My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Agda Pkt 2026.07.27 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2026
>
Agda Pkt 2026.07.27 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2026 2:11:26 PM
Creation date
7/28/2026 2:02:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
7/27/2026
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1154
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Page 5 of 6 <br />City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.org <br />Table #2: Project Phase Budget <br />Description Amount <br />Agreement Amount $1,328,487 <br />Contract Administration (Staff)$275,000 <br />PROJECT TOTAL:$1,603,487 <br />Table #3: Current Fund Budget <br />Fund #Fund Name Budget <br />Fund 359 Quimby Act Subdivision Parks In-lieu <br />Fee $3,252,000 <br />TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING:$3,252,000 <br />ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW <br />This activity, awarding a professional service contract for community engagement and master planning <br />services, is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines, <br />section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect <br />physical change in the environment. <br />PUBLIC NOTICE <br />Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 <br />hours prior to the meeting. <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />The City Council may choose to not approve this agreement and/or direct staff to pursue alternative <br />approaches to secure the required services. Alternatives include the following: <br />1. Not approve the agreement with Bionic, reject all responses to the current RFP, and re-issue the RFP <br />to solicit new responses. This alternative would delay the project schedule a minimum of three <br />months. There will likely be increased overall project cost for consultant and staff time. <br />2. Not approve the agreement with Bionic, reject all responses to the current RFP, rescope the RFP to <br />separate community engagement services and master planning services, and solicit responses to RFPs <br />for the separated services. This alternative would increase the overall project cost for consultant and <br />staff time and delay the project schedule to a minimum of one year, as tasks would need to be <br />completed sequentially instead of concurrently. <br />7.F. - Page 5 of 82 <br />314
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.