Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wesip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PUC approves Amendment No. 2 to WESIP agreement CS 756 after probing questions about scope and cost
Summary
After extended questioning about why environmental work and permitting costs rose from an earlier estimate to roughly $7 million, the commission approved Amendment No. 2 to the WESIP-funded agreement (CS 756); staff said the scope expanded to include three separate reports and a $1.7 million rehabilitation subproject.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission approved Amendment No. 2 to the Water Enterprise Water System Improvement Program (WESIP) funded agreement CS 756 after commissioners pressed staff on why consultant costs had increased.
Commissioner concerns focused on a rise from about $4.7 million to a $7,000,000 figure and on the consultant effort (expressed as many person-hours). Irina Torrey, manager of the Bureau of Environmental Management, explained the current contract covers a larger, reconfigured scope than the original agreement. "The original agreement that was signed in September 2004 was not for the project that we're now doing the environmental review for," Torrey said, adding that the work now includes: a detailed existing-conditions report within the right of way; a second report covering laydown areas and access roads outside the right of way; and a third report that will form the EIR. Torrey also noted a rehabilitation subproject valued at $1,700,000.
Torrey said the earlier contract estimate was for a different, less-developed project and did not include permitting and agency consultation work or additional fieldwork. She told commissioners that, given potential endangered species and wetlands, some portions may require an EIR rather than a mitigated negative declaration. Commissioners requested and staff agreed to provide a written performance evaluation for the program manager (Parsons) and to have the CEOs of Parsons and CH2M Hill present findings of a draft risk assessment before a future meeting.
Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to CS 756 was moved by Commissioner Werbeck and seconded by Commissioner Normandy; commissioners responded 'Aye' and the motion passed. Torrey said staff would continue careful oversight of consultants and noted that the commission had in the past discharged consultants for poor performance.
Next procedural steps: staff will continue CEQA work, circulate required outreach materials for the ongoing public comment period, and present additional documentation requested by commissioners at a future meeting.
