short walls along the wharfs and our adopting to a rise of 55 inches by 2100 appears to be a huge challenge. including bcdc and at the local regional and the state levels. also, with the sliding sea level, it will become increasingly difficult, to repair and maintain a port's

piers. now, i will talk about the side and the liquidfaction issues. the ground below the structure resulting in sliding if you recall, joe's presentation, and the original coast line was somewhere along the western edge of the embarcadero and the space between the coast line and the existing coast wall is filled with soil, and several feet of ground and sliding of the sea wall, is expected, during the major seismic event and, although the flight risks associated with the sea level rise are expected to open gradually and either seismic event could happen any time, and the wide and spread chaos and destruction, and rebuilding, and this picture

shows what could happen along the water front if we get 7.9 on the earthquake, a new building after the event will not be easy, it will be very expensive and it may take years. next to slides, shows enough time line of addressing sea level rise and seismic issues. to prevent the water front from flooding and associated with sea level rise of 15 inches or so, and ex-expected to occur by 2050 we will need to start installing flood protection barriers along the wharfs and piers by 2030, and we are going to start exploring solutions expected to occur by 2100. and the next i will talk and i

will talk about the time line for addressing the seismic issues. >> we are working on the plan to investigate the seismic risks along the port water front and this will be followed by complete evaluation for next for the four to five years and ultimately. and we are working with the other cities and including the city capitol planning and to increase the sea wall issues and to include the sea wall in the city's capitol plan. and i will like to end my presentation with some interesting ideas for climate adaptation. the first one shows the barrier along the pier 27 structure and the second one, which is not shown here, and we need to disconnect our piers from the support piles and turn them

into other structures, maybe and the third one is need to build a golden gate bridge and the last one, sometimes around 2150 is to pack and relocate to a higher ground. so this completes my presentation and joe i will will be happy to answer any questions. >> is there any public comment? >> commissioners comments? >> i don't think that it will add new meaning to the word wall on the water front for

another day. we are trying to address these issues and it looks dire if everything comes as predicted. in terms of working with the other city departments, have we come up with any other alternatives or are there any other areas of focus that we need be sort of clammoring about or raising to the forefront? >> i think that adapting to 2050 sea level rise does not seem like a big deal, i mean that we can handle it internally, and we can use the port resources, but adapting to the 2100, sea level rise and it is a big deal and it may cost 1 billion dollars, and you know, i don't think that the city or the port has that kind of resource, you know, to take on that kind, so we may have to work, at the federal, and state level, to seek some grant, money. or and i attended a couple of

meetings with the city capitol planning, and i think that they are bonding capacity is also limited. and so, i'm not sure that we can issue the bonds and i am not an expert.

people think that we can start rebuilding right away, but when you are ground and unstable, i mean, how are you going to start rebuilding, you have to evaluate to the ground first and you have to get a solid expert, and you have to evaluate your ground, and you know, and so allow the water front, and i see, maybe, we can now, get an expert to kind of evaluate the seismic risks associated with the sea wall and the water front >> a group that come together and help to prioritize those and they have made this a high priority looking at sea level and sea level rise, spur has

engaged with us to see how they can help. there are no concur ans, there seems to be what it is on the next 2050 but 2100 no one knows, we are assuming that there has to be a regional solution, and there was a design competition, and they kind of made a joke about a gate, at the golden gate and that was one of the ideas that came forward in a design competition, and there is also, a group led out, a danish group that has been very active and there are a number of experts from the bay area, who are participating in some think tanks with them on what to do, so there is quite a bit going on none of which has come forward yet and this is how you respond. and but i just, do i want to assure you that the other city departments, especially, muni, and especially, the puc, both

of whom have infrastructure and above the sea wall are interested and concerned about what we are going to be doing and more broadly as a commission, as you know we have grapled like we did with the wharf and that is not a commercial enterprise and so we were able to come up with a solution for that and as we go forward and look at leases that could have terms in excess of 2050. we will have a solution, and bcdc have made it clear that they will not permit anything, and until there is a solution and very much on the forefront, and long before we get to the building stage, we have a lot of other work to do. so, hopefully you will be hearing quite a bit from us on this going forward. >> you actually did sort of touch on my second question, which was really in terms of projected development and we have seen how much is going on throughout this entire area, and as i looked at the overlay of where the potential problems are likely to occur and where most of the building growth is

currently taking place, and i wonder what kind of notice are being provided for not only the builders but i think, it is some obligation to at least try to get the word out as folks are moving in there. with all of the upcoming development projects if we are looking at that and how that is going to be. >> for the project, we are definitely looking for solutions, liquidfaction and they will be doing the improvement in front of the sea wall and that will mitigate the issue and also, they are looking into, rating the deck to some extent, and which we

will, it will kind of there are a lot of productions out there and 55 inches of the sea level, rise will happen and where it is going to happen, we don't know. and i have one in terms of what was done for 2050, and is that sort of a down payment for what has to follow for 2100? in other words, if we think about it, you know, you do step one and then you do step two, and one thing, you may not be able to totally answer that question and just saying it on the approach and the second thing is that it is a huge problem, right? if you talk about the arena and if we were to extrapolate projects that are current on the water front and the upcoming leases and the projects like the arena if you start to bite at the apple so to speak, could have the whole thing address and trying to

address the whole thing at once is a daunting task and the last piece, i guess was, you know, we are not only, the only ones worried, about, it regionally, but there are obviously federal, land, involved here, and in marina green and fort mason and all of that area, and they have to face the same issues and so i guess how we are coordinating with either the federal or state level in terms of other areas that are related to area. and something that was jointly, you know, the plan and if we can't agree upon whether it is 35 inches or 55, it does not seem to matter, you have to agree upon a plan first and then technically you have to decide how far you are going to address the rise. so that is a lot to swallow, but those are the thoughts that were going through my head as we were talking. >> to answer your first part of the question, we are taking the steps, in particular, the project as you know, we tilted

the deck, and you know, that made the deck higher at the water's edge. and which kind of eliminates or mitigates the sea level rise, effect, to some extent. but, i don't think that solution takes care of the 2100, sea level rise. and all of these other projects that we have, that these are projects on the water front. and i'm working at it whenever you know, people talk to me, you know, we want to make sure that they are addressing the sea level rise issues. you know? and you know, they have to have some kind, because they go to the bcdc, and down to the area and the david asked the same question, what are you going to do? lease it for 60 or 70 years? and we will have some problems, beyond 2050 for sure, and so, taking care of the problem, for the rise and the 2050, and it is is completely independent of what we are going to do for

2100. and 2050 solution, involves building short walls, you know, the curve walls a long the piers but the 2100 solution we are talking about building a new sea wall, which is completely different and we have to find, you know, you have to think about what are we going to build it in front of the pier or move it father out. >> and one thought would be as we look at the specific leases that will be, and that go up to 2050 or beyond, and i am just wondering as a portfolio, when we should worry about the charge or the reserve to build up, the funding and we are not going to fund it entirely ourselves but if we don't start building something and that could be called out in any leases a it is a sinking fund

to help us address, whether it is a 2050 are the 2100, i am just saying as you have to substantially start planning what you can do. >> i agree with you, in some places we may have to remove some of these piers as part of the plan and even removing these are not cheap. they cost $50 per square foot to remove these. >> i think that where we are, is you adopted your capitol reserve policy, which says just to satisfy exactly a sinking fund where we aren't is where we have not watched the sea level rise and what that looks like into the capitol plan and which is what the fund is to fund and while we are sitting and we are achieving goals of getting to the moneys that could be expended for these types of infrastructure projects and we have not a clear plan of how we are going to spend them >> and the solution and we described with the curves at the end of the piers need to float.

and i think that is right, because that is sort of from the port perspective, but i think what i am saying goes a little bit of a step further of letting our tenants know. >> yeah. >> we are not... we have to help in terms of a little bit at a time and that is up after, 15, 20, 30 years. and so, we are doing internally restructuring it and yeah, we need to get. >> so we need to explore how that effects what we charge for rent and get back to the commission on that. like we did when we set up the water front charge and we ended up do that out of our regular rental rate and not calling it as a separate line item and in this case we might do something different and let's explore it and we will come back. >> on the existing concrete piers were they not designed properly to withstand, the 50

inches. raising the piers and anything is possible, but it is going to be a huge expense and i mean that is an expense, and also, one thing that i would like to point out, the concrete quality, you know, these piers are almost 100 years old and you are constantly repairing these piers and the rebar and this will continue and eventually, when you have a situation where you have a limited construction window, because you are entire level is going up, and so, with the current technology, i can't think of any way to repair these piers. you know? >> why couldn't you pile

section and then, rephrase them with, you know, (inaudible) nwe can. i mean that we can, it is possible. >> at the same time, raise them and possibly raise. >> raising is a huge challenge. >> there is a pier at a time? >> you know, they would have to be raised at well. and you have to cut the pier at the top of these piles and then jack it up. >> yes. >> and then maybe it is possible. >> but, i don't know. >> that could be done off the barges. >> yes. >> it is possible. >> it is possible. >> and so... >> a lot of the old, cities especially in europe, or the most recent one that i have seen was havana in cuba their sea wall is you can actually walk along the top of it, it is 6 feet wide but it is also about 4 feet off of the sidewalk. and so at some point, they raised it. all of these ideas and, they don't have the problem with the

piers sticking off the edge of the sea wall and so we have a very unusual situation here in san francisco. >> so you can raise the pier but you have to deal with the sea wall issue. and irrespective. >> and you know that on the map that he was showing. and in our neighbors are on the liquid soil and one of the things that we learned in studying in is that the sea level is that there is more higher ground water that will effect our neighbors. it is going to be in the entire city interest to address this. >> they are also studying it as part of the development project for treasure island and so there is a lot of information and there is no plan yet. and so, i think that it is great to have this presentation, and obviously to keep this in front of us, because it is a strategic issue to have to be dealt with. and right now, it is huge, and it is almost how do you get

your head around it and so many different parts and the time line and the funding, so i would like to suggest and i guess that i willisen to what the staff has to say that we should have this periodic update on where you are in making progress because it is going to be a step at a time and going to take a long time and we are not going to be here in 2050, and at least we can have... >> but, let's, at least make sure that our grandchildren don't have to worry about this and so i think that we just want to ad least, start getting this and so i would like to suggest that you all can come back, and tell us not just to give us an update, because i think that each time you give us an update, hopefully you will answer a few more questions and a little bit more about how to approach it and what are the solutions and the options that we can are considering. and so, i will leave it to the monique to figure out what would be the right interval to hear about this.

but i think that we want to keep it up in front of us. >> okay. will do. >> thank you. >> i just hope that one last thing, i hope that all of these great minds get together and they don't spend the next ten years spending our money coming up with all kinds of goofy ideas that they will save some of the money to actually do the job. that would be my suggestion. >> i agree. >> and several meetings back, we would raise the issue that just insuring that if we have items come forward that the staff in general tries to factor in the impact of climate change on those items so that we are mindful of this and this is a broad overview on a more microlevel we should be looking at each item that comes before us with an eye towards the impact of climate change. >> thank you. >> and one last thing that i would also share, is that bcdc has published a draft strategic

plan and in that plan, the sea level rise is a primary component because it will effect all of the jurisdiction which will include twot airports on the water and so we will be coming back with more information as it develops, but i don't think that six months from now, for example, there will be much in the way of answers. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. >> it i am ons on the consent calendar. request approval for the port deputy director of maritime to report to the port of san francisco as a voting delegate on the american association of port authorities annual convention of port canaveral florida, on october 14, 18, 2014. item b, request approval for the san francisco port commissioner to travel to the port staff to osaka japan. >> could i vote that they be

voted on separately. >> are you making a motion? >> yes, please, is there a second? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> we will take 7 a first. >> all in favor? >> it is a public comment. public comment? >> hearing none, 7 a, all in favor? >> aye. >> 7 b. commissioner katz is recusing herself because she is the commissioner that would be traveling, are you ready to make a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> and the motion number 1 335, and 1336 have passed. >> 8 a request authorization to execute an amendment to the construction manager general

contractor contract with turner construction company to decrease the total authorized contract amount from $104,496,202 to an amended amount not to exceed $100,107,601, which reflects: 1) a contract increase of $1,741,662 to complete phase 2 construction of the pier 27 cruise terminal project; and 2) a contract decrease of $6,130,263, for reduced scope and cost savings in the america's cup infrastructure projects; resulting in a net decrease of $4,388,601 in the total authorized contract amount (resolution no. 13-37) >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is kim vonn blon the director, and we have a technical issue here with our battery critically low

for our presentation. we request additional funding unnecessary to accomplish that work. and the projects that are almost finished and what remains of that is pier 64 clean up and the installation of the off spray platform. and the phase two, the cruise terminal project begins in november of 2013, at the completing of the installed for the america cup events and the project will run nine months with the substantial completing with the end of july and the final about two months later.

the goal of 22 percent, and 46 percent, for the small business enterprise on phase two of the project, and these are lbe percentages of the total subcontractor costs. and the project is on budget, by deferring certain project components which i will talk about shortly and then the request before you, is for the additional funding for the certain shore power components that we have identified later in the project. this is the view of what it will look like and the remaining portions in the work

in phase two include and the northwest plaza shown on the north side in green and the north point of the left-hand side of the picture and the ground transportation picture h walk, required by bcdc, but the pier 29 in the park bathrooms will be deferred pending a planning study to determine their location. and in the meanwhile, temperature restaurant facilities will be provided, in addition the build alone building, shown in the left top left-hand side of the drawing. came in and actually at 1.8 million in the bid and if included would have exceeded our budget, and so therefore, it will be delete fromed this

scope, and instead be located within pier 29 where the temporary facilities in the pier 27 area. now they are extending the hot tub well over the side of the ship and i will show you the problem that this creates in the next couple of slides. and the canopy that connects to the cruise ship and on the right-hand side after you walk through the tub and this

connects into the terminal building and this structure has ramps that are sized in length to attain the ada slopes and are required for many conditions that a ship and elevations and title elevations. and just one of these ramps? >> they connect together. and so they form the blue boxes that represent the tubes and then on the right-hand side, the ship and then you can see, in the magenta color and in the light, hanging over the side of the ship and the problem that this creates is the ship is not far enough off of the wharf

phase. with the waste or the hot tubs or all of the above. so the solution to that is to move the fender system which are the... you can see it on the picture here by the at the transition of the ship and the wharf and the round, tube looking thing. and so these have to move further off of the edge of the wharf in order to create the clearance required for the ship and the bang way system. >> that counter lever thing what is