1. CRUISE TERMINAL September 25, 2007 ADVISORY PANEL FINDINGS

2. Advisory Panel Considerations History & Future of San Francisco Cruise Business History & Future of San Francisco Cruise Business San Francisco in the World market San Francisco in the World market Demand forecast Demand forecast Economic & community benefits to the City Economic & community benefits to the City Cruise industry standards and expectations Cruise industry standards and expectations Does San Francisco need a new terminal? Does San Francisco need a new terminal? If so WHERE ? If so 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?

3. The Facts Two public-private partnership attempts to build new terminal have failed. Two public-private partnership attempts to build new terminal have failed. Port needs new terminal: Port needs new terminal: 1. Based on demand, size of ships, and cruise industry expectations. 2. Brings tourist dollars. Enhances Citys reputation as a world class, waterfront city. Preserves maritime industry; Jobs. Pier 35 is substandard. Only a 5-7 year life. Pier 35 is substandard. Only a 5-7 year life.

4. The Current Situation at Pier 35 Needs pier substructure and improved shed. Needs pier substructure and improved shed. Only 5-7 years of life remaining. Only 5-7 years of life remaining. Does not meet current industry standards. Does not meet current industry standards. Requires major investment: Pier is too short, aprons too narrow, shed too small. Requires major investment: Pier is too short, aprons too narrow, shed too small.

5. Other Piers Studied Pier 30-32 optimal as a two-berth facility. Pro: No dredging on Eastern face Con:Seismic retrofit cost prohibitive. Pier 30-32 optimal as a two-berth facility. Pro: No dredging on Eastern face Con:Seismic retrofit cost prohibitive. Some Southern Waterfront piers may be promising, but not viable in short-term. Some Southern Waterfront piers may be promising, but not viable in short-term.

6. Pier Conclusion: 27 Pier Conclusion: 27 Pros: Pros: Has been used as back-up berth. Has been used as 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 as future berth Possibility of Pier 29 as future berth Cons: needs dredging / only one berth. Cons: needs dredging / only one berth.

7. Pier 27 Options Minimal improvements: Will not meet industry standards. Minimal improvements: Will not meet industry standards. $22–26 million.

8. Pier 27 Options Acceptable improvements: A functional terminal meeting industry standards. Acceptable improvements: A functional terminal meeting industry standards. $50–60 million.

9. Pier 27 Options Optimal improvements: Two berth facility. Optimal improvements: Two berth facility. $100 million.

10. Pier 27 Options Advisory Panel recommends Option 2: Acceptable Improvements Advisory Panel recommends Option 2: Acceptable Improvements

11. Pier 27 Funding $18 million from condo project sale proceeds for new terminal. $18 million from condo project sale proceeds for new terminal. Potential revenue to finance: Potential revenue to finance: Raise passenger fees Raise passenger fees Special events Special events City tax revenue City tax revenue

12. Next Steps Develop & design funding plan Develop & design funding plan Build one-berth terminal and explore secondary berths in short-term. Build one-berth terminal and explore secondary berths in short-term. Develop a longer-term cruise berthing strategy. Develop a longer-term cruise berthing strategy.

13. Advisory Panel FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. San Francisco needs a new cruise terminal 2. Pier 35 must be replaced 3. Commence immediately with a replacement of the primary berth

14. Advisory Panel FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 4. Designate Pier 27 as the primary berth 5. Commence development of primary berth design 6. Develop primary berth financing

15. 7. Identify short-term implementation of secondary berths 7. Identify short-term implementation of secondary berths 8. Develop longer-term berthing strategy 8. Develop longer-term berthing strategy 9. Implement shore side power 9. Implement shore side power 10.Re-affirm open space in South Beach & Northeast Waterfront FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

16. CRUISE TERMINAL ADVISORY 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 DAlessandro San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau

17. CRUISE TERMINAL ADVISORY 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 Administrators Office Michael Sweet McNutt & Litteneker, LLP/ Rincon Pt-South Beach CAC

18. Thank You