Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pier 38 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineers outline repair options and costs to bring Pier 38 into code compliance
Summary
An engineering investigation found fire, mechanical, electrical and structural deficiencies at Pier 38 and presented two occupancy scenarios (office‑only with more parking vs. office+assembly with less parking) and phased cost estimates ranging from roughly $1.7M (limited work) to $6.5M (full first/second floor + parking). Staff will refine revenue projections and disposition options.
Port consultants reported on an engineering investigation into Pier 38 that found multiple code violations and structural deterioration requiring repair before safe re‑occupancy.
Project engineer Peter Luong introduced consultants from C plus D and Michael Taubauer Architecture, who said selective demolition and inspections validated earlier code‑violation findings: obstructed egress and head‑clearance issues, incomplete HVAC, exposed electrical panels and overloaded circuits, and seriously deteriorated pier aprons and piles. Consultant Reinhard Ludtke said, “The south apron’s unsafe. It has, you know, severely deteriorated joists,” and noted missing or unsupported piles and cracked bent cap beams that reduce capacity.
The consultants presented two broad schemes. Option 1 focuses on office occupancy for both first and second floors, with measures to create accessible vertical circulation, add sprinklers and rebuild aprons; with maximum parking in the shed this scheme includes roughly 228 parking spaces and a full upgrade cost of about $6.5 million for the option with First+Second+parking. Option 2 allows office space plus a smaller assembly area (about 4,500 sq. ft.) and sacrifices most of the shed for parking (about 40 spaces), with estimated costs in the $3.7M–$4.5M range depending on scope.
Consultants emphasized that a major change in occupancy could trigger seismic upgrade requirements under Chapter 34 of the building code, escalating costs into the tens of millions. The team also presented smaller phased alternatives (for example, First Floor only office abatement estimated at $1.7M) and gave preliminary marina removal/upgrade estimates (removal ~$340,000; an upgrade ~$770,000) while noting the Department of Boating and Waterways’ interest in marina funds.
Staff said next steps include refining revenue and timeline projections, assessing whether the Port pursues a master developer or master tenant approach, resolving ongoing litigation and coordinating with the Department of Boating and Waterways, and returning with detailed analyses. Commissioners asked for comparative timelines and cautioned about losing sight of longer‑term master‑development strategies even as interim options are pursued.
Next steps: staff to return with detailed timelines, refined cost/revenue projections and a recommendation on disposition and implementation phasing.
