Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Mr. Tom Passanisl, AICP <br /> December 17, 2010 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Budget remaining from 2009 contract (excluding contingency) 26.26 <br /> Additional incurred costs (items 1 through 7 below) 96,133.10 <br /> Estimated remaining costs (item 8 below) 8,279.48 <br /> Total additional cost (items 1 through 8 below minus 26.26) $104,386.02 <br /> Contingency remaining from 2009 contract (release requested) $17,883.00 <br /> Total contract amendment request $86,503.02 <br /> Itemized Total Additional Costs Estimated Cost <br /> 1. Collaboration and Coordination of New Shadow $16,111.64 <br /> Diagrams, Related DPP Policy, and CEQA Significance <br /> Thresholds. The overall shadow impact evaluation work scope <br /> proved to be more extensive than anticipated at the time 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 attorney in identifying potential shadow issues, <br /> defining feasible shadow policy, and formulating defensible <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 Coordination of 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 coordinated more intensely <br /> than anticipated 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 /> Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 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 substantially more extensive <br /> than anticipated at the time of original contract approval. <br /> 3. Periodic City Updates to DPP Precise Plan Document $19,333.97 <br /> (Including Boundary) During EIR Process. At the time of <br /> contract approval, the new DPP document had not been finalized <br /> for CEQA review and analysis, and one version of the new DPP <br /> document was anticipated for CEQA evaluation. The May 2007 <br /> version of the new DPP was available 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 /> preparation process, the following additional DPP documents were <br /> completed and made available to Wagstaff /MIG for analysis: (a) <br /> February 12, 2010 Draft Book II (new Books land III not yet <br /> available); (b) March 22, 2010 City Council Update Draft Book II <br /> T1106111fp- 12.17- 101eder (10671).doc <br />