Laserfiche WebLink
<br />R'..I!!"'" p.. O' ;. 'R'."T: <br />. ,.... ; : . <br />. .. . . , . <br /> <br />6.10 <br />Page 1 <br /> <br /> <br />July 23, 2007 <br /> <br />SUBJECT <br />Costco Wholesale - Amendment to Agreement for Professional Environmental <br />Assessment Services <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Approve by motion Amendment #3 to the Agreement with David Evans and Associates <br />for professional environmental review services for the Costco Wholesale project. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />In 2005, Costco Wholesale submitted an application to replace their existing retail <br />warehouse store with a larger store and to add a gas station to their site. The project <br />review included the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as well as <br />design review, and consideration of use permits. After a joint public hearing on June 19, <br />2007, the Planning Commission certified the EIR and the Zoning Administrator <br />approved a use permit for a new Costco retail warehouse and a use permit for a new <br />Costco gas station. Subsequent to these actions, members of the Redwood Village <br />neighborhood appealed all of these entitlements. Their appeal letter cites concerns <br />about the EIR and related studies. David Evans and Associates, environmental <br />consultant to the City for the Costco project, has prepared a scope of work for <br />responding to the appeal. This proposal to conduct additional work for a total of $14,110 <br />will be the third amendment to the original contract if it is approved. <br /> <br />A brief history of this contract and associated amendments is summarized below: <br />. June 2005: Original contract for $153,049. <br />. November 2006: Amendment #1 for $25,616 to incorporate an alternative site <br />plan into the EIR. <br />. February 2007: Amendment #2 for $22,324 to provide responses to a significant <br />number of comments on the Draft EIR. <br />. July 2007: Proposed Amendment #3 for $14,110 to provide technical support for <br />appeal review. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />Do not approve the amendment. In such a case, the scope of work for consultant <br />support for the appeal response and hearing will be limited. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />The developer for the project has funded the full cost to review this proposal, including <br />all consultants to the City. Amending this contract will result in no fiscal impact to the <br />City. <br />