step we're taking. it is an expansion of the boat and their fleet. we did take a nice ride. i just want to emphasize being able to develop more modes of water transport not only just for special events, recreational, but also hopefully if we ever get to the point where we can see it also as helping in more commuting in addition to all the existing ferries that we do have to relieve some of the congestion which is one of the biggest issues we do face on the embarcadaro and we hope to see more north to south. so, this was just another step in that direction and clearly we want to applaud them for take thattion and they've been successful so far. we hope that they'll have more success along with our other operators and hope we can expand this program going forward, and that we continue to maintain a focus on figuring out how to build more infrastructure for more water transportation along the waterfront. so, this is another i think milestone in our development and our progress in this direction.

>> yeah, i, too, was on that water trip today. it was wonderful. the boats or the taxis were very, very comfortable and i'm hoping to see one day that we'll have a regular taxi service from redwood city to napa. it would be incredible for moving people around, take some people off public transportation on the street level and cars and all that other stuff. also, my congratulations to director moyer and her appointment. and while i was unaware you had lost -- [multiple voices] >> yeah, i was unaware of that. my condolance. thank you. >> well, i was trying to contribute to the world series game that we're all trying to go see. [laughter] >> since we're all saying.

i really enjoyed the short cruise we had out on the tide land today because it was so beautiful that i didn't want to come back in here. [laughter] >> but i just want to commend them on their third ship and what they're doing for the environmental. i think it's great opportunity, and the price are just right. so, if anybody needs water transportation, i would definitely call them. i also want to thank daily and the entire team who were able to dispose of the dry dock. i mean, that was a 15-year project ~ and he came up with a plan and a solution and it is actually gone. i can't believe it. thank you very much for your persistence and your hard work. (applause) >> let's give him a hand. (applause) >> i definitely want to congratulate monique on her presidency with cappa. that's just a tremendous

accomplishment for you and just an honor for you to represent the entire west coast on -- with such an important international organization. >> thank you. >> so, congratulations. and the giants and the world series and the pennant and all the revenue that it's brought to the port, we just can't thank the giants enough for all that they're doing. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment? >> items for the consent calendar, item 10 a. request authorization to accept and expend a $67,500 grant from the california department of parks and recreation, division of boating & waterways, surrendered and abandoned vessel exchange program to allow for removal, storage and disposal of eligible surrendered and abandoned vessels within the port of san francisco. item 10 b, commissioners' report

~ request authorization to submit to the board of supervisors [speaker not understood]. >> so moved. >> second. >> is there public comment on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. other than wishing darius a very happy big birthday. all in favor of the consent calendar? >> aye. >> opposed? the consent calendar carries. >> item 11 a, request authorization to award professional services contract rpt 1415-01, earthquake vulnerability study of the northern waterfront seawall, to ghd/gtc jv, a joint venture, in the amount of $425,000, and to authorize staff to increase the contract amount, if needed for unanticipated contingencies, by up to an additional $42,500 (10% of $425,000) for a total of $467,500.

>> all right. good afternoon, commissioners, president katz, executive director moyer, port staff, members of the public. i'll try to go quickly. my name is stephen real, project manager engineering division for this project, seawall earthquake vulnerability project. the item today is to request authorization to award professional services contract for the earthquake vulnerability study with the northern waterfront seawall to ghd/gtc joint venture for $425,000 and to authorize a 10% contingency, up to an amount of $467,500. the northern waterfront seawall stretches approximately four continuous miles from

fisherman's wharf to mission creek. this is 18 50s downtown, priority seawall. it's a great seawall, it was built over 37 years starting 18 78, 3700 acres new land ~ established in the current waterfront edge. typical construction of the wall, serves as the foundation for the bulkhead wharfs, [speaker not understood] infrastructure for over 100 years the seawall has served the port and the city very well indeed. however, the continued functioning of the seawall is subject to deterioration, [speaker not understood] sea level rise associated with climate change. the port has commenced a comprehensive plan to ensure continued functioning and safety of the waterfront. the plan includes sea level rise study which was completed

in 2012 by ursav g joint venture. the irthtion quake vulnerability study being presented here today, after that we intend to prioritize near term needs, execute near term projects, and inform long-term planning. earthquake vulnerability study goals include gathering and reviewing all of the existing information which is substantial, assessing the existing conditions, analyzing earthquake behavior and assessing the damage and safety risks associated with the seawall bulkhead wharf, bulkhead buildings and utilities within the zone of influence, forecasting the economic impacts from several different earthquake events while being conceptual level retrofits, prioritizing future improvements and/or study needs.

port engineering and finance division staff jointly developed the rfp and carried out the selection process with the assistance of the contract monitoring division, the process included written proposals which were evaluated and scored by a selection panel. cmd then applied any local business enterprise bonus points and then the ranking was created. well more than four of the top ranked firms would be invited to an interview. the interview includes a presentation and response to standard questions. interviews evaluated and scored by the same selection panel, cmd then applies lbe bonus points once again and completes the ranking. final ranking is based only on the interview. the selection panel includes the structural engineer from the port and engineering project manager from the port, not myself. structural engineering manager

from dpw, and geotechnical engineer from dpw. we advertised the project on august 11. a pre-proposal meeting was held august 19. it was standing room only. over 35 people representing 25 firms. proposals were due september 12. we received five proposals, all highly qualified, really the top firms in the bay area submitted proposals. scoring... while we cannot see this, but there was a clear break in scores at the written proposal stage with the top three firm all very close in score invited for interviews. they were ags, mayor's office at nickel joint venture, [speaker not understood]. i'll just mention that all five firms were joint ventured, and

four of those were joint ventured with local business enterprise partners. after the interviews the scores became even closer, with just a few points separating as you can see. 367.65 for the winning firm and 365.5 for second place. incredibly close. but there was a clear and unanimous winner, which was the joint venture between ghd and gtc. so, who are they? ghd was established in 1923, an enr, they ranked 38th in the enr global firms in 2013. they have 100 offices worldwide, more than 8500 staff, and the san francisco office is the former office of winceler and kelly which is a bay area firm which ghd

purchased i think in 2011. that office is the engineer of record for the brandon street wharf among other projects here at the port. gtc otherwise known as geotechnical consultants was established in 1964 here in san francisco. they're a local business enterprise, geotechnical and geology firm. they have notable projects for the sfpuc for the port, and for bart. they are highly qualified. the lbe subconsultant goal for this project was 25%. the team exceeds that by coming in at 25.9%. they have highly qualified teams of consultants including land economic consultants, structural engineers, solar consultants for cost estimating, global and [speaker not understood] firm in the bay area, [speaker not understood] civil engineering firm in the

bay area, esa -- esa, an environmental firm, and [speaker not understood] geotechnical. the next steps will hopefully be to authorize the awards today. otherwise, to proceed november 24th. preliminary results would then come in may of next year. final results in september of next year. the contract value as mentioned before is at $425,000, so, it's a one-year duration. it's not a lot of money for all we want to accomplish and, so, this team -- and, in fact, all the teams came in with plans to really attack the problem and give us high value. and with that i'll conclude my presentation. any questions? >> so moved. >> second. >> any public comment?

seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, commissioner brandon? >> no questions. >> [speaker not understood]? >> i guess my only question is i guess this study will then help feed into the -- kind of what we need to do about the sea level rise, is that it? >> right. so, this study will give us a lot of geotechnical information and knowledge on the existing wall that we have, the geotechnical conditions that are there. that can be used to build on what we do for sea level rise and we are thinking we really have kind of a two-component strategy where we have some immediate needs to see us through the next 50 years in which time we will definitely see one or more very large earthquakes and we will continue to experience sea level rise. and there are points along the waterfront that we can take care of the problem within the next 50 years or so. beyond that we hope there is a

much larger strategy, assuming the science is correct, the rate of rise is increasing. we'll need to rethink what we're doing along the waterfront. this study helps us with information. its primary mission is to give us better understanding of the earthquake vulnerability as it exists food and what we need to do to prepare for it. >> thank you. >> yeah, i was going to ask the same question. but thanks for that answer. so [speaker not understood] all these tests will let us know whether we can use part of the existing or all of the existing sea walls we have and just add the bill on top of it, is that correct 2a it will, it will help inform us of that. >> right. and how do we come up with the figure of -- i know you did a point system. who determines 5 and a quarter? or 4 and a quarter, i should say.

get estimates from four or five different companies? >> you mean the dollar value? all the companies were held to the same dollar value. >> i see. >> we establish -- we budgeted $500,000 to look at the seawall or allocated 425 for the contract. all the firms knew that going in as the dollar amount. what can you do for 425, what can you give us, that was their challenge. >> some very reparable companies. i know quite a few of them. thank you, stephen. >> thank you. i would also have the same question regarding sea level rise. one question, in terms of some of the sea levels, i understand much of the assessment, but one of that was development of the conceptual level of earthquake retro fits. i assume that's not the design drawings per se?

>> right, it's not design drawings at all. it's high-level concepts, what can we do, here are the various options, and then there are cost benefit type of analysis that goes along with each one. so that we under -- with an understanding of what our possibilities here and what the costs and benefits appear to be. it's really top level conceptual stuff. and, so, out of that we should be able to then proceed with projects to reinforce our waterfront. >> and then i assume we don't have any prohibition if we then undertake future projects of having any of the members of this joint venture team getting on those? >> we should not, but, you know, there are conflict of interest regulations in the city. it's always a question as how to interpret them. but in general we're not asking for any proprietary information

in this study. it will be a public document. and, so, there is very little chance of the firms that produce this information would be out for -- would be conflict of interest for all future work. >> good, thank you. >> any other -- i'm sorry. will we be doing the same survey on the southern water front? >> southern water froth is a little bit different in that we don't have the seawall such as off the waterfront. and we have recently had a project, the mission bayshore line project, which would reinforce the actual shoreline there ~. the seawall lot 337 project, we'll be looking at its shoreline. as we get further down, pier 70 projects are looking at the shoreline there. and, so, there willible future work to be done, comprehensive work to be done to look at this other waterfront.

it's not quite the same urgency as the northern waterfront at this time. >> and what about pier 80? and pier 96? >> pier 96 will hopefully be part of a new break bulk facility. like i said, we will look at that portion of the waterfront in the future, but it does not have the immediate earthquake risk associated with the northern waterfront seawall. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other questions? seeing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? that motion carries. thank you. >> thank you. >> item 12 a, request authorization to seek california state lands commission approval to terminate the public trust over daggett street pursuant to sb 815 (senator migden; 2007). >> good afternoon, president

katz, members of the commission. [speaker not understood] benson, special projects director here with robin havens, project manager from the office of economic and workforce development, and steve [speaker not understood] from the planning department. to talk about daggett street ~. daggett street is one of a number of very strange parcels of land that were conveyed from the state of california to the port, the burton act and the transfer agreement. this happens to lie in the filled area of mission bay that's on the other side, the land side of 280. it's quite a distance from the waterfront and it's a [speaker not understood] artifact that it's in port jurisdiction, relates to our maritime functions. we don't manage it as a piece of property. it's actually a dedicated

street, city street. so, we're here to seek your permission today to terminate the trust on daggett street, get permission from state lands to do that as one step on the path to conveying this property of fair market value from one city department to a neighborhood park. a little background. you all know that our city has been rezoning big areas of the eastern neighborhoods of this city. that was the eastern neighborhoods plan that encompassed the mission, potrero, showplace square, the central waterfront and east soma. really to enable more housing development, to enable the city to reach its housing goals, housing production goals over the next couple of decades. it's been quite successful. it grappled with a number of issues in asking the residents of these areas to take that density. big question was what about parks, and the other sort of public benefits that are needed to support that new

development. and there is not a lot of space for parks in the eastern neighborhoods. this is zooming into the showplace square area right adjacent to mission bay. it gives you a sense of currently planned parks. what's not shown on the slide, port is actually doing a great job through david's [speaker not understood] efforts to pursue the greenway on the bay edge to the right side of this. you'll see daggett, the proposed daggett park in the center of this. it became a very high priority for the eastern neighborhoods citizens advisory committee to develop this park in an area that didn't have a lot of open space. this is a map of the daggett street right-of-way. it's a very strange street shape laying between 7th and 16th street. used to be surrounded by the golden paint factory. it's been rezoned, land around it has been rezoned for residential project.

as i said before, the street is a dedicated street. it's almost 40,000 square feet, just a little under an acre. we proposed to sell the street to the real estate department as i said before to enable construction of what will be a developer funded park, a developer of surrounding residential will pay for the park and pay to maintain it in perpetuity. and it's cut off on this slide, but we believe that this transaction fulfills both the policy objective of the eastern neighborhoods plan and of sb 815, which i'll turn to now. sb 815 was a bill that port commission authored, authorized port staff to get in 2007 to terminate the trust on some of these paper streets and nontrust leasing of some of our seawall lots. the money that we obtained from

selling these parcels or leasing them from our trust purposes is set aside under sb 815 to fund the port's ten-year capital plan. and the state [speaker not understood] commission itself has to make a number of finding with regard to the lands. generally to find that it's not needed for maritime purposes or other public trust purpose he he, but it's really cut off from the water. daggett street is a perfect example of this. we believe that these finding are easy to reach. what's not shown on this slide for some reason it's not projecting well, we find we're not getting fair market value for the property. so, we did an appraisal. clifford advisory, llc, is in the city's appraisal pool. they issued an appraisal february 1st, 2014. the instructions were a little bit different than he we normally issued because it's a dedicated street. the city has long-standing policies not to vacate streets

for private purposes, but only to do it really for public purposes. that's in the city's general plan. so, we asked them to look at the value of the property, assuming the p-zoning, public zoning and open space height and bulk, [speaker not understood] very creative and they said, okay, well, usually that means low value, but looking at how this park will increase the value of the surrounding residential, they did comparable analysis, came up with $1.6 million value conclusion. port staff was very happy about that. the proposed transaction, if authorized by the port commission, we would go up to state land, seek the funding that i talked about, subject to your approval, daggett street would be transferred in an as-is position from the port to the real estate division who would pay us $1.6 million from a grant from the state of california to support parks

associated with housing development. we expect that that would happen sometime early next year. and after that the developer would be in a position to build this park. so, with that, i'll conclude my presentation and answer any questions you have. >> so moved. >> second? >> second. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner? >> well, we just got the one? >> yeah. i wish we had a dozen of these. we actually have a few other streets. there are some that were congregated right around the hold hunters point power plant that we included in sb 815. there was [speaker not understood] quite close to daggett street. i'm forgetting the name of it, but it was the subject of prior litigation that the port commission resolved.

and sb 815 also included all the seawall lots south of market street. so, seawall lot 330, seawall lot 337, that's the focus of the giants development. there we're not seeking to terminate the trust in its entirety necessarily, but to allow non-trust development. but under the same for la where proceeds generated will help the port with capital needs ~. >> the building that is going on there, will that be 100% affordable? >> there is no -- other than park, there is no building construction planned for daggett street itself. adjacent to it there is a market rate project that includes -- i believe it's got on-site inclusionary, meeting the eastern neighborhoods standard for on-site inclusionary, which is actually a bit higher than the rest of the city. >> so, the port feels that this

1.6 or $42 a square foot is adequate? >> we do. we were frankly given the city's policies around dedicated street and the fact this is a dedicated street, you know, we were very pleased to get this value from this asset because it's a discretionary act for the city to vacate the street. without the city taking that action, it would be hard for the port to reach any value. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so, brad, i guess you did mention this funding is can you have forgive a grant. so, actual cash will be received? >> actual cash, he yes. >> and given that [speaker not understood] state lands, when do we anticipate the transaction could close? >> well, we would hope that the transaction would close in early part of next year when the grant fund are in hand. our hope is if you approve this and we communicate with state lands that we may be able to come back to you to seek your

authorization to enter the m-o-u at your november meeting. >> and i guess this 1.6 million in terms of our own financial forecast, is it in the numbers or not in the numbers? >> no, it was not forecast and it would be additive to the fund that would be available to the commission to program for capital or other purposes. >> that's nice to know. nice to have. >> if the planning goes as planned we would be getting the payment right about the same time we would be taking up the five-year financial forecast, and then any supplement to the two-year budget or the two-year capital budget. >> so, i guess we will hear from you at some point what you would like to do with these proceeds. >> yes, you'll have to appropriate them, number one. the board will have to. so, there will be an action either as a stand alone item going to the board of supervisors or rolled into a

budget amendment. >> brad, i've got a question for you. so, right now basically we're not getting any revenue off the property right now, right, correct? >> that's correct. >> and secondly, once it goes to the state lands, could they come back with something or are you guaranteed it's a slam dunk? would they come back with something because of the burton act? what is the plus and minuses, what could they say? >> well, they have to -- so, on the, sort of the generic fundfinding that are required to terminate the trust, that it's cut off from the water, it was sold as part of a highly beneficial program of harbor improvement, that it can't be used for trust purposes, i will say that it's a slam tunc. the sb 815 made those findings as well, but it asked the commission to go through that exercise each transaction. you know, the big thing that we're pursuing is their sign

off that this is [speaker not understood]. i'll describe to you the appraisal instructions we gave and sort of the unique nature of the land that it's a dedicated street. so, they have to make a fair market value at the commission level in order to authorize us to sell it and that's what we'll be working with them. >> thank you. so, they'll take responsibility for any contaminants or whatever is on the lot? >> it's an as-is sale, so, yes. >> thank you. >> i'd just like to point out and just let the public be aware that we appreciate that the port is facilitating the opportunity to create added park space in keeping with so much of the park space we're providing an open space along the waterfront. this is really a nice added opportunity to provide for the green areas for the public here inhe