we have done some engineering cost estimation, but the port engineers and event authorities, and we believe the cost of the plan would be 7 million-8 million. the benefit of this approach is that the site really is a great site for crewuise activity. the east face a 22 is a natural water birth. we would like to be able to get buses out to the end of the pier to pick up passengers, and to again, have limited truck access. so this is a set of improvements that it's a lot more affordable than the plan we saw before that would provide 14 industrial bases during the america's cup, but have a long- term value to the port as well. i wanted to make sure the commission and the public understood 30-32 was potentially

in play as part of the state's plan. i mentioned earlier some of the costs that we think the port might undertake under the revised agreements. i would just mention a few of them, rather than going everything -- going over everything on the slide. $10.9 million worth of costs on the slide. we would do apron improvements to peers out 19. a number of removal projects a pier 64. between the pier 1 and the very building. the new end wall at 29 and storm water improvements at the end of pure 27-29, and relocating short power. that was another obligation that was on the event authority side of the location.

as well as pier 29 substructure repairs i mentioned earlier. most of the improvements have a useful life of 30 years. they are good, capital investments. we have gone through the investments of scoring the projects using the port capital plan scoring process, and they all score quite well. they fulfill a number of either permitting and regulatory obligations or other port- mission oriented goals such as maritime breathiirthing and the. the port has sufficient deck capacity to finance these obligations, largely because the poor will retain a lot of the properties that would have been leased on a long-term basis to the event authority, so we're seeing the port said capacity is

growing from $65 million to $89 million. largely off because we will keep the rents in a long-term. the added capacity would be the source of funds to finance improvements i just talked about. inow i would like to go over the next steps. it has been a busy month and will continue to be a busy month. we are continue to engage in negotiations on the reduce footprint. we're having to go back to some of the regulatory partners and explain changes that have happened over the past several weeks, and that will start with a hearing this thursday, march a 15 in oakland. in consultation with the city, we will be filing a revised

lease disposition agreement with the board of supervisors for their consideration, and the board of supervisors committee of the whole continued its deliberations to march 27, so staff will attend that meeting. then we would propose a port commission action on either march 27 or april 10, concurrent with the board action or following board action. that is the update i have a. ports that are available to answer any questions, as well as mark martin. president whoo ho: thank you. public comment. we have andrea taber. >> i guess i am here as the living proof of what the investment in the america's cup

would mean for our city. i am a small business owner, minority business owner operating in the printing and paper space. i have been in dialogue with the america's cup for over five months now talking about how we can bring sustainable material to all of their marketing material, and all of the sign it. moving forward with this plan would allow me to grow my business, bringing on additional resources, bringing on additional economic development through to our first city. i urge you to concur with what they are asking you to decide on. thank you. president whoo ho: norman appeapierce. >> norman pierce. i am a long-term san francisco

resident and ownboat ownder. ier. i am in support of the effort to make this event happened in san francisco. we had a heck of, but just a hiccup. i think this revised plan that i first saw today and any concerns about pier 32 is appropriate, because it brings back the concept of the village. having been too numerous america's cups, the ones that were most successful were the ones that created a village environment for people to interact, and not just for sailors. this event is being marketed to more than just sailors. it is going to help the citizens of san francisco, the citizens of the bay area.

it will help us beginning a restructuring of our court harbour facilities into more recreational facilities, and i want to commend everybody for hanging in there really hard with the long, drawn out granite street pier project that i just drove by today and they're taking out. it is going to be gone. we can have more good, positive work earne. you have a great partner. it was just a hiccup, but we are ready to move forward. thank you. president whoo ho: any further public comment? commissioners, comments? i want to clarify since we have had discussion on this that the consensus in the presentation,

there was contention with a 4.9 million. we think this investment, and the commission is certainly supportive of looking at the idea of moving the bill which to peer 30-32 for the other teams, and we support the direction you heard in the information presentation. >> i would like to chime in and say thanks staff for being nimble. i know it was not easy. thank you for your due diligence. >> likewise. i know an incredible amount of effort was put in under the prior reiteration come and hopefully some of that was useful. we want to thank staff for being so vigilant. thank you. >> i'm going to thank the staff , too. [laughter] and mike martin. you guys have done an incredible

job and have really been there to move this forward. thank you for making this continue to happen. >> i don't want to be the silent one. i concur with what my colleagues have said and continue to have respect and admiration for the continuing efforts that make this happen in one form or another. >> we will continue to be as creative as we can for the short-term and long-term for the city and the future of the port of san francisco. thank you. >> item 9b, informational presentation regarding environmental investigation come a feasibility study of the potential remedial action and remedial action planning for the pier 70 master plan area, located east of illinois street between mariposa and 22nd

streets. >> i'm carol bach, feared provincial affairs director in the port commission. i appreciate the opportunity to present this to you today and bring you up-to-date on the environmental investigation and remedial action plan work we have been doing up here 70. my presentation is precipitated in large part by the imminent publication of a feasibility study and remedial action plan to addressed contaminants to peer 70. -- to pier 70. i am aware that three of the five of you are new to the commission since the last of my updated you. i will give you a little bit of background on what we've been doing for the past five years before i get to this. manny, you will have to help me

out on this slides. you are aware from it -- thank you. i am sure you are aware from what you've heard of site history through the master plan development that app pier 70 has been under heavy industrial use for the past 100 years, including several decades when the united states navy was occupying part of this for shipbuilding and repair activities. and additionally, the way that much of the land that comprises pier 70 came to be was material in the bay to create new land.

historically the story line was comprised of serpentine rock bluff overlooking mud and the early developers created new shoreline land, at least in the pier 70 area, blasting the rock bluff and pushing the rock and debris onto the mud flats. additional material was placed to create new land of material as well. as a result of the way the soil that makes up here 70 came to exist, the material that was used to create it and a long history of industrial operations, there are many significant sources as contaminants there, and as a result, there has always been uncertainty about what was out there, what it would take to mediate it, and how much the

radiation at -- mediation would cost and how would impact for future development. with an awareness of those issues, and 2007 thin 2007 the sought a development with the support of the mayor's office and congress woman pelosi's office, that was awarded to the port through the u.s. department of commerce's economic development administration in late 2008. the grant award was for 2.2 $8 million to be used to investigate and clean up environmental contaminants at pier 70, including ground and water contamination and hazardous building materials.

we began with the soil and groundwater investigation in 2009 that continue 2010, and we publish the site investigation report in 2011. this figure shows an earlier version of the parcel scheme that was outlined in a draft port master plan for pure 70. the reason i bring it up is that was the plan that was in existence when we began this site investigation. all of our soil samples and references to location within herpier 70 are based on a persol location. since then, the site has evolved and not reflected in the final preferred master plan, but for consistency with the way we identified locations in the

investigation we have carried forward this schema through this. if you ever read the whole document, you will see references to parcel nine. if you know the master plan, you may think there is no person mind, but that is why. -- no parcel 9, but that is why. the shows the soil gas sample locations come and show it not because i expect you to define any information about environmental conditions from it, but to show that we sought to get a broad coverage of conditions that exist throughout the entire site, and we also based this investigation on historic data. there have been many previous investigations, so we looked at the old data, check it for validity, and combined it with new examples we have to elected to fill in data gaps, and also to get broad coverage throughout

the site. the site investigation concluded more than 180 soil samples from borings that were drilled to various steps throughout the site and from test pits, shallowed of excavations. we collected more than 50 ground water samples from temporary sampling locations, and also from 10 a permanent ground water monitoring wells. we collected 33 soil samples. the reason soil gas is interesting is because soil gas, the air that exist in the spaces within subsurface soil can migrate up through foundations into buildings, and also can migrate into outdoor air. if you of volatile organic compounds in soil gas, those can pose a potential health risk if

they migrate into inclosed buildings. that is why we were looking at that. so ho thethis site investigation produced four key findings. it is containing metals, prh's, are particularly problematic class of hydrocarbon, at concentrations exceeding cleanup levels throughout the entire site. those contaminants are from naturally occurring sources such as the serpentine rock that was used to create the land, and also historic industrial operations. those exceeded cleanup levels for all of the three different

anticipated future uses, which would be commercial, recreational, and residential. virtually everywhere. conversely, ground water was found to contain metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. at concentrations it did not propose a human health impact or held to the environmenimpact to we found a couple of constituents above clean up level at different locations throughout the site, some of which were not confirmed through repeat sampling. there is really no indication we have a problem with soil gas at pier 70. the human health risk estimate, which was conducted in conjunction with the site investigation found the greatest hazards associated with environmental contamination or future site users, the commercial, recreational, and

residential users exposure to native soil and construction workers' exposure to soil, and potentially ground water because there excavating in an area and it to a depth where they would encounter ground water. a couple of exceptions to the general conclusion about ground water not being a problem, is within parcel 9, which are like chile -- which are largely operated by a ship operating, we found in the ground water intermittently in that area, they would have residual petroleum, a very thick material that would be suspended in the water sample, and beside the investigation did additional analysis of the physical and chemical nature of that material and determined it is a heavily degraded petroleum

material, probably related to historic fuel storage at the site. the presence of fuel in this of service in that area is documented as far back as 1930 and previous. we suspect that what remains is the last of the degradation of that material. it is not always told. it is not soluble. the petroleum constituents are not getting into the ground water. they are staying in this discreet molecule's. it could not be physically extracted, and it is not indicative of an ongoing source of petroleum. we did not find it in the soil in the same area. the general conclusion about that material is that it does not pose a health risk and is not migrating to the bay, but it excavation were to occur in that area, special handling measures would be applied.

and in the southeast corner of the site, the area shown on the slide as the blue polygon, there is an area referred to in the site investigation and the document as the mtp area. this is a portion of pier 70 where the contamination form -- from the formerly manufactured gas plant had migrated from beneath the plant site of north fort and now are present in the pier 70. in so pg&e has been working closely with the port to delineate the extent to which the manufactured gas plants related contamination has migrated to peer 70. they did additional drilling at the request of the port in january of 2012 to further delineate exactly where the room

of waste -- where the plume of voice has migrated. pg&e is undertaking its own feasible study and review action process for the energy related and extending to the contamination before property. so a feasibility study of remedial action plan prior to that little area out and did not deal with it, it becomes a kind of remedial action you would apply to the other contaminants at pier 70 is completely different kinds of contamination, distribution and the environment, different severity. our remedial action plan does not address contamination, and their remedial action plan will. so the feasibility study, the purpose of the feasibility study would be to analyze various

alternatives for remediation as contaminants at pier 70. and following a process that is prescribed by federal and state regulations come analyze the different alternatives to come up with the preferred alternative that forms the basis for a remedial action plan. and so with the feasibility study we started by setting remedial action objectives. what are the goals we want this brevity to achieve? the keep goals are preventing future users' exposure to contaminated soil, preventing exposure to contaminated ground water or to volatile organic compounds emanating from ground water, and preventing exposure to volatile organic compounds in the air. even though the second two goals are not applicable to this type of contamination, there are

pools of the overall remedy. we also wanted to select a remedy that would be very protective and conservative and also, allow the port the greatest flexibility in considering future development at pier 70. we started off by comparing this date at that we had against clean of levels for the three different anticipated uses that we have identified. ultimately we based the remedial action plan and the feasibility study on achieving residential cleanup goals. we did that so the selected remedy would enable development for any of the three anticipated future uses any where we might want to put them with the napier 70 area. the feasibility study started by

looking at a broad range, the redials that might work to address this contamination of the site, and compares those. we came up with a short list of five potentially feasible medial actions. those are no action, which is a hypothesis that is required by the regulation that governs how you do a feasibility study to state and the alternative analysis as a baseline to compare all the other alternatives. institutional control is a second alternative. institutional controls are administrative or legal measures that can be implemented to minimize or prevent site user

exposure to contaminants. an example would be deed restrictions on certain types of uses or mandatory worker health and safety plans for construction workers. alternative #three is combining institutional controls with installation of a durable cover over all of the soil at pier 70. alternative number four is soil excavation and off site disposal, which for the purposes of this analysis we assumed all of the shallow soil at pier 70 would have to be excavated and hauled off by truck to an apartment and fill. the fifth alternative is hot spot removals. excavations of areas where the contamination is concentrated and can be identified is

different and more severe than the soil around it. so we evaluated each of those alternatives. nine of federally specified a valuation criteria, and six state-specified criteria, and also, using a fairly recently issued guidance document from the state department of toxic substance control that enables a quality of valuation of how different remedial alternatives themselves and have the environment. it looks at the sustainability of the remedial action, how much energy it would use, with the greenhouse gas emissions would be from their remedial action community impacts like traffic and noise. so we ran the short list of

feasible alternatives through this, of the evaluation criteria, and with the exception of the no action alternative, all of them were determined to be feasible and at least a good short-term and long-term effectiveness. the comparison of alternative to-50 was based primarily on overall protectiveness and cost. alternative no. 3, rated the highest with a rating of very good. the factors that contributed to that ranking were that's alternative never to come institutional controls, that was determined to be not sufficiently protected. that would not provide a physical barrier between site users and contaminated soil and rely solely on administrative mechanisms. alternative #three, the institutional controls combined with the cap was the highest-

rated remedial action. it would provide protections from the environmental contaminants at pier 70 at a relatively low cost. alternative #four come excavation and off-site for -- disposal was found to be affected but also very costly with a cost of 6.7 times more than alternative no. 3 would be, but achieving essentially the same as effectiveness of the end of the day. alternative #five, hot spot removal was found to be neither sufficiently protective or cost effective, because we could not identify hot spots within the contaminated soil at pier 70, and even if we set an arbitrary limit and said we will remove everything that is 10 times or five times above the cleanup level, you would still be leaving behind a things that have to be capped. it is an unfortunate