CRUISE TERMINALCRUISE TERMINAL

September 25, 2007September 25, 2007

ADVISORY PANELADVISORY PANEL

FINDINGSFINDINGS

Advisory Panel ConsiderationsAdvisory Panel Considerations History & Future of San Francisco History & Future of San Francisco

Cruise BusinessCruise Business• San Francisco in the World marketSan Francisco in the World market• Demand forecastDemand forecast• Economic & community benefits to the CityEconomic & community benefits to the City• Cruise industry standards and expectationsCruise industry standards and expectations• Does San Francisco need a new terminal?Does San Francisco need a new terminal?• If soIf so ─ ─ WHERE ?WHERE ? ── HOW MUCH ? HOW MUCH ? ── HOW TO FINANCE ?HOW TO FINANCE ?

── Can it be phased?Can it be phased?── What should we do now?What should we do now?

The Facts The Facts

• Two public-private partnership attempts to build Two public-private partnership attempts to build new terminal have failed. new terminal have failed.

• Port needs new terminal:Port needs new terminal:1. Based on demand, size of ships, and cruise industry expectations.1. Based on demand, size of ships, and cruise industry expectations.2. Brings tourist dollars. Enhances City’s reputation as a world 2. Brings tourist dollars. Enhances City’s reputation as a world class, class, waterfront city. Preserves maritime industry; Jobs. waterfront city. Preserves maritime industry; Jobs.

Pier 35 is substandard.Pier 35 is substandard.Only a 5-7 year life.Only a 5-7 year life.

The Current Situation at Pier 35 The Current Situation at Pier 35 • Needs pier substructure Needs pier substructure

and improved shed. and improved shed. • Only 5-7 years of life Only 5-7 years of life

remaining. remaining. • Does not meet current Does not meet current

industry standards. industry standards. • Requires major investment: Requires major investment:

Pier is too short, aprons too Pier is too short, aprons too narrow, shed too small. narrow, shed too small.

Other Piers Studied Other Piers Studied • Pier 30-32 optimal as a Pier 30-32 optimal as a

two-berth facility.two-berth facility. Pro: Pro: No dredging on No dredging on

Eastern face Eastern face Con: Con: Seismic retrofit Seismic retrofit

cost prohibitive. cost prohibitive. • Some Southern Waterfront Some Southern Waterfront

piers may be promising, but piers may be promising, but not viable in short-term.not viable in short-term.

Pier Conclusion: 27 Pier Conclusion: 27 • ProsPros::

• Has been used as Has been used as back-up berth.back-up berth.

• Adequate berth length. Adequate berth length.

• Large pier shed. Large pier shed.

• Pier in good shape. Pier in good shape.

• Possibility of Pier 29 Possibility of Pier 29 as future berthas future berth

• ConsCons:: needs dredging / needs dredging / only one berth.only one berth.

Pier 27 Options Pier 27 Options

• Minimal improvements:Minimal improvements: Will not meet Will not meet industry industry standards.standards.

$22–26 million$22–26 million..

Pier 27 Options Pier 27 Options • Acceptable improvements:Acceptable improvements:

A functional terminal A functional terminal meeting industry standards. meeting industry standards.

$50–60 million$50–60 million..

Pier 27 Options Pier 27 Options • Optimal improvements:Optimal improvements:

Two berth facility. Two berth facility.

$100 million$100 million..

Pier 27 Options Pier 27 Options

• Advisory Panel recommends Option 2: Advisory Panel recommends Option 2:

Acceptable ImprovementsAcceptable Improvements

Pier 27 FundingPier 27 Funding

• $18 million from condo project sale $18 million from condo project sale proceeds for new terminal. proceeds for new terminal.

• Potential revenue to finance:Potential revenue to finance: Raise passenger feesRaise passenger fees

Special eventsSpecial events

City tax revenueCity tax revenue

Next Steps Next Steps

Develop & design funding planDevelop & design funding plan

Build one-berth terminal and explore Build one-berth terminal and explore secondary berths in short-term.secondary berths in short-term.

Develop a longer-term cruise Develop a longer-term cruise berthing strategy.berthing strategy.

Advisory Panel Advisory Panel FINAL RECOMMENDATIONSFINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. San Francisco needs a new 1. San Francisco needs a new cruise terminal cruise terminal

2. Pier 35 must 2. Pier 35 must be replacedbe replaced

3. Commence 3. Commence immediately with a immediately with a replacement replacement of the primary berthof the primary berth

Advisory Panel Advisory Panel FINAL RECOMMENDATIONSFINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

4. Designate Pier 27 as the 4. Designate Pier 27 as the primary berthprimary berth

5. Commence development 5. Commence development of primary berth design of primary berth design

6. Develop primary6. Develop primaryberth financingberth financing

7. 7. Identify short-term implementation Identify short-term implementation of secondary berthsof secondary berths

8. 8. Develop longer-term berthingDevelop longer-term berthingstrategystrategy

9. 9. Implement Implement shore side powershore side power

10.10. Re-affirm Re-affirm open space in South Beach & open space in South Beach & Northeast WaterfrontNortheast Waterfront

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONSFINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

CRUISE TERMINALCRUISE TERMINALADVISORY PANELADVISORY PANEL

Frankie Lee ∙ Former Port Commissioner/ (Chair) SOHA Engineering

Steve Falk ∙ San Francisco Chamber of (Vice

(Chair) Commerce

William Adams ∙ International Longshore & Warehouse Union

Joe D’Alessandro ∙ San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau

CRUISE TERMINALCRUISE TERMINALADVISORY PANELADVISORY PANEL

Ellen Johnck ∙ Bay Planning Coalition

Redmond Kernan ∙ RFK Associates

Bruce Krumrine ∙ Princess Cruises

John Martin ∙ San Francisco Airport

Stefano Pinna ∙ Metro Cruise Services

Ben Rosenfield ∙ City Administrator’s Office

Michael Sweet ∙ McNutt & Litteneker, LLP/Rincon Pt-South Beach CAC

Thank YouThank You