talked about in the guidelines. during this phase adaptation started to develop for the most vulnerable assets with the highest consequence rating. capacity of a building system or operation to adapt must be considered and strategies for building resilience developed. some typical adaptation strategies include raising foundations, mandating setbacks, providing shoreline protection systems. all of those, and there are plenty of other policy related adaptive strategies that we can develop during that adaptation planning process. implementing adaptation planning measures will be an iterative process and assumptions will be to updated and required funding and resource he to be successful. going forward sea level rises, the adaptive capacity of facilities [speaker not understood] should be monitored

to ensure continued resilience. so, that summarizes the actual process that we recommend for going through the risk assessment and an adaptation planning for both assets as well as areas within the city. further, some of the guidelines that are currently being used by project [speaker not understood] in the city what san francisco planning departments consider flood risk in the ceqa evaluations and flood plane areas are identified in the general plan. the state of california sea level rise guidance document was just updated in march of 2013 and provide similar projections that we have in our guidelines. the california coastal commission just released a draft sea level brie guidance policy document that when we prioritize to land in the coastal zone. in addition, the bay area

conservation and development commission recently updated their bay plan to include guidelines for risk assessment for projects that are within the jurisdiction. and then a mentioned before, the national research council published a document entitled sea level rise from the coast of california, oregon and washington past, present and future which provides the science behind some of those guidelines. in addition, as you can see by this list on the screen, there are at least a dozen other efforts underway by different city agencies to address sea level rise and flooding in the city. and these are just a small portion of a myriad of other efforts that are underway [speaker not understood] to address sea level rise. what is the port doing about it?

we actually are ahead in some areas. we have taken the steps to assess sea level rise and build understanding of the issue. the report submitted to you last year, stephens has talked to you about the seawall seismic evaluation and the scoping that's underway for the seawall retrofits. in addition, we are seeking assistance from the army core of engineers for flood [speaker not understood] projects. ~ we are working with the spur and bcdc on helping manage a pilot adaptation study for mission creek. we are currently incorporating sea level rise into all of our large waterfront development project design and planning. staff in the engineering division have been reviewing [speaker not understood] maps. we have been reviewing the city of san francisco department of emergency management hazard

mitigation plan. and we have been contributing to the u.s. geological society's science a vocation for risk tsunami [speaker not understood] report. say that ten times. so, more engineering in the planning department, have been working with colleagues around the state to start looking at our sea level rise impacts here within the city. what are the next steps? continue to participate in the s.f. adopt sea level rise committee. continue to collaborate with other city departments on development of adaptation infrastructure. continue to address sea level rise in staff reports. continue to update the commission on our sea level rise efforts. and to use the guidelines to help inform the development of our own capital planning criteria and consider ultimately adopting the guidelines and performing a vulnerability and risk assessment and adopting an

adaptation plan. thank you for your time and consideration. this is the conclusion of my presentation. >> thank you. public comment? seeing none, commissioners? >> thank you for a very thorough report. there is a lot of planning going into this important issue and thank you so much for sharing it with you us. >> i really appreciate it. one of my first questions is how are we going to pay for it? [laughter] >> seriously, this is heavy. we've got piers and everything falling into the bay in our port. i mean, we're not like the port of l.a., long beach, have tons of money. and this is going to take, like, educating the community, educating politicians and there's a harbor maintenance fund and i don't know if we're able to talk to our politicians about trying to take some of

that money out for this purpose. do we do a bond measure? i know you said the corps of engineers. and then you take seattle, portland and oakland, those ports have a port in the airport so they're able to get money from the airport. we're not connected to the san francisco airport. so, how do we get the money? and i believe it's a real live threat. and if you see the politicians in d.c., democrats and republicans, you can see they don't get much done back there because they always argue and fight. i believe this is a real threat and i really appreciate that. how do we get them to under it doesn't matter what party you're from? this is something that will affect future generations. this is something that will affect this waterfront and this city. and it's viable. i really believe that, just like global warming. people may not believe it, but it's here and we can't deny about it. so, how do we educate people to under to really invest in this? because i'm 100% behind this. i really appreciate, i think this is right on target. i think we're going to be

visionaries, we need to get out front, not be on the defensive when it happens. i think we ought to be on the offensive to get way out ahead of it and show that we're taking measures to deal with it. somebody will look back one day and go, they were wise. they, they saw it. so, what do you think? >> one of the advantages -- one of the advantages of this interdepartmental committee was that we, we had seven different departments within the city including the mayor's office and the office of the budget administration. they were on our team. and, so, one of the advantages of doing this as a collaborative effort and suggesting these guidelines is we all work together and use the same science, the same methods, the same assumptionses, then it will be much easier for us to have a coordinated effort when we come to actually pursuing grapes. we don't want to have one agency pursuing a grant that conflicts with what we're

trying to accomplish. so, the formation of this team, the beginning of the conversation within the city, it was really good first step. the committee also -- in our review of what other cities have done, we saw that there are plenty of grants out there that are available. there are funding mechanisms out there both for planning and for infrastructure. and either entities have used things like levying taxes. they created hazard mitigation funds. they've imposed fees on large development projects to compensate for needed infrastructure. so, we haven't gone into a great deal of research about all the different funding options, but we know that other cities and municipalities have been successful and are doing that, especially since they've been applying to -- for funding resources in a collaborative

way. >> i'm just wondering how long can we stay in this room before the water comes up. [laughter] >> happily, we are on the second floor. [laughter] >> you know, other -- like you just have to go to amsterdam and some of the cities in the netherlands and they've been very successful in keeping water out for centuries. you know, when you look at it, it's enormous. this is something that we're certainly not on our own. we're going to have to get help from the federal, state, whatever. and we're all in it together. the other thing is that most people out there are not aware

of it, that it affects san francisco and it affects the four miles that you have outlined in your diagram there. i was on the building inspection commission for six years. getting people to educate people to retrofit buildings in san francisco for just soft stories, it's taken six years. we run into law recently. that took six years to get from a to b. so, this is, you know, it's a great start, it's a great report. you've done a great job in presenting it. but it is a huge problem. and i do think we have the expertise, the smartest people in the world live right here in

san francisco, you know. this equal amount out there that don't live in san francisco, they don't want to see it under water. it's a challenge, but i think we can do it. thank you. >> commissioner, to your point, one of the most important things about the work s.f. adapt did is what we should be planning for. that really gives us the ability to start accelerating our work and the help from the p.u.c. and colleagues from the airport have really been going forward quickly. i would urge everybody in the room to be here on september 9th for the presentation by john englander. we feel like we are light years ahead, but we really -- this is going to be game changing for us and we've been thinking about it for a very long time, as you know. it's affected how you approach the banner street wharf project, the [speaker not understood] project and long wharf so he will questionthvly outlined and stephen before her.

we will continue to operate that way, but it's probably not a one sigh fits all solution unless we [speaker not understood] the golden gate bridge which got quickly ejected. >> i also want to commend, i think the report, in term of the process you're going through is extremely thorough and comprehensive. but just talking about -- and i'm glad to hear that the agencies are coming together in the city and that you've agreed upon one standard and it's a great way to have the science at least agree upon one science. i think you just -- who knows who is going to be absolutely right? but it's important to at least work on one metric to say this is how we agree. so, my question kind of extends a little bit beyond just the city since, you know, we share this bay with other people. and, so, is this nrc standard something that is now being adopted by, for instance, by bcdc, our neighboring cities and counties also agreeing to use the nrc just as a starting point so that we're all on the same page? because we are sharing the same

bay and it would help if we don't have, you know, we do something that's this high and they do something that's this low, you know what i'm saying? in terms of having some sort of consensus. so, it's important to get the consensus in the city first, that's absalutevly true, but then how do we stand that? ~ you mentioned it briefly, but i also want to sort of ask, you mentioned storm waves and storm surges. and as you know, we've now seen a couple times where tsunamis can be extremely devastating. you're never going to be able to protect against the disaster of how high, but you can build something in your design that can mitigate or at least slow down or at least cutback the impact. and i just hope that that's being also considered in your adaptation design standards, what could be something that could deflect, not stop, because it won't be able to stop if we ever had to face a major sort of tsunami impact in the future. hopefully that's more consciously discussed in your study when they look at the

design and there may be an extra cost involved. so, then you have to do a cost benefit ratio, but we should understand that because it may be at some point people will say thats was really wise that they thought about that a long time ago, and it could be a -- it's a once in maybe 100 years disaster kind of thing, but it's something to think about. that's my first. and the second one, getting into a little bit of what commissioner adams was saying in terms of how do we get more people to be educated about this, more awareness. and just within the city family, how often is this committee reporting to the mayor and the board of supervisors? if we can at least get some of the people that in this city are responsible and since we already have decided that this is a priority, how often is this -- is there a formal process of making sure there is a report that is issued periodically that the mayor hears it, the board of supervisors hear it, and hopefully that's a start to get more and more people aware that this is important. of course, it is the board of supervisors and the mayor that's going to have to do the capital planning in terms of what the city and county is going to do here in san francisco, but that's one step

to move in the direction of when we are getting ready. then my last is really getting into -- alluded to, but in terms of -- i'm sawyer, this is my third area. i think your process is great. ~ sorry i guess my question really is all these steps in the process, is there any way -- and maybe an estimate at this point -- can we know when you're going to be ready to get to each step in that process so we have a sense of when will we know in getting to the question of cost? when will we have a sense of getting to this pro0s because i did not see any timeline in your process of when you will get to stage x, stage y, and when will we be able to expect maybe some preliminary. so, then we can decide or understand what the burden is going to be going forward and then start the thinking processes how did you this get paid for, how does this get planned, how does this get incorporated. i think tact tickly in fact we're thinking about each development project we have already built in to get to the earlier presentation, that's a great start. but i think the macro picture

of when is everybody going to come together and, you know, if it's going to take another ten years to plan this i think we should all know that. i think that's obviously too long, but hopefully it isn't going to take that. but we need to know. and i don't get any sense of how long is it going to take us to get to the point of knowing when each step is going to be completed or at least you have a goal whether you can reach that goal, that's another question, but at least you have a goal of what the timeline is for each step. >> right, right. okay, that was a long question. i think there were four components to it. and please correct me if i misinterpreted your questions. the first one was who is using the nrc numbers. right now the california coastal commission has used those numbers in their draft guidance for sea level rise. in addition, the climate action team that was coalesced by the governor of california developed guidelines that were

just recently updated in march 2013 that use those nrc numbers, too. so, those two different -- from the state -- from the governor's office as well as the coastal commission, they are using those numbers right now. bcdc has not adopted any numbers on the numbers purposely. they went through a very long process. in doing their plan amendment, they realized because the sea level rise science is changing so rapidly, every year there is a new development, a new model, a new method, a new interpretation that very basically said, on a case-by-case basis, we want the project proponents that are coming to us to do an evaluation based on their most recently accepted and published science and do a risk evaluation based on that. so, they didn't necessarily

commit to any numbers. and i don't know of any other entities here in the bay area that have gotten to this point of putting together guidelines similar to what we've done. >> so, i guess the question would be at some point will you be outreaching to some other of our neighboring counties and cities to just talk about it in >> absolutely. once we go through ~ -- to answer your second -- the question related to what's the context of these guidelines, right now we were -- our sea level rise committee was instructed by the mayor to draft these guidelines and to present them to the capital planning committee. we have done that. the capital planning committee has requested that we take the guidelines back to our individual departments, get any kind of feedback on them, and then reconvene to hopefully finalize the guidelines. we have not yet received a directive from the mayor's office as to where we want to go from here after we finalize

the guidelines. we don't know whether the mayor is going to want to adopt them city-wide, whether there is going to be any kind of policies that come out of it or any kind of development of planning codes or any kind of studies. so, at this point we're waiting for directives from the mayor and waiting for the mayor to assign leadership related to this issue. so, that being said, we don't know how long it's going to take to actually get to the implementation phase of going through a broad based vulnerability assessment and risk assessment and ultimately look at an adaptation plan. however, what i can tell you is the citieses of new orleans and new york city had to go through that process in a year because they were -- they were responding to major disasters. so, they sort of -- they went through it very fast and allocated the resources he to make it happen because they had

to. so, we're, we're, we're now on more of a proactive mode as opposed to reactive mode. and you know as a result, things ultimately take a little bit more time if you're in a proactive mode. than a reactive mode. so, that being said ~, hopefully once we develop the final guidelines we can put into play the conversation about commitment of time and resource he and budget and schedules to make those things happen. in the meantime here at the port, we are considering the concept of these guidelines in our individual projects, on a project by project basis. and i know that there's an incentive to use the guidelines to help inform our capital planning process here and maybe even to help inform the [speaker not understood] criteria. so, that's happening -- that will happen sooner rather than later within the port.

>> then i would add that we are waiting for the pilot study at mission creek to come back with its results so we can see the first lessons to be had there. >> okay. so, i think we have asked at this commission to have periodic reports on sea level rise because we do think it's a really important strategic issue and we appreciate that you're doing this today. so, i guess in terms of one of my questions was how often is this committee sort of giving a report to the board of supervisors or to the mayor so to keep the visibility of the topic, even though we're in a proactive mode? and i understand once you're in the disaster, but it's a little bit too late at that point. >> yeah, we actually -- david may be able to speak to that a little bit better than i could. we have not been asked to present to the board of supervisors or to the mayor at this point on this issue. >> present it to the city administrator at the mayor's request? >> yes. >> and the grand jury report will be heard by the board of supervisors presumably when we get an opportunity to discuss

it more then. >> okay. certainly will be a recommendation from this commission that there is some periodic reporting maybe built into the process just because, you know, the longer you wait the more expensive it's going to be, too. >> absolutely. >> you mentioned new york city. how did they fund it? >> you know, i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. i can certainly get back to you about that. >> okay. >> i didn't get to finish my answer, sorry, to the tsunami question. you, you made reference to making sure that we pay attention to storm surge and [speaker not understood] and different tidal fluctuations in our planning. and we are certainly doing that. obviously there are different types of coastal and shoreline protection measures we can implement. however, we have to weigh those barrier structures against other considerations such as

public access and esthetics and actually use of our waterfront infrastructure for maritime access. so, certainly those -- consideration of those issues is part of the recommendations that we have in our guidelines and they will be, as i said, the numbers that we have for tides, tide ranges and storm surge in the bay can be incorporated into projects moving forward. >> i just wanted to add, tsunami and tide and storm surges, those are all incorporated into design and have been. sea level rise is sort of separate, separate issue as raising sea level. i haven't seen anything that has indicated the tsunami danger has increased because of sea level. >> that would be climate change.

i just want to thank you. i want to thank the other departmental representatives and other staff that have participated. it's really, once again, i always like to say san francisco seems to be a bit ahead of the curve in so many important things and i think this is another example. unfortunately we're still a little bit behind, but certainly ahead of most others. i also appreciate the emphasis on science. i think other states and cities might take a lesson. will there be some adjustment on the issue of science, will there be some adjustment the ability to adjust the potential new research and new information comes in that might potentially impact some of the determinationses? i know we're taking ~ one approach now, but will there be a way to adjustor revisit whether those are the right number? >> absolutely.

the reason why we call it guidance is because it's a living, breathing document and it will be continually updated as the science changes. and also one of the things that we recommended in the evaluation process in step number 5 and number 6 is to continue to monitor as you go forward the different projections relative to sea level rise. and then also to monitor at the end how your adaptive measures are actually accomplishing your goals of protecting your assets. maybe you plan for something at one point, but the scenario ha changed. so, you want to continue to update your assumptions based on science and also continue to monitor your improvements to make sure that they're functioning the way that you want them to. >> and then commissioner woo ho touched on it a little bit, coming a different way.

in terms of various regional activities, to the extent that there are other regionses that we should be reaching out to and working with, so, for example, obviously sfo impacts other areas of san francisco, but oakland and others would have an impact. are we doing -- are there any steps being taken to really work on a more regional basis to -- >> absolutely. all the members of the [speaker not understood] galore are participating in regional conversations about how we can all work together to solve these issues. >> and then that might touch, too, on commissioner adams' concerns for funding for a lot of this a we're working on it on a regional basis and end up approaching funding from that aspect. hopefully other departments will also take a look at what the port has already been doing in terms of all projects coming forward, incorporating sea

level rise. when i see the new developments coming in in south of market, i wonder if they realize their cars are going to be under water in a few. those parking spaceses no longer carry such a premium. [laughter] >> and then, once again, i think this is something -- in term of just outreach and i know we've certainly done here at the commission, too, is trying to bring up the issue of sea level rise because people are really just now -- we've been aware, i think people in this room are certainly, but bringing it up and a often as we can as another means of doing public outreach and increasing the awareness. so, that's one of the reasons we have the presentation we do on september 9th as an opportunity to get it on tv, if you will, so that people can have access to that information and spread it and disseminate it and other departments can share in our bringing in a

sea-level rise expert, but it's really more, i think, a means of just making -- driving awareness, the urgency of action and making people understand that importance. so, again, i'll reiterate, we are having a presentation on september 9th where other departments -- and you may also spread the word to your colleagues on the committee. encourage their attendance, their participation. we want to make this something available to everyone at the city and using our commission as a means of doing that. but please invite the puc and planning and others to come please join us. lastly, in terms of just best practices, and i will not bore you with when i did the summer pictures, but i actually did bring a couple photos. but in the interest of time i won't show them at this point. but in terms of what leone has been doing, it's not quite the same, but they have surges and

they've come up with some very interesting approaches to having waterfront development that only works primarily in the summer and it's very lively and active, but then it's flooded over during part of the winter and then it reopens, also figuring out how to have drainage on the bottoms of some of the parking structures and other things along the waterfront so that when the water level rises they adjust for that. it was an interesting approach. but more than anything, it was really how they made access to their waterfront available, but also adjusted for the water level rise that took place primarily during storms and others, but it could also be adapted i think to some degree to sea level rise. so, happy to probably share those off line with staff and not bore everyone. but it was really something that their new mayor has taken underway in the last several years to really figure out how to design and utilize the waterfront while also recognizing the changes in the

water levels there. i was quite impressed with the mix and the dynamism that took place there. really want to thank all of you, want to thank all the other departments for their participation and for really all coming together. it was an extremely informative report. so, thank you for all of your efforts. >> thank you. and if you have any specific comments or edits to the guidelines, we welcome them as well. >> commissioner woo ho gave us periodic governing [speaker not understood]. >> um-hm. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. >> item 12 b, san francisco municipal transportation agency informational presentation on the embarcadaro enhancement project to improve bicycle access on the embarcadaro, from fisherman's wharf to at&t ballpark.