Laserfiche WebLink
f I <br /> 6.1 C <br /> Page 4 <br /> Mr. Tom Passanisi, AICP <br /> Oecember 17, 2010 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Budget remaining from 2009 contract (excluding contingency) 26.26 <br /> Additionai incurred costs (items 1 through 7 below) 96,133.10 <br /> Estimafed remaining costs (item 8 below) 8,279.48 <br /> Total additional cost (items 1 through 8 below minus 26.26) $104,388.02 <br /> Contingency remaining from 2009 contract (release requested) $17,883.00 <br /> Totai contract amendment request �86,503.02 <br /> itemized Total Additional Costs Estimated Cost <br /> 1. Cvllaboration and Coordination of New 3hadow $16,111.64 <br /> Diagrams, Related DPP Policy, and CEQA Significance <br /> Threshoids. The overall shadow impact evatuation wark scope <br /> proved to be more extensive than anticipated at the t�me of original <br /> contract approval. At the time of contract approval, no shadow <br /> modeling of the DPP area had been prepared. Wagstaff/MIG <br /> collaborated and coordinated extensively with City staff and the <br /> City's consulting attomey in identifying potential shadow issues, <br /> defining feasible shadow policy, and formulating defensibfe <br /> significance criteria for potential shadow impacts. Subsequently, in <br /> conjunction with the extensive shadow modeling exhibits prepared <br /> for the City, Wagstaff/MIG independently evaluated and integrated <br /> the information resulting from this process into the EIR. <br /> 2. Collaboration and Coordlnation af New Historic Resource $18,259.86 <br /> Survey Information with City Staff for Incorporation into EIR <br /> Analysis. Similar to the shadow issue (item #1 above}, City staff <br /> and Wagstaff/MIG collaborated and cflordinated more intensely <br /> than anficipated on the historic resource topic. Wagstaff/MIG <br /> independently evaluated and integrated the extensive new historic <br /> resource information into the EIR pursuant to the particular <br /> requirements and analysis framework of the California <br /> Environrnental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guideiines. The <br /> overall process of staff dialogue regarding the evolving DPP <br /> historic preservation provisions (e.g., the Historic Resources <br /> Preservation Strategy) proved to be substan4ally more extensive <br /> than anticipated at the time of original contract approval. <br /> 3. Periodic City Updates to DPP Preclse Plan Document $19,333.97 <br /> {Including Boundary) Du�fng EIR Process. At the time of <br /> contract epproval, the new DPP document had not been finalized <br /> for CEQA review and analysis, and one version o# the new DPP <br /> document was anticipated for CEQA evaluafion. The May 2007 <br /> version of the new DPP was avaitable at the time, which was a <br /> revision of the September 2006 DPP evaluated for the previous <br /> (2006) Draft EIR. After contract approval and during the EIR <br /> preparafion process, the following additionai DPP documents were <br /> completed and made available to Wagstaff/MIG for analysis: (a) <br /> February 12, 2010 Draft 800k II (new Books I and III not yet <br /> available); (b) March 22, 2010 City Council Update Draft Book II <br /> T.i108711tp-12-f7-101eUer (10871).doc <br />