>> any other public comment on this item? >> i would like to suggest his staff, if they can, reaching out in the public benefits sector, that united states department of affairs is very important. since it would bunch up. we should get our veterans administration in this as an end user, inc. in time. >> we have met with an throughout the it -- we have met with them throughout the apartment -- throughout the process and look at the options for where they want to be. the agreement was that we would keep talking. there is room for a lot. >> that was my point. i know that they are not a large

development group. thank you. >> by wanted to mention that i forgot to say that we did not mention one thing we wanted you to do today. port commission and staff has expressed thanks in the evaluation panels for the participation and support in this effort. looking back at the pier 70 advisory group, it was created to help with the first, thought of as a four month project. sort of like the three hour cruise to gilligan's island. many of us were looking at a regular basis at the community, with our year to the ground, and we really appreciate the efforts and stewardship of these groups. thank you. any other comments? >> in just echoing a friend's

comments, as well as the commissioners. it was good and contained in all of the proposals. perhaps even meeting with others to get their sense of the points that were interesting and possibly worth taking a look at. >> i would also like to echo all of the comments. i think that staff did a phenomenal job with this project. it has been ongoing for the past 10 years. we have had a lot of meetings in the last three to four years just to prepare the proposal. to get such a great response was wonderful. you did a wonderful job. thank you for putting in the time and effort. all of the submitted were

proposals were very good proposals. i would like to congratulate forsea for winning the competition at this point. i look forward to the ground breaking. [laughter] thank you. >> commissioners? [laughter] all in favor? marlette -- resolution 1121 has been approved. >> item 9b. request approval to enter into a first amendment memorandum of understanding for design development with the san francisco department of public works to extend the scope of work from schematic design through design for the pier 27 terminal crews and northeast war for plaza project and it request approval to increase fees for

the design contract with the joint venture of kaplan, mclaughlin, diz, and pfau long architecture in the amount not to exceed 1900 $5,161 -- $1,950,161 to extend the project scope work from schematic design through design development, and seek an additional authorization for a 10% contingency in the amount of 195 set -- $195,016 in the event of necessary change orders and for 264 $893,000 -- $264,893 for retroactive design costs as described herein for a total contract authorization of

$2,410,070 and to extend the term of the agreement to july 31. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> thank you. [laughter] >> do i have to say all of that over again? [laughter] first, i would like to provide a brief update as to where we are in the design process. then we will provide some information about where we are in the mou and the integrated project delivery approach for the project. after entering into an mou with dpw in early 2010 we went through several project phases. the first was a program

development. this was completed it just over one year ago. the finding the elements needed in a scheme -- cruise terminal, locating where it is on the site. from that we entered into concept design phase, reviewed last july in a variety of public meetings and workshops. then we went into a schematic design phase, presented to you on march 22. now the resolution before you is requesting authorization to proceed with development and construction drillings. that is some time early in 2012. illustrating that there are a lot of points in the design process and we are at a midpoint. the design development phase is set out to bring greater clarity to a project with design

alternatives and informed cost decisions to be made about the terminal and its potential construction when environmental clearance is completed. last week we met with the cruise terminal steering committee. we reviewed project components, adjustments the program elements, and other features of the project and how it might come into alignment with the budget. the steering community was in support of the proposed adjustments, additionally the baggage area being left uncovered, as seen in this diagram here, where we would capture the area in the foot print without constructing a building over it so that it retains its program and function but not quite all of its amenities. we will go into the other features that were done to bring

the project in alignment with its budget. the committee had one request, to add a second elevator to provide redundancy in a situation where elevators can fail at times. the design team is looking at that. matching up with the budget numbers, we will return to you in the future. our next steps of public outreach are at the design review waterfront advisory committee review board on may 9. that will be at 6:30 in the evening. we are also setting up a workshop for early june, we are confirming that date now. we will look at the cruise terminal in the northeast plaza. it is being reviewed as part of the eir process as we go forward. should the resolution be

approved, please look forward to reviewing the results in july or august prior to us beginning any construction drilling. campbell will present the budget issues on the project now. >> midafternoon, commissioners, executive director. we are breaking this up on the screen. when we presented in march our schematic design, at that time we did not have the cost estimate completed. nor did we have an estimation for funding consideration. one thing that i would like to review right now -- the cost and the funding available. this is table 5 in your memorandum. the base case referred to here

is the schematic design has taken off by the cost estimator. the total cost, excluding the america's cup event authority obligations came out to $600 million, which exceeded the funding source of $78 million, leaving a $28 million gap in our project. as a result, we went back through -- back through the design to see if we could remove some elements of the project in order to enable us to be able to afford to build it. this is a plan to view of the facility. the bottom view is a ground- floor. the top view is the floor above it. one of the factors in a cruise

terminal is the layout of the baggage area. different from an airport. we have conveyors bringing bags down in a small area. in the cruise terminal that like to set the bags on the ground. you have from 2600 to 4000 people, that is a lot of baggage. they like to do it in one shift, if possible. one of the recommendations from our steering committee, previously, had been to expand the baggage area to accommodate up to 4000 passengers. unfortunately, the cost of that was significant. one of our value engineering programs was to find a way to reduce the area of the baggage and maintain the function. that is shown on the drawing in front of you. the net effect of reducing the

first four baggage areas, 13,000 feet, saving the project $18 million. the area shown within the red dots would be maintained as an open baggage area and could be covered with canapes during inclement weather. on the second area there is an area of 27 -- 2700 square feet, part of the engineering effort to move over to the green area shown on the bottom of the upper story. the green was reserved for later into the future. the effect would be and 85,000 square foot enclosed terminal,

meeting our functional design, 4000 for the ultimate case. we needed to save more money and that i just showed. looking at the interior of the building, considering sliding doors, elevators, it, seating, window shades, $100 million in savings. we also looked at substituting asphalt for pavers in the ground transportation area. for the new commissioners that is the area between the terminal building and pier 29 as shown on the screen. would it have been nice? it is not necessary. they do not have them at the airport, we can do without them here.

but they did say of another $1.5 million. the marginal wharf is a 50 foot swath on the bay side of the sea wall running along the embarcadero. part of it was built in 1914, the other was 1965. we tried non-destructive concrete piles. so far found to be suitable for advanced construction projects. if you recall, from our last phase, the first is what we intend to deliver for the america cup. at that time we did not have to

deliver the plaza transportation area. there would be elements of the building not expelled at the time. with of those changes, we are able to fully fund phase one. reducing the shortfall of $12 million in face to. as we progress the design, we are looking at other value engineering phases. possibly deferring some element into the future. these changes could be implemented in order to keep the project on schedule, something the department of public works could be amended to enable so that it could continue its role as project manager and have the design team continue in its role for the next page of the

prague -- next phase of the project. they have met our schedule and to deliver the drawings and specifications as required. park staff proposes to utilize an innovative project delivery approach for the services. a major general contractor for this purpose. our project manager with the department of public works explains this project delivery. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. edward lopez. before i give my presentation, given the project managers with the vw -- dpw, she has been

working very closely with the project. i wanted to provide some context of project delivery for means of building up the project. public projects in san francisco are done in a traditional way. this method tends to work well for projects that are fairly straightforward. for the projects that are more complex in nature, we have been using a new delivery method called construction manager general contractor. we were successful in using this project for the california development academy of sciences, including the general hospital headquarters and the veterans

building. the new police headquarters as well. this method helps projects where there is a certain amount of complicity. contractors are hired to look at the drawings that the design team put together and help with coordination on that effort, resulting in change orders, in turn resulting in savings to the project. chapter 6 of the administrative code describes the process for using this delivery method. in summary, it is just a process where we issue requests where contractors are screen and evaluate and test basis for

contractors deemed qualified in order to respond to a request for proposals where we have a prescriptive criteria for evaluating proposals. 65% of the evaluation is based on cost. the rest is based on non-cost items. those include looking at their commitment to comply with city goals for the human rights commission, complying with local hiring requirements, quality of staff, purged to deliver savings that might offer as part of the project. because we are working on an extremely aggressive deadline to deliver this project i and i'm for the america's cup, we wanted to highlight the provisions of

the contract. they contain a certain level of financial risk. immediately after selecting the contractor, we would direct the contractor to provide construction services. as mentioned earlier, this is when the contractor oversees a portion of the document coordination. costs estimated to make sure we are tracking the fixed construction budget limit. they also became a process of qualified trade contractors. every single one is pre- qualified, enabling us as they know how to perform the work.

all of this work does not require pre-construction work. this is prior to port clearance. if the port were to cancel this, the money is spent during the service, we would have to get value of the project is not moving forward. the next phase of the project would be to allow the contractor to begin ordering items for certain, specific traits. these packages to but we require anywhere from 14 weeks to 16 weeks of lead time before the

application begins. subcontractors prepare shop drawings. they are in dialogue with our design team. working out construction details and so on. if the project were not to clear and the phase was completed, the port would be at risk of having spent seven% to 8% of the construction costs, for which we would get very little return. that is the level of pre- construction services you have seen being performed. none would take place prior to seaport clearance. getting into the construction contract is the proficiency to not get ourselves ahead of it. i think this covers

representation. would you like to add anything? >> one question, the cmgc approach has been successful in other projects, what about delayed the damage claims that the end of the project? >> sorry, can we finish the presentation? >> if we are done, that is fine. >> the presentation is complete. >> may i answer your question? >> ask it again? >> it has helped us on other projects. methods in which we finish on

budget, we started construction in the middle of services. we are saving money, solving issues as we go along, before starting fabrication. >> may be just another question, this would be 7%? >> we are talking more than that. >> there are two levels. >> cost estimate -- cost estimating vetting of documents. the next phase, the worst case

scenario would be if we had a canceled contract and we had spent money on preparing the shop drawings and placing orders. that is worth 7% to 8% of the construction contract. >> is there public comment on this item? >> passage? >> thank you. >> all in favor? o>> aye. >> thank you very much. let's it>> item 10a.

informational presentation on the ports maritime industry preservation policy. >> good afternoon, commissioners. at the first commission meeting this year, the day i have an informational presentation for the commission. we have put the guidelines together. this was a fun project to work on. this was informational, getting information from you, taking this policy to the advisory committees. hopefully we will come back to

you relatively soon for a vote on the policy. this has a " in it that mirrors my views about the port of seven cisco. a complex entity that has always connect the waterfront to the larger city beyond. when we envision the port, first we think of the dearth of ships that were loaded and unloaded. that is how i see the port of san francisco. we have done this for close to 148 years. for over 100 years, the port was the primary industrial port of

the west coast, really developed because of our assets here in san francisco. shipping technology has obviously changed. obviously we were obsolete by the late 1950's. in the late 1960's the container age hit. spatially it could handle that kind of industry. so, after that point at which the port was concerned over how to protect the water front and we put together the land-use plan, the official policy document of the port commission, it set forth goals and got policies for port approval and public open spaces before

maritime industry needs. since the initial adoption in 1997, the port commission has demanded that went a couple of times to look at public access issues and architectural guidelines. the deal has been tweaked to realize the rich maritime heritage of the embarcadero as a nationally recognized historic district, preserving the waterfront and historic buildings. the proposed preservation plan goes to the next step, and it really is protecting uses. i think that court staff agrees. it is