Agmt07 LSA Associates, Inc. - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I L S ^ I I LSA ASSOClATES, INC, 2215 FIFTH STREF.T BERKE1.EY, CAUFORNIA 94710 510.540.7331 TH 510.540.7344 FAX CARLS8AD IRVINE COl.MA PALM SPRINGS FORT COLLINS POINT R1CHMOND RIVERSIDE ROCKLIN SAN LUIS OBISPO January 31, 2008 Tom Passanisi, AICP, Principal Planner Planning Division City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Subject: Budget Augment for The Preserve at Redwood Shores Project EIR Dear Mr. Passanisi: LSA is requesting approval of a budget augment of $3,800.00 to the existing approved budget of $177,230.00 for a total budget of$181 ,030 for preparation of The Preserve at Redwood Shores Project EIR. The budget as approved included a contingency of $11,065 which required your prior approval to use. You approved an expenditure of$1,360.00 from the contingency on June 7,2007 to have LSA assist the City wiLlJ. tribal consultation which is required by State Law for a General Pla...'1 Amendment. The scope of work included funding for a Northwest Information Center records search and staff time to send the survey results to Ms. Sayers, the tribal representative that requested consultation in response to our initial notification. On September 14,2007, you approved an expenditure of $9,200 for the visual simulations. With this approval, $10,560 of the $11,065 contingency had been authorized to be used. After providing comments on the draft versions of the simulations we provided fmal versions of the simulations in October. 2007. Subsequently, you asked that the simulations be provided without any landscaping, and also with smaller, younger vegetation. On November 26,2007, you approved additional visual simulation work to provide these views at a cost of $2,450 and confmned that if there were insufficient funds in the budget to cover this amount, additional funds would be requested from the applicant. Other out of scope services provided during the preparation of The Preserve EIR included: Providing more copies of the Administrative Draft EIR (18 instead of 5), the Draft EIR (80 instead of 50), and the RTC (42 instead of 30) than provided for in the approved scope of work. . Reviewing three versions of the transportation impact analysis, requiring revising the transportation section twice. . Receiving the City's comments to the administrative drafts and screen check drafts from several commenters, instead of a single consolidated and reconciled set of comments as specified in the approved scope of work. PLANNING BNVlllONM'ENTAL DESIGN