Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXHIBIT "A" <br /> <br />WASHBURN, BRISCOE & MCCARTHY <br />A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br /> <br />770 L STREET, SUITE 990 <br />SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9S814 <br />TELEPHONE: (916) 447-0700 <br />FACSIMILE: (916) 447-4781 <br /> <br />LAWYERS <br />S5 FRANCISCO STREET, SUITE 600 <br />SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133 <br />TELEPHONE: (415) 421-3200 <br />FACSIMILE: (415) 421-5044 <br /> <br />2SS0 FRITZ COVE ROAD <br />JUNEAU, ALASKA 9980 I <br />TELEPHONE: (907) 789-6818 <br />FACSIMILE: (907) 789-6819 <br /> <br />.J !\ r' 1 <br /> <br />:395 <br /> <br />January 10, 1995 <br /> <br />f' <br /> <br />Mr. Ed Everett <br />City Manager <br />city of Redwood city <br />Post Office Box 391 <br />Redwood city, CA 94064 <br /> <br />Re: <br /> <br />Redwood Shores Levee Upqrade proiect <br /> <br />Dear Ed: <br /> <br />As you and I discussed following our meeting with the <br />staff representatives of Congressman Lantos and Congresswoman <br />Eshoo January 4, it most likely will be necessary to augment the <br />amounts of the contract between the City of Redwood city and this <br />firm. That need has been occasioned by the threat of the Fish <br />and Wildlife Service to issue a "jeopardy opinion" for the <br />project pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered species Act. <br /> <br />A "jeopardy opinion" is one that concludes that the <br />project would likely jeopardize the continued existence of an <br />endangered species, in this case either the California clapper <br />rail, a bird, or the salt-marsh harvest mouse. It is exceedingly <br />difficult to obtain the necessary entitlements for a project when <br />the Fish and wildlife Service has issued jeopardy opinion. We <br />were not at all expecting one, considering that the environmental <br />consulting firm retained by the City has an excellent reputation, <br />and had developed a series of measures that, in its opinion, <br />would assure that the project would not harm either the mouse or <br />the rail. <br /> <br />To assure that there is no disruption in legal services <br />I would recommend that an additional $25,000 be added to the <br />ceiling amount of the existing contract. This would allow ample <br />funds for necessary meetings with the Corps, the Fish and <br />wildlife Service, and congressional Representatives, as well as <br />the development of any legal position papers required to support <br />the City's position. If the project is turned down, the City <br />will likely have no recourse but litigation, and it needs to be <br />in the best possible position for that unhappy event. <br />