some point, and i guess at that point it is some time before the ten years, if we just wanted to keep it as is, and that the limited use that we have had is about $44 million, and no seismic up grades, but that is the expenses that we are looking at. >> 34 million to restore to the existing design will be another 50 years and probably more... and but currently keeping it and using it in the condition, we will use it and temporary uses and light uses like parking. and we continuously monitor and inspect what goes on year after year. and so this may change, but, if it occurred, they are expected to be smaller areas, which we will kind of corner off,. >> so the way that it is worded it will be $44 million to address the deferred maintenance, and so saying that that is to put it and the deferred maintenance is just to put it in the condition for which this was intended.

>> and the original state of good repair. >> yeah. >> and then... >> i am sorry, you are correct. >> so, in the years we are still incuring periodic maintenance costs that really are not, and not even getting it, through the condition, to which it was intended and just to moving it along. >> correct. >> so the best possible world, it was, and be in patches and we would have a big enough patch to work with, and so it probably is not going to be that symmetrical, if you will. and but, certainly, our, it is a valuable birth for us and hope to be able to utilize that birth in some fashion. >> and a few significant deep water births. >> among the many we are working on is that we have looked at what is the investment to maintain the birth and they are daunting numbers because of what the size of, and just... nuft picture in your mind that

you turn it to a t so that you maintain it just down the middle to be simple and you have a fair amount of cement piles that you would need to remove and the cost of that alone and it is incredible and that drives to begin with, even, shrinking it to look at a good use, and the scenario that we are thinking through and we have not found one that seems compelling enough to start talking about it. >> the minimal is 44 million. >> so, we are eliminating, at least, the total destruction as a option. >> i don't think that we are looking at any options at this point. but... >> i forget the full removal number is, for the entire year. and but, it, and it is around 45 million to fully remove.

>> the commissioners and the director, and the structural engineer. >> my recall is the number 45 dollars a square foot. and times 600,000 that is $30 million to demo and that is a big number. >> so you, and the demolition costs for pier 36 is approximately $11 million and we were fortunate to be able to get, money for that, and a fair chunk of it from the army corps of engineers, there are options that we need to pursue, and the report, at the time that this pier was built. and it was, and this was their first year that it had cement piles. and protected the pier from fire, and they were the timber

and fair and but we still have these piles, and this is for better or for worse and they said that they are corroding, and from a high level of chloride. >> and i did just want to clarify, if we did come up with the funds to upgrade the pier to its original condition, the actual road rating will go up and right now we have most of the pier rated for 100,000 and that will go up to the original rating which is $250,000 and also, we now, rate the wheel for 4,000 pounds and that will go up to 8,000. >> and the removal cost, and thank you seefn who is probably watching on tv somewhere. and well, there is, some benefits. to the actual usage to bring it back in original condition. >> i just, i wanted to make

sure that we have these number so that we explore what we are going on. and kind of the base line and figure would be as we look at that. >> i think that the important message for the public that we have had a lot of members of the public who have come forward with the ideas post the move by the warriors and do this and temporarily and make the money and all of this is come forward and to go back to do for a long period of time and as the engine reported, the comfort with the ability for the pier to sustain itself, uniformly for more than six months, it has not made it practical yet. >> okay. >> that is something to work with. >> yeah, i think that just so that we have the number that we have and this is something that we will be advocating because it was to be used entirely for the open space and we do have the issue, and where will the

money come from at least what would the cost be. and obviously, just to understand the context, for the $44 million. and the same thing, and scenario, to have that and in front of us. >> yeah. >> and i don't want to say what that number is because it is so mind bogling and because we are looking at those. and that is something that the public has asked for, that we don't have a park scenario, and not that we couldn't and if you consider that the two general obligations bonds and approximately, $35 million, and $33, $34, available for, and it will take more than that. >> and i don't doubt you, i just think. >> i know that. >> and so then that we know and we communicate as we look at the alternatives and the public can see that we agree with that. >> very well said, thank you. >> okay. >> all right, thank you very

much. >> item ten, new business? >> commissioners there was a long list of requests related to the water front land use plan and so if it is okay i will not do all of those but i think that we can consider it a good job of getting them down and the new business item that i have is invitation to the water taxi operators to come back post fleet week. and then i think that we will, you know, the item that we just talked about is on the calendar already. >> and then, i am not sure if i mentioned it, formally at the meeting or just alluded to it, but, if we could explore the possibility of participating in the world on solstic. >> you did mention that at the last meeting. >> okay. >> all right. >> and okay. >> public comment and the

executive -session? >> any public comment? >> seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn into executive session? >> okay. >> second. >> and we will now be moving into closed i move to reconvene session. >> >> second. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> i move to not disclose anything discussed in closed session. >> so moved. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> okay. >> public comment? >> we already took, is there thee xhubl comment. >> seeing none, the executive meeting is adjourned.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, august 14, 2014. please be advised that the commission does not permit outbursts of any kind please silence any mobile devices wirdz i'd like to take roll. commissioner president wu. commissioner fong. commissioner antonini. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. we do expect commissioner hillis arriving late. commissioners, first on your calendar is items for continuance item one at 320

through 4 hundred paul discretionary use authorization for continuance. item b and c at 660 third discretionary review authorization are proposed for september 11, 2014. item 3. for the next case at 19 through 25 mason street request for compliance and variance are proposed for continuance until september 18th. item 4 at one 10 stewart street a negative declaration is proposed for few minutes until september 4th item 5 for the

next case at 14 telegraph hill, 20th street discretionary review authorization until october 9, 2014, pr item 6 case the patrick rode and gun club a appraisal of a perimeter negative declarations froept for continuance october 23rdrd. commissioners under our discretionary review calendar items 19 on green street a may or may not discretionary review we've received a requester inform the project sponsor to continue to october 18th and for item next at 1804 request for discretionary review we've received a request from the

project sponsor with an agreement to continue it not november 6th. we are also in receipt of a request for continuance of item 14 on van ness avenue request for a large project authorization in the supervisors office but i think we might take that up when the item is called >> okay. >> that's all i have and there are no speaker cards. >> any public comment on that item on the items proposed for continuance. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners. >> move to continue items 1 through 6, item 19 and 20. >> second. >> on that motion then - and

wait. >> i have a comment. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i'm opposed to continuing item 19 and we've received a family emergency request. commissioners a motion and second to continue items 1 through 6 and item 19 to september 19th commissioner antonini. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. no arrest commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner sugaya voting against. and places you under your regular calendar to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests

removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 7 for case c alters 3463, 6 street request for conditional use authorization, item 8 ab at 5421 geary boulevard request for discretionary review authorization and a request for variances. i do have one speaker card for item 7. to the member of the public wishing to speak to item 7 ma'am, we'll pull that off consent if you wish to talk about that >> very good commissioners

items 8 ab. >> is there any public comment on items 8 ab seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to are approve item 8 a. >> on that motion to approve commissioner antonini. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero the zoning administrator will say and the closed session to the variance clearance >> very good. >> commissioners, if we may go back to the continuous calendar for the request request on mason street. >> thank you to continue the variance on 25 mason street

until november 18th and the public hearing remains open. >> commissioners item 9 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. i have a genetic question our continuing but i have to have that clarified on november 18th on mason street is a property not identified in the san francisco information map when you put that address in nothing comes up zero, zero zero i having happen to know the building the restaurant is on the corner and have been there for 20 years what comes up and the address to us in today's now continued matter they don't match. my question how many units in this building from what the information says when i put the

arrow on the building which is in question it comes up as a single-family unit and there's needs to be no secondly, stairs for existing so, however, the case states there will be 18 to 10 to 12 people existing that might create a whole other definition of the roof-deck so i want to ask the zoning administrator to forward information so we can access access the information and why not having the pawar wall and there are a whole bunch of questions an update for november that will be appreciated this is very interesting for commissioner president wu the

single land and transportation authority has developed is device by which the streets in areas where you have a predominates of older people have put in their cards to switch the lights to a slower cycle so they get a 16 second increase particularly the broadway improvement concerns at the corner of broadway and stockton street. i've brought in an article i'll hand to her it's in german i'll be happy to interpret the english name is green man plus. i think it's a fabulous idea the rest of the world is acknowledging this is wonderful it's a little box where your

signal pushing button is so i'll pass that on to commissioner president wu with the offer to translate it for her. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay. thank you very much. just a couple you have items i did not think that was going to be public comment but as a general matter the matter on geary boulevard concerned putting in an cabinet next to a commercial facility because the wireless operator never did a test on whether or not the roof on the facility could handle the weight of the facility. i think i spoke to the staff member that was an off-site but hopefully, we'll not have to

deal with that in the future and in my mind didn't sort of the greater from a planning perspective so it is great to have this not be the case. i know we can do this when when we have our tracking system and the conditioner we have so much gomg good morning with an within a quarter of a mile of projects to be consider i want that added to the staff reports for future large authorizations thank you. commissioner antonini. >> thank you it's probably my last chance to comment tonight

maybe the last event in candle stick park but i'm supportive of the redevelopment plans and largely in support of those getting rid of xhltd is a mistake it will leave us with no facility that can seat large amounts of people outdoors is a disadvantage of events held at candle stick or a future stadium we voted on a new stadium at hunters point that's nodded realized there are many places that have facilities - every

project is in an area the transit fees there's the melrose and the hill has a lot and

almost any of the buildings that are going to be built and all the eastern neighborhoods all those buildings will be subject to a lot more fees which will bring benefits to the city this didn't taking into consideration the property taxed so that point we have to look at the question in regards to today's situation not the situation that existed thirty years ago when the original annual limit was set so hopefully we'll get numbers that are accurate on the extraordinary fees we're interested in following up on this discussion in future hearings. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. a couple of comments first. at the short term hearing i

asked for the heat map that was produced by staff at the last minute and hearing that comment that the chronicle sent me an e-mail maybe two days later saying they've done research on the same question and set back me a number of graphics that went beyond the information we had during the hearing to anyone interested go to the chronicle site i don't have the link in my head but if you're interested in the data the chronicle has fairly good handle on what is 0 going on. secondly, in terms of commissioner antonini's comments all the fees have to have a nexus study and also, if you

look at prop m and go over what happened through the years until today, i think in some ways you can character prop m as a failure one of the reasons prop m was put forgot will it's not only housing but office development and in that regard it was supposed to be as commissioner fong pointed out a 3 legged stool then the fact we're not meeting our housing goals and not meeting our transit demands given prop ms attempt to do that has not worked if anyone is look at prop m it ought not to be from the standpoint of upping the square footage but try to figure out what more intensive relationship

can be established between the 3 land uses. that's my last comment i think forever >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move into department matters item 10 commissioners comments. >> i ask you adjourn the meeting even if doug writing who passed away last week he was a member in the 80s of this commission the city architect in the commission an ex officio position person and a deputy of transportation during the earthquake and he earlier voices for removing the highway from the waterfront and one of the early architect the thought

embarcadero he passed away at 68. i got to know doug a little bit because of emphasis roll in the embarcadero he was a consultant of the transportation in seattle they were looking at removing their infrastructure there >> commissioners item telegraph hill receive of last events at the board of appeals the preservation commission did not meet arrest the board of appeals didn't meet this week but will be back next week and commissioners general public comment needing 15 at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect t