after it was over and it had been reading that day -- although the crowd never left. charlotte was about to get in the car and one of the high school band directors came over and said, i just want to thank you for this program, for doing this today. he held up the check and said, you just saved music in my school. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is paid in sullivan. the public affairs officer. i am also honored to be a part of the planning committee with fleet week. since 2004, the conflict general of canada has used week as an opportunity to showcase the integrated nature of our shared north american defense, collaboration between canada, the u.s., and the friendship we

share. this year, canada participated with four ships. we were also pleased that our lead flying team, and the royal canadian air force snowbird flight team also performed at the air show. just to give you perspective, and the snowbirds are our elite flying team, on par with the blue angels. in addition to the air show, the pilots also visited the local v.a. hospital to do good will of reach. the government of canada, consulate, and partners, secured $31,000 in corporate partnerships -- sponsorships through the consulate, transcanada, alberta tourism commission, and canadian tourism commission, and that money went to support the snowbird participation. while the week was entertaining,

our participation is more than just the activities but showcasing to californians the integrated nature of north american defense. canadian u.s. military forces partner through various forums including nato, and un missions, and the linkages that we develop over the course of fleet week will be put to use in the summer when we participate in rimpac in hawaii. of interest to the ports, canada's participation devise a significant boost to the economy, to the berthing fees, hotels, and the spillover effects of our sailors and local community that comes to see the canadian participation. the consulate general of canada, the royal canadian navy, air force, were very pleased with this year's fleet week. record to participating next year. on behalf of the consulate general, i would like to thank the port and also the fleet week

board and the general for their leadership over the last six months in putting together such a great week week event this year. thank you. [applause] >> any other public comment? >> maybe one last round of applause for our fleet week four. -- board. [applause] thank you so much. to wrap up, i just wanted to announce, due to scheduling issues, we are proposing to cancel our regularly scheduled meeting on november 8 and replacing it with a special meeting exactly one week later november 15 at the same time. public session at 3:15 at the port commission meeting room. one last thing i wanted to make sure that commissioners and staff and everyone -- the front page of the "san francisco

chronicle" featuring david kelly, an amazing man in his own right come and a tenant of hours at pier 36. we are proud of him and his company and everyone working there. we hope you got a chance to see it. that concludes that portion of the executive director's report. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> for the second portion of the report, the informational update on the status of pier 38 closure and the steps, jonathan stern has agreed to present. in the interest of time, we will focus on the next steps, unless you or the public have questions on what has transpired to date. the staff report does give a good chronological history. now we are really focused on what we can do next. >> thank you.

good afternoon, my name is jonathan stern. monique had asked me to focus on the future. again, the closure of pier 38 was an unfortunate event and we went to apologize to the occupants of pier 30 and thank them for the way they handled the exit. it was a safety concern of port staff appeared in the end, we got great corporation and we think it is a proper for us to come to the commission to inform all interested parties of what will happen next. in october, we entered a contract with a consulting engineer firm to explore our options for what repairs need to happen for potential real occupancy of pier 38. they are under contract now. they are there through november of next year.

one of the major reason the facility closed was due to code compliance issues and safety violations of some of the new construction there. so they are going to go in and document the as-built conditions, they may have to remove some walls, potential floors, to look for this issue in the electrical and plumbing system and assess the occupancy. as documented in the report, they will look at that in a number of stages. they are going to look at doing what it takes to make corrections, allow the first story to be reoccupied. pier 38 is a maritime facility. the old hen house is a two-story structure and it has an upstairs

and downstairs usage. it was permitted as a restaurant. when we took back the property in august, we found most of those facilities are occupied by office users. that is what triggered our code compliance review. they are going to look at the first story of that building. these are separate modules of what else they will be looking at. they will be looking at the boca building and make recommendations for repair. they will also make recommendations for repairs on the shed structure. this really has to do with fire safety, overall safety of that structure. additionally, looking and any improvements that need to be made to the arena, making sure they are octuplusable by tenant. and because there are public access requirements at this facility, that they would continue, based on those

different spots that are preoccupied, what they identify as the requirements needed in each case and the cost needed to achieve that. that is an ongoing analysis. they have through the end of the year to not only document the conditions there, but to come up with estimates for what it would take to achieve each one of those options or alternatives. we expect to be back in front of the port commission for your recommendation in early 2012. based in that direction, we can come back with the necessary construction documents, and drawings, to put out to bid in may 2012. that would allow construction to begin by the middle of 2012. that is all premised on what we find and what happens in that analysis. so i wanted to spend some time to talk about what it would take to get real occupancy at

pier 38. the first thing i want to say, it really matters, what are the existing code issues, how extensive are they to fix, what can we achieve when we find those things? our biggest hope is it will be relatively inexpensive. i think our current estimates range from $500,000 to $2.5 million. there are different ways we could approach funding that. if it is on the higher end, the above that, and involves other complex issues, it really goes from being a repair products to a development project. once you're in the realm of development, you have to start contemplating going through environmental review, permitting, etc., and that would

trigger a different level of skills to affect with those things. it would go beyond repair and construction. we would need to get other expertise on board and create a development project. we would look at a news program, look at how to finance that, and how the regulatory structure would work. before i went through the steps, i did want to talk about those outcomes, which are on page 10 of the report. there are four potential outcomes that we can recommend to the port commission based on what we find in the physical investigation. options 1 and two, we have a relatively low amount of code corrections that need to happen, not too expensive. in that case, we can envision bringing back policymakers to the port commission to see if there is money in the capital budget -- we could consider a capital works project. we could present a contract to

you the normal way we present our facilities. we could start that by june of 2012. the other possibility is the repairs are a little bit more but still a construction project. based on our resources, we do not feel we have the wherewithal to manage all those projects. in that case, we would be looking for a master tenant to take over the facility. part of their charge would be to reoccupy under approved uses, and also they would make sure that it is all code compliant. they would do that through construction. that would be similar to the foreign trade zone. 1923. there was ongoing concern for many years.

that is on the low end, if we find there is a re-occupied will portion of pier 38 and can be done quickly. if the fixes are more expensive, either more money, and/or require more development activities, talking to regulators, reaffirming, and changing the uses, environmental review, we would be an option #3, which is selecting a master developer. that is a process that the port commission has done a number of times, most recently for seawall lot 357. that is what we're asking our partner to do, a more significant task, other than doing re-tenancy.

it could also be possible, because of cost, regulatory process, or the legal status of pier 38, we may need to keep its shuttered for the time being. if there is no feasible path in 2012 to print -- quickly bring the facility back into use. i would like to mention, as i talk about the policies and procedures, in each of these cases, the first of those, the legal status of pier 38. most of the things i will be mentioning are 4 overall and standard procedures that have to be followed under any development project. but pier 38, a former tenant has appealed. there are civil claims back and forth between the tenant and port.

furthermore, because the former tenant had a loan with the california department of boating and waterways, basically they have an agreement on the property. they have a right to take over the tendencancy. beyond a special case, we would have to look at how report uses are determined. the backbone of that is the waterfront land use plan appeared that and then a bios policies, potential uses, for each of the port facilities. we have outlined what it has been for pier 38. it is mainly about maritime use. in the past, it was always the maritime facility. the land use plan looks at this as a maritime facility with other ancillary uses. that is something that we examined and will have to reconcile.

secondly, any plan for real occupancy, whether master tenant or master developer, would have to be trusted-verified. we would have to make certain that plans for re-occupancy would comply with that. we would also have to build land use plans for following procedures for competitive solicitation if we are going to have a master tenant or master developer. these are best practices that are laid out, both in terms of competing defined master tenants and developers, but also other policies and procedures at the port and city have put into place, involving competitive building, bidding for retail opportunities on the port -- even if it is just a restaurant. there is the recently passed maritime preservation policy.

to designate as a maritime facility, we have to keep maritime uses. those are some of the overall policies. i also want to say, if we are in a master development situation and uses here contemplated are not the historic uses, there would have to be an environmental clearance process. this could be either some sort of a cursory review to say that it performs, or a more elaborate ceqa compliance document. as we go through that process we have to take into consideration issues about historic preservation. pier 38 is part of the embarcadero waterfront national historic waterfront district. any modifications are subject to

the secretary of interior standard for rehabilitation and guidelines for burkregarding the rehabilitation. additionally, and number of permits that we would need, depending on what has to happen at the facility. that would certainly include a bcdc permit, primarily concerned with public access and fill, but also may need to work with the corps of engineers, depending on what is anconsidered. i think that covers the issues we will have to look at. this is really dependent on what we find in the physical investigation. we hope to be back to the port commission in january 2012 with reports and recommendations based on the physical condition and all the factors i presented

to you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners? >> in terms of the analysis that will be done, maybe you covered this, but is there anything that will look at the strength of the pilings underneath the shed? i know that alters potential cost. >> cnd work is premised on the notion that there is not additional catastrophic repair that needs to happen, or we are going to propose uses that would trigger a seismic upgrade. the engineering group has recently done a structural assessment report, which means they have been under theire -- [inaudible]

>> i just wanted to make sure that we had some assessment of that before going forward. >> ed burns. chief parker engineer. there are some damaged filings that have not gotten better. it is not a long life left on the pier. there will be subsequent repairs required. some of the aprons are in very bad condition. as we go through this analysis, we will be looking at them particularly from the perspective of exiting. we to make sure we have safe sex sitting, and in that case, some of those up -- apron's will need to be upgraded. like jonathan was saying, we are going to take this to the point of no seismic upgrades.

using that as our development limit. >> i just wanted to make sure that we at least -- >> we will be within the code. >> another question. i know the current use -- although on authorized -- involved creating a hub of sorts for small businesses and start- ups colon locating there. i know that many of the amounts the uses contemplated here. is there anything here that may or may not fit into the plans? >> the physical examination we are going to do will be geared towards re-occupancy. i think there will have to be a policy analysis as well to see if we are triggering anything to

see how we are in conformance with the waterfront land use program, with other entities, trusts. the key here is how expensive or an expensive it is. most of those triggers, and we are in development situations. we are talking about long-term commitments to long-term uses. the more expensive, the more we compensate with longer-term. i think we all need to keep our fingers crossed, after the testing, our understanding of the condition of pier 38, if it is is a patrician -- if it is a situation where we could have in term leasing, that is a potential option. the longer term we are, we are butting up against the policy discussions. >> i just had a comment. this is more of it, then question. it seems we had this particular use and it has some attention

and is in line with what the city is doing with innovation, small business, but when you consider whatever route we go, given when the lease was originally given out, the informant was different, that we think about what the uses are. i know we have all these policies and master plans that put these boxes, to a certain extent, that we think about the neighborhood and the characteristics of the surrounding area and not just the pier by itself, but when it could do for the whole environment, port or non-port property. i am not suggesting anything specific other than to think about it in a long-term view. just keep that in mind. i drove by today and i was thinking, that is of great area.

it is a terrific location with the ball park close by. i think we need to think about what it can do to change the neighborhood. >> any other questions or comments? thank you. >> item from the consent calendar. item 8a. request authorization to advertise for competitive bids for the pier 50 substructure repair, contract no. 2757.item 8b. request authorization to award a contract in an amount not to exceed $419,927 to urs corporation for consulting services to develop a san francisco bay region waterborne all-hazards response plan. for this item, the resolution has been revised to reflect the legal name of the contractor from your as corp. to you rs corp. america. item 8c. accept update regarding amendment of the professional services contract with environmental sciences

associates for environmental review and permitting coordination services for the 34th america's cup and pier 27 james r. herman cruise terminal and northeast wharf plaza by increasing the amount of the contract from $2,785,017 to a not-to-exceed amount of $4,124,774. >> so moved. >> second as amended. >> is there any comment on the consent calendar? all in favor? aye. resolution 65, 11-66 have been approved. except update regarding the amendment. >> item 9a. request approval of first amendment to license no. 14987 with the san francisco community fishing association, amending the fee schedule and term of the license for space located at pier 45 fish processing center, shed d-4.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael, a member of the maritime division. the item before you concerns the san francisco community fishing association which entered into a licensing agreement with the port in may of this year to operate the port's ice machine at pier 45 and selling bulk ice to fishermen and fish processors. the association is a group of local fishermen who came together to fill a need that rose when the previous ice machine operator vacated pier 45. the original license term is month to month for one year, through may 2012, and the fee is $2,192 per month. which is within the perimeter rates approved by the port

commission. the association has paid this be on time and is in good standing with the port. after four months of operation, the licensee found itself approximately $13,000 in the red and realize the financial arrangements were not sustainable for them. much of the shortfall was caused by high maintenance and repair costs on the ice machine, which had to be immediately addressed. the association approached the port to propose a temporary reduction in the monthly license fee, which would allow them to recover from the initial startup problems and costs and become better established as an efficient and reliable ice supplier. this year's salmon season was

the first full salmon fishing season in five years. despite obstacles, the association provided excellent service supplying ice to local fishermen and fish processors. dependable ice service is also a necessity for the upcoming crab and herring season, which begin in november and december. to help support this venture, which is vital for the upcoming fishing seasons, and could help attract more northern california commercial fishermen to fisherman's wharf and hyde street harbor, and could increase opportunities for the port's fish processing businesses, court staff recommends amending the association's license fee to

$500 a month for a period of one year, and extending the term to september 30, 2012. the association must continue to comply with all existing license terms and conditions, including maintenance and operation of the ice machine, and monthly reporting of ice sales, tonnage delivered, revenue, and expenses. the port will review the association's report, a track financial results, and monitor ice usage throughout the term of the license. this concludes my presentation, commissioners. thank you for your consideration of this item. >> can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> there are several comments. larry collins.

>> good afternoon. my name is larry collins. i am the president of the san francisco community fishing association, the first community fishing association on the west coast. we have eight members that are all local captains that support their families with small boat fishing. we use a hook and line here and we are a sustainable fleet. we have had a couple of pretty bad years here because of no salmon fishing up and down the coast of california. it has been very tough for infrastructure to stay in place we were in fort bragg this year fishing salmon. we're getting fuel from a truck on the dock and having to drag the hose over to fill up our votes. infrastructure is important to bring in all these fleets.