the commissioners can take a break. >> item 10a on the investigation to bring pier 38 up to code compliance. >> i guess i can still say good morning for one second. i am the project engineer for the pier 38 project. we're here to give an update on the engineering investigation for code compliance. i am peter lua. since the last informational update, the consultants have

performed a detailed investigation to document the existing conditions of the facilities. we have performed selected the motion to investigate the various systems. [no audio]

>> that information has been presented to you before. we did a safety assessment in september. there was a town hall meeting with tenants, the fire chief, and others downstairs. the second phase of the project, with a joint agreement with the port of san francisco. we have been involved with the port for the last six years. our team included architects and

engineers who participated in the study we just completed. the study focused on compliance and occupancy. the court asked us to identify what needed to be done to the building to allow permitted occupancy in those buildings. the first thing we have to do was to validate code violations. we identified code violations in the initial phases last august. that required during a more detailed construction investigation. construction was done without permits and inspections. we did have to open up walls and look for existing conditions to identify what was in there. we will talk about that in more detail. michael did an occupancy steady. we're looking at the occupancy low. there are some triggers in the building code that if you change the occupancy by too much, you

can trigger a seismic upgrade requirements. those are very costly. we're trying to avoid those triggers. that is part of the equation we used in the study. we developed construction cost estimates and the different ways to implement the recommendations. the existing conditions, i will go through this quickly because i am told you have heard this before. it is two stories of an existing building at a master tenant occupied. their offices on the first floor. about 12,000 square feet on the first floor. there was assembly use on the second floor. there was parking and storage in the building. that was about 68,000 square feet. there was an exterior marina on the north side of the pier, a

light vessel marina. we found there were non- compliant issues in the existing building. michael contributed to that. is there anything you want to say about existing conditions? >> i want to point out the last permitted application for the ground floor was for restaurant uses. that is not how the spaces were actually utilized. >> there were some construction documents that went to the billing department at the port. permits were issued. the construction that resulted was never completed. they never occupied it as a restaurant. the types of code violations were discovered included fire safety and exiting violations.

this is an obstructed egress on the second floor. fire and life safety issues with the doorway with a six-foot opening. it is supposed to be a minimum of 6'8". >> when you modify a building, you cannot have steps in the path of trouble -- travel. there are head clearance issues and others in this one particular area. there were multiple mechanical and blogging code violations. -- plumbing code violations. we also found sanitary, sewer, plumbing vents open inside the bathrooms. there were electrical code violations.

there was exposed electrical power. power demand exceeded circuit capacity because of the wiring. i think this was a high-tech incubator, assembly. it was a very creative occupancy. they were doing creative things in order to be there. the electrical code violations included electrical panels that had exposed supply. the panels did not have the panel covers. the doors were not attached. it was a life-safety hazard in many different ways. part of our project, now we're getting into the code complete occupancy studies. the work we've done since

september, we had to open up existing construction to validate the construction to see if things complied or not. we identified locations that we wanted to have opened up. port maintenance people went in there and exposed the existing construction so we could record high it was built and what we found. we looked at wall and floor assembly and construction and assembly. >> some things we found we open up the wall assembly validated the concern to have the building closed. areas where there should have been certain types of assembly in terms of how the wall was built up, the sheet rock was not the right type.

that would require it be removed and be reapplied if we did work in the future. we found some conditions where the floor was less stable than we would have liked in terms of how it was assembled. this is something where you cannot have a built up a column in a corner. that is a structural issue. this is an example of things we found in many areas that we opened up. on the second floor of the building, there was a raised structural area and was part of assembly use. there was an area that goes over the access driveway. we found there were areas where reframing could not support the code load. it was not safe. we also went on the water. we looked at the prince the --

north and south aprons. it has timber joists adn decking with asphalt topping. the south apron is unsafe. this is one example of multiple locations where we found this problem. there are unsupported and missing piles and beams. they cannot support the lows. we have identified multiple locations on the aprons. they are designated for public access. they are part of the emergency exit out of the building on the second floor and the stairs out of the building. that is a serious problem that

needs to get repaired. there were cracked and bent beams that probably reduces the capacity by 50%. these are problems that need to be repaired before the apron is used again for public access and occupancy. there was a whole -- hole in the area where the tenant was using a boat hoist in his storage operation. the tenant did put in a steel plate to cover up this spot. that structure hazard should be repaired before we reach occupy the building. we also did an assessment of the marina. the marina was constructed with

the california department of boating and waterways funds. they have some interest in this arena -- marina. the floats are light duty. they are probably proper on a lake or sheltered marina, but not durable enough for the unprotected port and bay environment. ed told me the original plans may have included a floating breakwater to attenuate the waves on the floats. one image we found shows a section of the. damaged. it was not damaged when we went out there. it is vulnerable to damage.

there are areas where the connections have failed. it has electrical panels for the mored vessels. those are damaged with exposed power. there is a history of pier damage. we have recommendations about the marina as well. after we came up with the condition assessment and validated the problems, the main point of the study was the port wanted to tell them what they had to do to become compliant and reoccupy the buildings. michael took the lead in this effort. we looked at two auctions and the different phases of implementation. one option was to have office occupancy in the first and second floor.

the second option was office occupancy and assembly occupancy on the second floor. we were looking at how much parking we could put in theire, in the shipbuilding s --hed -- shed building. we had five goals in the study. we were looking at correcting the code violations to comply with code. we aimed to satisfy the public's safety requirements for public access. we wanted to maximize the real estate assets. we worked with the port engineering staff and real- estate staff to evaluate the cost and return on costs. we did not want to trigger the seismic upgrades that could go into tens of millions of dollars.

we aimed to maximize parking that maximizes revenue for whatever option we choose. micah will go over the occupancy options that we looked at. -- michael will go over the occupancy options that we looked at. >> the first one was office-only occupancy. on the first floor, there were a couple of different things we had to change, modify, and do to the building to make this happen. we are looking at about 12,300 square feet of office space. the main change is that the second floor is currently not accessible. one thing it needs to be done is to provide accessibility to the second floor. that includes adding elevators and new floors. the green areas are new cores

that include vertical speculation -- circulation. even at the main stair currently existing, we need to reconfigure the steps, reconfigure the door, and create a landing space at the main entry. we have reconfigured so there is a new for your -- foyer into the office space. we will get you 12,300 feet of office space. on the second floor, we're keeping intact the existing floor levels with the exception of the area where there was a step and violation in terms of height in the path of trouble. we have added a ramp. with the office spaces, we have

created a new central restaurant area. we have a single toilet bathroom that will become something that is handicapped accessible on the south side in this area. in this area. a couple of other things on this. the staircases leading from the second floor to the first floor had egress. the north side was out of compliance. this one here, this one here needed to be in close, which was another code violation the needed to be reconfigured. we eliminated the knocking issue that you saw earlier. within the shed itself, along space that leads out into the bay, we have been able to maximize parking, the light blue in this area here, which worked out to be about 228 parking

spaces. to do that, we have added sprinklers. right now the building sprinklers are at the bulkhead and in the office areas here and back here in this last portion. the middle portion in between was not. sprinklers needed to be added. in addition, the sprinklers was -- in addition, the feeling was that we would need a public walkway that goes to the east and and west end of the walking area. in order to do that, as a part of public access through the building, it meant that aprons needed to extend to that portion. you can see here that be built aprons on both sides. obviously, with concrete repair that needs to happen, which we mentioned earlier, there was a whole. on the second option, as

reinhart mentioned, this combined office use an assembly space. generally speaking for those that do not understand, think about it as a bar, as an example, where there are a lot of people, more people, from a code standpoint, there is more of an occupant load in that space. on the first floor it looks much like the of the scheme. 12,300 square feet of office space, reconfigured no. stairs, as mentioned in any other scheme. in this case there is a southern external type about talk about in a moment about why we had to do that. on this second floor the yellow color is the assembly. we have dominated these steps, ramping down from a practicality standpoint and lowering this

middle section to a floor section so that there is another ramp or, where there is currently a ramp in the middle, we have lowered that structurally so that it is all on one level to make the practical for usability and from the standpoint of accessibility. so, 4500 square feet of assembly space. 12,000 square feet of office space. one of the significant differences on this one is as you have this assembly space, there are more occupants in a requirement for more bathroom fixtures. one other thing is on the right here. have added a second means of egress from this space because we exceeded the allowable path. looking at a comparison to the previous space, but this blue

space is much smaller. it all has to do with the trade up -- trade-off between the assembly and the b office. with more people kept within a seismic trigger a 634 occupants, that means that this is the maximum occupancy data can get, with hurricane conditions. this is compared to 70,000 people in option one. just like in the previous scheme, there are still sprinklers in the middle section. just like the previous scheme, they're still going to want have a public walkway at either end of the parking. you will notice that the apron

is much smaller. the trade-off between things like a flower lowering and the additional toilet facilities is the apron that is significantly smaller from a cost perspective. the rest of the shad would be closed off, to clarify that. it would not be used. it could not be used unless we wanted to decide to upgrade the building. >> excuse me. how many occupants could be under option 1? >> we have maxed out the schemes. >> it is the same number of occupants? >> it is the same number of occupants. but the mix is different in terms of how many people are in the office assembly. that is why the parking area gets reduced so much. wheat produced a lengthy study report to provide the marina

costs for removal, basically from a cost estimator through the facility that is 10,000 to $40,000. we qualified the upgrade by saying that we do not think that the facility will be as reliable as the would like, for that type of marine said that is out there, it could be a floating breakwater with another recorded alternative configuration. it is up to the port to decide if they want to go that route. there was insistence that i try to get all the information possible into one slide. i will go slowly here and i will build from the bottom-up. this is the evolution of the phasing that is possible for the construction of the options. option 1a is first floor only,

12,300 square feet, with no parking. just to accomplish that construction is $1.7 million. michael went over what we have to do to put office space back on the first floor. option 1b is a first floor with maximum parking. the red is the cost of the office space. the blue is the cost of the parking space. so, you can see, to get the first floor with parking, it will cost $4.6 million. we will continue with the presentation. 27900 square feet of occupied space just to do the office space is a $3.6 million

investment. the first and second with the parking, again, the assembly for the office space, a total of 98,100 square feet of space, including 228 parking spaces. this is the same information shown by michael earlier. this is the cost associated with first and second floor parking to allow the occupancy and fully billed out option #one. option number two, similarly, first and second floor, we have got 27,900. green is the assembly second- floor area, which michael pointed out is different. on the second floor now, we would bring that down so that it would be all at one level. the cost of that is $3.7

million. option number two, with full office occupancy and maximum parking, $4.5 million in that area. this is peters slide. >> based on the input for real- estate enplane it -- planning, we have come up with an expected yearly return based on each of these options. these numbers still need to be confirmed and will be a part of our next steps that we're point to take. i would like to invite john to talk about this. >> could i also asked about the time line associated with these options? how much time and effort goes into each of these options? >> are you asking about the time

to prepare construction documents and bid and construct? >> no, i mean completion. it is perhaps the wrong assumption to say that if you do option 1b, the cost is much greater, etc., with a longer general return from 1a. we need to understand the trade- offs between complexity of projects. >> next time that we bring the item, we also have to look at the entitlement process that is not contemplated here. that kind of stuff. we are not prepared to answer that question today. but it is the very next question. >> i defer to the port. >> the time for construction would be an interest. but do you go for something faster and get a return on

something that takes a while to get there? >> there are a lot of considerable -- variables. >> we would like to defer that question. it is our question. >> any other questions? >> i think that donna is going to speak. >> we gave you some preliminary revenue here. staff reports, these are very preliminary and we have not yet done analysis on how that affects the position options, if you will, the be discussed in the october briefings with the commission. just to step back on that, back to the point that we presented options or potential this position, one is that the facility would continue to be shattered. given these reports i am optimistic that that is not where we are going with that. that the amount of effort and money required to put us back

into service is manageable so that we would not pursue that option. the other three options are to pursue this as a public works capital project or letting it out as a messy situation, as we have in other cases with master development. those are the options that be it do not yet have further guidance on. the factor is the way that we presented it in october. the first option would be presentations in february on the capital budget. that will start answering that question. as to whether it is a master developer situation, i have to say that these numbers that you saw before beat us to believe that the expected yearly return on the draft that we have, we on the draft that we have, we believe that this is a valid