work and job opportunities here in san francisco. and that is another story and i wanted to talk about the tide line and water taxi service that we provide, our members, are on board those vessels and we have approximately, five people working on those vessels for captain lewis at this particular juncture and he is actually one of our members and there is a big difference between working with that and working on the union job and these are union jobs and provide a good living for these fellows. >> we are hopeful and with the injection of the new phones and so forth that this is going to beyond the start up, and as far as what the concern and i know that they have been working hard for the last two years as a union and we worked alongside of those folks and it is a partnership, and we are going to move beyond the maritime story and one place that our

employer could build his business and it would be at the pier 38 which was not mentioned tonight and but we have a man at pier 3845 is going to develop the ability to put the side with that cost of the port and they are going to pay for it as the project goes. and that helps to eliminate the problem that we have had and that we are going to be in pier 40 at south beach, and but it is very congested and we have other people use thating pier and it is difficult for the water taxi to get in and get out of there. and so your staff did not mention that but we do appreciate the pier 52. and pier 70 and we can go to pier 16 is a great idea. and that means more jobs with the san francisco bay and thank you for the opportunity to

speak to you. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> start with the commissioner will host and since this is really your baby. >> thank you and i appreciate today's report and i think that it is something that we wanted to hear and it is great to hear that we are thinking about the long term planning of the landing, and i think that as we keep working on this is to get a clearer sense because we have two types and on demand, and we have the schedule service and i guess that we have it and the operators in terms of their experience, and so we do understand, because i think that the and the other, i think that we want to understand, the long term is that we are just doing it for the tourists and how we are doing it for the residents. and that the congestion that we see and part of it is obviously, but a lot of it is

by residential residents, and the bay view and the water transport and to bring in the car. and for committing or whatever, and that will take a longer transition and i think that we have a lot to think through and i think that it is great to have it, and a little bit of understanding of where we put the landings and if in the vessel and the bigger vessel and the smaller vessels, and when you think about it the ferries are larger in terms whaf they do with the dealers right now, and as i said, i might, and it was in the north south and going for the south down to candle stick will be great and even beyond, and so the development that has happened with more residential neighborhoods and some of the piers that we are talking about and that will be useful. and that is a great start. and you know, i think that one of these things that you think about is that you talked about it and i don't know if all of these fundings, and if the provows and that was a problem

to think about it, and that is how you could believe the subscription in a way that is the signage, there is an alternative to go through the taxi and if they were going to do it they will have to hop on it and i think that the special events and the evening on the bay, and that calls for the on demand service and i think that we need to go through the operators and what is the short term and the longer thermostat us, of not just developing the fight but how can that really work to solve the issues that we are trying to solve. >> and i think that the other one, i don't think that we can figure out the airport or that works or not. and yeah, i did mention in boston having serving their airport and it is my understanding that we can look at it further is that the security and restrictions and

the faa restrictions, make it impossible to go right to the airport, and maybe there could be a shuttle or something, that picks up and red road city or something like that and somewhere closer to the airport. >> yeah, and we actually have to your earlier comment, and i think that i mentioned, working with sfmta staff and so we have a meeting set up with that we are scheduling now in september and we are scheduling a meeting with them in september to talk about that. and that is the one that your consultant did not use and i mentioned it a couple of times and and it was the (inaudible) on the sand and (inaudible) not a bay, or an ocean, but it seems to be very effective there. and i mean, that i, some of us, much prefer them taking a taxi. >> yeah. >> not exactly of the most

pleasant of attitudes sometimes. >> thank you, very much. for a great report. >> and i am really happy to hear that the current operators are having success and i think that it is wonderful that we are looking at expanding because it is very much needed and i think that the consultants did a great job and so i really look forward to working with the commission and the staff, in increasing quickly, the new stops, along the water front, because i think that this can be a great service. so thank you. >> thank you, it is very informative report. and i too am excited about seeing the opportunities expanded and i think that it is sort of the idea that they will come, and i think that this is really truly one of those that once the people become more aware of the opportunities and they have to confess that i forgot that i should have hopped on a taxi when i had

meeting here, and that i had a ball game that i needed to and i hopped on the water taxi. >> but, a couple of questions, that i had, one is and there are some other cities that have types of, is there a mechanism for on demand service to go to other cities, or working with the other ports like oakland, is there any discussion on having taxi service to some of the other? s. >> i think that at least to this point, we have left it up to, the operators, to make those relationships, and find those other landing locations,... >> we will establish the relationships, and in the square. >> that is what i was thinking. >> i am sorry. >> it was a established relationships landing right to the square in berkeley it is two examples of the out reach. >> and again, that i know that

some of them are hop on and hop off and others are on demand. >> these are the on demand service and the hop on and hop off thing i don't think that we have thought out that far because right now we are concentrating on the west and south and trying to, you know, find the little points in between that make it a very flexible service, so that it is, it is, you know, really, it is a family, fun family way of altering the transportation. >> right. >> and i am kind of amused at one of the studies ta came up and paid more for the service than left, but they prefer when it is tossed a little bit more. >> perhaps, i will get that with the right sort of spot in there so they will go for it. >> one other thought, occurred to me and maybe this is opening a can of worms, but it seems as we are here going to admit

about the and i will not use a particular company name, but the technology buses have there been any thought as to working something and that will alleviate some of the stress on the streets. and having technology go through. and i will not use the specific company. but i can think of one. >> the project marina, actually reached out to a technology company that had a campus in the redwood city. and ran some of those routes. and for a couple of months, i think. >> yeah. >> if we could just, he could tell, speak to it better than i can. >> we ran, with this company, for pilot for four months and it was to shuttle their employees down, we started out as a two day, per week, and moved up to 5 days a week. and it was a good program. and it is a more expensive program than the current buses are and it was not something that they thought was sustain able and it had a popularity on friday evenings and when he

this would avoid the 280 traffic coming up and that was really the main push and we were about the same time exactly. to the door-to-door. for using the water taxi verses using the bus, and so it was not a lot of things at the time, but it was convenient. >> great report. and to the comment that you made earlier, i think that i would like to director come back to us and report to us after fleet week and i think that does make a lot of sense to do a presentation. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next item. >> yeah. >> item 9 a, informational presentation regarding estimated substructure repair costs for piers 30-32 in as is condition and impacts the such costs from alternative uses of piers 30-32. >> and good evening. president katz. >> could i interrupt just for a moment before you start? >> i take a little privilege to introduce two of the interns

before they leave and thank them. >> just wanted to acknowledge two of our summer interns, and have been working with the maritime division and i want to thank matt and mike, if you could just stand up. [ applause ] matt has been working in cargo development initiatives at pier 80 and 96 and has been helping to do the marketing and the administrative work, with the free trade zone and mike has been working with the fisherman's wharf in the south beach arena, and both that are students at the california, maritime academy and all accounts, they have been doing an absolutely outstanding job with the staff and so we are getting wonderful feedback and so thank you very much for helping us this summer and i hope that you will be back next

summer good evening, katz and commissioner brandon. and woo ho, at the commission meeting of april 22nd, president katz requested information that will be brought in. and the cost of the pao*eshes 30, and 32, and we were constructed in the early 1900s. and piers 30, 32, serve as a valuable asset to the ports and the public, and provides approximately, 13 acres of multiuse space. this space is used for parking and special events and back up cruise terminal and labor for visiting ships, the current condition is characterized by significant ocean damage throughout the substructure. over time the concrete has been

saturated with salt water, leading to the corrosion of the reinforcing steel and the concrete is falling and the staff estimates that the repair costs of the substructure will be $44 million. due to the state of deferred making and it may be in the future, and the exact timing or location is unpredictable and it is important to note that the nature of these failures will likely not be catastrophic but in the decking and the rebar will prevent the sudden collapse. and it were to occur, the second areas corn ired off and for the evaluated repair. on a case to case basis and allows to the periods of six months and it allows the staff for the periodic opportunity to

inspect and reevaluate the conditions for each proposed use. and this is the end of my presentation and i am here to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> questions. >> is there thee public comment? >> seeing none. public comment is closed. >> commissioner brandon? >> first of all i would like to say welcome. >> and thank you for your report. >> and so if we were to spend $44 million, we could just keep the current use coming up now for the parking and the special events? >> or if we, spend 44 million, is there anything that we can do in addition to what we are doing now. >> the $44 million, will repair into its original design and provide the design life of like 50 years. and the existing condition of the zaoe sign was for him 50

here, and you know, we are fortunate that it is out lasting that and we are on the 100 year mark and at this point, we were very fortunate that is serves the practical use at very little cost. >> so, to answer your question, sorry. >> and that will provide for, the existing usages, but, for a period of 50 years. >> if we go with the 44 million what is the use of the life. >> we estimate about ten years. however, it is like, the 50 year design that is over 100 years and serves a practical purpose. >> all right. thank you. >> so, i guess, you are giving us more of a technical sort of aspect of what we should consider and i guess that we would need to hear from the rest of them. and so, is this worth spending $44 million or what should we

do? and if it is a major seismic upgrade i will go back to the and i don't know if we are back to the same number that we are looking at because they were looking at something that was extremely heavy and etc.. and so then the question is, what are the other uses besides the existing use that we could envision from that? which is something that i know that you are not here to answer, but the question will be for us to understand, what are the other uses that we possibly are thinking and what will the cost be. >> yes, that question that you have asked several times and this question was also asked by the commission before the cal ter shows that we are working on that answer. and obviously, this informs that answer. and so, your point is well taken. today is only to answer the question of commissioner katz' what is takes to keep it in the existing condition and to keep the doors open, what our recommendation is, and to deal with it and, we are still contemplating that. >> i guess that we can at least

think that there is possibly, i meanwhile we debate this issue, which we don't know how long it will take us. and we will come to a conclusion where there will be time involved, and at least you are saying, that for the maybe ten years, which gives us enough time to work this out then. >> great. >> and then update and the engineering has gone for a couple of ideas and there are ideas from the public, and putting the soccer fields there and parks there, and with the public use, and it is still, pretty daunting number, and that would, you know, if only the parts that it would require are the tremendous amounts of public funds and we are beginning the work and a recommendation that will be successful at this point in time, but the numbers are... >> and i guess that, and the good news that we are hearing is that we don't have to do something immediately. >> right. >> and then, i guess that, and

some, to follow up on that, and thank you, very much for the report. and also, we will get the presentation. >> and thank you, for keeping it simply short. >> in terms of and what i was looking at was just, you know, as you articulated the status quo just to maintain it, and at 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.

>> so what brought you out here for the bike ride today? >> i grew up in san francisco but i have been living in new york. i wanted to see what san francisco is doing with infrastructure. >> cities are where people are living these days. the bay area is doing a lot with construction and the way to change the world starts here. >> we are about to take a bike

ride. we have 30 cyclist. i'm really excited to hit the road and see what the city has in store. >> i definitely recommend it to people. it's a fun afternoon and you learn so many things. >> this is so much fun. i go to parts of the city that i don't come to. this will make the

city a more susta

>> ghj ladies and gentlemen, i'll call the order of the special meeting of the san francisco ethics commission which is the notice of today and the subject matter of which is limited to a discussion of the recommendations of the grand jury report and the ethics commission responses to those