City staff and transmittal of suggested revisions, LSA will amend the Administrative Draft Final EIR and prepare a Screencheck version for final review by City staff. Digital versions (Word and PDF formats) of the Screencheck Draft will be provided. A PDF compare version that shows changes between the two drafts in underline and strikeout will also be provided for review by City staff to verify that all requested changes have been made.
4.3 Public Review Final EIR
After review by City staff and transmittal of suggested revisions, LSA will amend the Screencheck Draft Final EIR and prepare a Public Review version. Digital versions will also be prepared in PDF formats and will be distributed to the City for website posting. The Public Review Final EIR will be distributed to the public and commenting agencies a minimum of 10 days prior to the final public hearing on the Public Review Final EIR.
4.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
LSA will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) consistent with the City’s Program EIR (PEIR), as described below.
LSA will a prepare a Draft MMRP, which will identify responsibility for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measure, along with monitoring triggers and reporting frequency, subject to approval by the City. Monitoring will be dovetailed with existing processes of project development and review. LSA will submit the Draft MMRP to the City for review. After review by the City, LSA will
9/17/24
14 amend the Draft MMRP, as needed, and will prepare a final version. Digital versions will be prepared in Word and PDF formats.
Deliverables
x Administrative Draft Final EIR, MS Word and PDF
x Screencheck Draft Final EIR, MS Word and PDF
x Public Review Final EIR, MS Word and PDF
x Notice of Determination, MS Word and PDF
x Administrative Draft MMRP, MS Word and PDF
x Screencheck Draft MMRP, MS Word and PDF
x Final MMRP, MS Word and PDF
Task 5: EIR Certification Hearings
Mr. Simpson will attend up to two public hearings for certification of the focused EIR, including hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Additional meetings can be added to the scope as additional services.
Upon project approval and certification of the Final EIR, LSA will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD) for filing and distribution by the City.
Deliverable: Notice of Determination, MS Word and PDF
Task 6. Project Management and Meetings
This task includes regular and effective coordination among LSA’s Project Manager/Principal in Charge, City staff, and the Applicant. The project management role provides a mechanism to ensure that there is an adequate exchange of information during project start-up and preparation of the EIR. This task includes notifying City staff and the Applicant of problems as they are encountered and working expeditiously to resolve problems. Important elements of this task will be to maintain the project schedule, oversee the budget, and coordinate efforts with the project team. To facilitate dissemination of information, LSA’s Project Manager will maintain ongoing verbal and email communication with City staff and the Applicant.
This scope provides for up to 12 monthly calls of no longer than one hour between LSA’s Project Manager, City staff, and the Applicant, and LSA attendance at one kick-off meeting with the City, one coordination meeting regarding the proposed project, and two working sessions to discuss City comments on the EIR. In total, four meetings and 12 monthly coordination calls have been budgeted in this Scope of Work. If required, Mr. Simpson will attend up to two public hearings for certification of the focused EIR, including hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Additional meetings can be added to the scope as additional services.
During the environmental documentation process, LSA will monitor the number of meetings actually attended to determine compliance with this estimate. Any additional meetings beyond the four meetings and twelve coordination calls described above will be attended on a time-and-materials basis, with prior written approval.
9/17/24
15 Schedule
The preliminary work schedule for preparation and completion of the environmental review process is shown in Table A. LSA will finalize the schedule, including deliverable dates with the City once we are authorized to proceed and once preliminary development plans and all requested background materials listed in this scope of work are provided. Please note that this preliminary timeline is aggressive, yet flexible, and we are happy to work with the City to adapt the schedule to fit ongoing priorities and scheduling.
Table A: Preliminary Schedule
TASKS ESTIMATED
DURATIONS
Project Description
Prepare Project Description 2 weeks
Review of Project Description1 1-2 weeks
TOTAL 3-4 weeks
Technical Studies
Prepare Technical Studies 6-8 weeks
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
Biological Resources Assessment
Cultural Resources Assessment
Noise Study Memorandum
Traffic Impact Assessment (VMT and LOS)
Review Technical Studies 1-2 weeks
Finalize Technical Studies 1-2 weeks
TOTAL 8-12 weeks
EIR
Prepare Draft NOP 2 weeks
Review Draft NOP 1 week
Distribute Public Review NOP 1 week
Public Scoping Period and Meeting2 30 days
Prepare Administrative Draft EIR 4 weeks
Review of Administrative Draft EIR 4 weeks
Prepare Screencheck Draft EIR 2 weeks
Review of Screencheck Draft EIR 2 weeks
Prepare Public Review EIR 2 weeks
Public Review Period 45 days
Prepare Administrative Draft Final EIR 3 weeks
Review Administrative Draft Final EIR 3 weeks
Prepare Screencheck Draft Final EIR and Draft MMRP 3 weeks Review of Screencheck Draft Final EIR and Draft MMRP 2 weeks Prepare Public Review Final EIR and Final MMRP 2 weeks
EIR Certification Hearing(s) 1 week
TOTAL 42 weeks
Complete EIR Schedule 53–58 weeks
1 Assumes that all requested project information and materials received within 1 day of start-up meeting. 2 If the City determines a Public Scoping Meeting is needed.
9/17/24
16 Budget
The estimated cost of the LSA team’s labor and direct expenses is $198,140. We have also identified a contingency amount of 10 percent of the total budget ($19,800). The amount would not be used without written authorization from the City. With the contingency amount, the total contract budget would be $217,940. As you review the proposal and compare the work scope with the line- item budget, if you find that there are ways of economizing or believe that expansions are needed, we would be glad to discuss suggestions for modifying both scope and budget. This proposed scope of work and cost estimate is valid for 90 days from the date on Page 1.
LSA’s Billing Rates are attached to this proposal and incorporated by reference. If these terms are acceptable, you may authorize this work by returning a signed copy of this proposal to us, or by providing your own form of authorization. LSA can begin work on the project following your authorization on the signature block below.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact Mr. Simpson at (559) 490-1212 or [email protected] if you have any questions and/or require additional information.
Sincerely,
LSA Associates, Inc.
Kyle Simpson
Principal
Attachment:
Table B: Cost Estimate
LSA Associates, Inc.
Kyle Simpson
iil
TableB:CostEstimate
TaskNumber Task Name Labor Hours Labor Budget Direct Expenses Total LSAFees Task1K i c k ͲoffMeetingandProjectInitiation 92.00 $14,740.00 $0.00 $14,740.00
1.1 Kick ͲoffMeetingandSiteVisit 12.00 $2,140.00 $2,140.00
1.2 Project Description 36.00 $5,460.00 $5,460.00
1.3 Notice ofPreparation 32.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
1.4 Public ScopingMeeting 12.00 $2,140.00 $2,140.00
Task2 Technical Analyses 327.00 $58,320.00 $11,950.00 $70,270.00
2.1 AirQuality,Energy,andGreenhouseGasImpactAnalysis 63.00 $12,480.00 $12,480.00
2.2 BiologicalResourcesAssessment 54.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00
2.3 CulturalResources 76.00 $12,460.00 $11,000.00 $23,460.00
2.4 NoiseandVibrationImpactReport 68.00 $10,760.00 $950.00 $11,710.00
2.5 TripGenerationAssessmentandVehicleMilesTravelledAnalysis 66.00 $13,720.00 $13,720.00 Task3D r a f t EnvironmentalImpactReport 450.00 $72,420.00 $0.00 $72,420.00
3.1 AdministrativeDraftInitialStudyandDraftFocusedEIR 379.00 $60,920.00 $60,920.00
3.2 ScreencheckDraftInitialStudyandDraftEIR 46.00 $7,420.00 $7,420.00
3.3 PublicReviewInitialStudyandDraftEIR 25.00 $4,080.00 $4,080.00 Task4 Final EIR 142.00 $23,510.00 $0.00 $23,510.00
4.1 AdministrativeDraftFinalEIR 86.00 $14,710.00 $14,710.00
4.2 ScreencheckDraftFinalEIR 30.00 $4,700.00 $4,700.00
4.3 PublicReviewFinalEIR 26.00 $4,100.00 $4,100.00
4.4 MitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram 20.00 $3,170.00 $3,170.00 Task5E I R CertificationHearings 8.00 $1,400.00 $0.00 $1,400.00
5.1 PlanningCommissionHearing 4.00 $700.00 $700.00
5.2 CityCouncilHearing 4.00 $700.00 $700.00
Task6 Project ManagementandMeetings 88.00 $15,800.00 $0.00 $15,800.00
6.1 ProjectManagementandMeetings 88.00 $15,800.00 $15,800.00 1,107.00 186,190.00 11,950.00 $198,140.00
$19,800.00
$217,940.00Total
Subtotal
Contingency(10%)
9/17/24
18 This page intentionally left blank
Tower District Specific Plan Update
Additional Services, September 2024 (Revised)
Team
Job Classification
Peter Winch,
Principal
Matt Taecker, Senior
Urban Designer
Deeksha Rawat,
Urban Designer
PUD Level I
Hours by Task Cost by Task Hours by Task Cost by Task Cost by Task Hourly Rate 265.00$ 210.00 $ 108.00 $ 120.00 $ Task 1 Specific Plan Refinement
Subtask 1.1 Evaluation of and Approach to Public and Committee Comments 84 4 16 3,392.00$ 0 -$ 3,392.00$ Subtask 1.2 Expansion of Health & Equity Discussion 42 4 28 3,652.00$ 0 -$ 3,652.00$ Subtask 1.3 Other Narrative and Graphic Edits and Additions 12 24 24 80 140 20,412.00$ 0 -$ 20,412.00$ Subtask 1.4 Admin Draft Utilities Chapter 41 6 8 8 36 6,244.00$ 0 -$ 6,244.00 $ Subtask 1.5 Admin Draft Implementation Chapter 42 0 8 8 40 7,084.00$ 0 -$ 7,084.00 $ Subtask 1.6 Revised Draft Specific Plan Update 12 16 12 60 100 15,036.00$ 0 -$ 15,036.00$ Subtask 1.7 Implementation Committee Meetings (4) - virtual 16 16 32 6,160.00$ 0 -$ 6,160.00 $ Subtask 1.8 Final Specific Plan Update 16 16 16 80 128 18,928.00$ 0 -$ 18,928.00$ Sub-Total 76 96 96 252 520 80,908.00 $ 0 - $ 80,908.00$ Task 2 Design Standards Refinement
Subtask 2.1 Committee Meetings (3) - virtual 82 0 28 6,320.00$ 0 -$ 6,320.00$ Subtask 2.2 New Illustrations 21 6 4 0 58 8,690.00$ 0 -$ 8,690.00$ Sub-Total 10 36 0 40 86 15,010.00 $ 0 - $ 15,010.00$ Task 3 Full EIR
Subtask 3.1 Project Initiation 4 4 1,060.00$ 92 14,740.00$ 15,800.00 $ Subtask 3.2 Technical Studies (additional work) 2 2 530.00$ 327 58,320.00$ 58,850.00 $ Subtask 3.3 Draft Environmental Impact Report 8 8 2,120.00$ 450 72,420.00$ 74,540.00 $ Subtask 3.4 Final EIR 8 8 2,120.00$ 142 23,510.00$ 25,630.00 $ Subtask 3.5 EIR Certification Hearings 4 4 1,060.00$ 8 1,400.00$ 2,460.00 $ Subtask 3.6 Project Management and Meetings 0 -$ 88 15,800.00$ 15,800.00 $ Sub-Total 26 0 0 0 26 6,890.00 $ 1107 186,190.00 $ 193,080.00 $ Task 4 Additional Project Management (WRT)
Subtask 4.1 Regular Meetings and Project Management (additional) 40 10 10 60 13,780.00$ 0 -$ 13,780.00$ Sub-Total 40 10 10 0 60 13,780.00 $ 0 - $ 13,780.00$ Labor Sub-Total 116,588.00$ Sub-Total 186,190.00 $ 302,778.00 $ Reimbursables Reimbursables 11,950.00 $ 11,950.00 $ Contingency Contingency 19,800.00 $ 19,800.00
Total 116,588.00$ Total 217,940.00$ 334,528.00 $ Grand Total 334,528.00$
Prime Consultant, Planning & Design
WRT LSA
Environmental Review
Exhibit C
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[Project Title]
PROJECT TITLE
YES* NO
1 Are you currently in litigation with the City of Fresno or any of its agents?
2 Do you represent any firm, organization or person who is in litigation with the City of Fresno?
3 Do you currently represent or perform work for any clients who do business with the City of Fresno?
4 Are you or any of your principals, managers or professionals, owners or investors in a busine ss which does business with the City of Fresno, or in a business which is in litigation with the City of Fresno?
5 Are you or any of your principals, managers or professionals, related by blood or marriage to any City of Fresno employee who has any significant role in the subject matter of this service?
6 Do you or any of your subcontractors have, or expect to have, any interest, direct or indirect, in any other contract in connection with this Project?
* If the answer to any question is yes, please explain in full below.
Explanation:
Signature
Date
(name)
(company)
(address)
Additional page(s) attached.
(city state zip)
#
+
'-&
*(!('"($'"
(',*
,+
/$,#
('+-%,
',+
' '(')*(!$,+*(.(+,
*$,
#
* -$% $'"
%,#0
(&&-'$,$ + ,
/#(&
0
%+(
($'"
-+$' ++/$,#,# $,0(!* +'(
, *$'
#
' ,* ,
* %
'*
'
$+
(
WRT, LLC | 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1450 | Philadelphia, PA 19109 wrtdesign.com | 215.732.5215
7/31/2024
RE: Authorized Signatory – Peter Winch on behalf of WRT Dear Sir or Maddam,
This text is copied from the firm's Operating Agreement. Per 8.3.(iii) and 8.3.(iv), the Executive Committee has the authority to designate who is authorized to commit the firm, in contract or otherwise. Specific names of authorized signers are not listed in the Agreement. For WRT, all Partners have been authorized to commit the firm through contract.
8.3 Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Agreement, all other decisions affecting the conduct of the Firm’s business and professional activities, policies and operations shall be managed, directed and determined by the Executive Committee. Except
for the exercise (by the Managing Principal or his or her deligee) of the authority expressly given to the Managing Principal under this Agreement, no Member or other person may, orally or in writing, bind the Firm to any obligation unless previously and specifically authorized by the Executive Committee or unless within guidelines for such authority established in this Agreement or otherwise established from time to time by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee may delegate all or any portion of its authority and responsibility from time to time to the Managing Principal and/or to one or more Committees or to any one or more offices or other positions established by the Executive Committee. Excepting the veto power of the Executive Committee as set forth in Section 8.2.5, above, it shall be the prerogative of the Managing Principal to appoint, remove and replace the specific persons to fill any such offices or other positions established by the Executive Committee from time to time.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, and in addition to all of the rights and powers provided by Pennsylvania law to members of limited liability companies, the Executive Committee shall have the following specific powers:
(i) To supervise the employment of persons by the Firm and the terms of such employment (excepting the terms of employment of Members), and to set policies governing the employment of persons (excepting Members) by the Firm;
(ii) To determine the compensation and benefits for all employees of the Firm (excluding Members); (iii) To establish and enforce guidelines concerning the projects to be undertaken by the Firm, and the contracts and commitments to be undertaken by the Firm for the provision of professional services; (iv) To establish and enforce guidelines for contractual obligations of the Firm entered into by Members and other authorized employees of the Firm;
Jeremiah Appleton, Director of Operations