3 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVES

3 | CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVES OPTION 1 - SINGLE PLAZA OPTION 2 - DOUBLE PLAZA TRAFFIC CONCEPT OPEN SPACE CHARACTER ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER 30 34 38 39 42 Conceptual Site Planning Study 29 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPTION 1 | SINGLE PLAZA Embarkation area takes advantage of the open view of the Bay. Bus drop-off/pick-up zone is centrally located next to the terminal. Provisioning trucks enter at Pier 27 apron and exit at the consolidated point at the north. OPTION 1 SITE PLAN DIAGRAM E will be using POVs and will have a longer walk to the terminal. Provisioning trucks would enter and perhaps queue at Pier 27 apron using a less preferable counterclockwise flow pattern. A queuing lane may have to be created along the Embarcadero. Additional provisions storage may be needed and placed at northern end of pier, possibly creating a conflict with provision loading operations. St Chestnut D PLAZA OPTION 1 OPEN SPACE FRAMEWORK DIAGRAM Em SIDEWALK ba rca de APRON ro PROVISIONING AREA NORTH Battery St TERMINAL PEDESTRIAN AREA E 0 100’ 200’ 400’ Advantages Traffic lanes do not cross into the open space area as envisioned by BCDC and Port plans. Proposed cruise terminal layout provides opportunity to create a dramatic embarkation space at mezzanine level with an open view of the Bay. This space also provides the opportunity for alternative use on a non-cruise day. Buses can back into their designated spaces thereby not causing potential back-up of the driveway. Secured storage of provisions can be co-located with other terminal functions, creating a single facility. Retail space along the open space area could have a simple, efficient floor configuration. St Chestnut D St Sansome St Lombard x PEDESTRIAN CROSSING VIEW CORRIDOR Battery St Em ba rca de ro Key Points Maintain BCDC Special Area Plan layout for a two-acre uninterrupted open space area. Two access points across the Embarcadero. Privately-owned vehicles (POVs), taxis and buses enter from one consolidated point near Pier 29 bulkhead building and share a large loop flowing counterclockwise. Pick-up and drop-off zones are strongly tied to the terminal building layout (i.e., embarkation on the north, debarkation on the south). Disadvantages The single ingress point for POVs, taxis and buses may result in traffic congestion. Circulation management system must function very efficiently. Back-up of one mode will negatively affect the others. While the back-in, head-out bus operation would reduce potential traffic impacts, signage would be necessary in order for passengers to identify which bus to board. Bus loading in front of the terminal, but POV loading is further away. This may be a disadvantage since the majority of passengers NORTH 30 P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPTION 1 | VEHICULAR FLOW PRIVATELY - OWNED VEHICLES (POVS) FLOW DIAGRAM TAXI FLOW DIAGRAM Privately-owned vehicles (POV), taxis, and buses share a singe entry/exit access point, while provisioning vehicles enter using a separate entrance. E D E OPTION 1 COMBINED TRAFFIC FLOW DIAGRAM NORTH D NORTH BUS FLOW DIAGRAM PROVISIONS FLOW DIAGRAM E BUS E E D D D NORTH NORTH NORTH 0 100’ 200’ 400’ Conceptual Site Planning Study 31 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPTION 1 TERMINAL BUILDING FLOW DIAGRAMS Proposed cruise terminal layout provides opportunity to create a dramatic embarkation space at mezzanine level with an open view of the Bay. Retail space along the open space area could have a simple, efficient floor configuration. TERMINAL PROGRAMS - AREA REQUIREMENTS FROM MEZZANINE LEVEL 1ST FLOOR FLOW PROGRAM DIAGRAM Total PAX 2400 2400 0 0 0 9900 4500 45000 1500 1500 1500 900 6000 15000 2400 3500 21500 15000 111500 25100 0 15000 2500 1600 0 26400 0 0 0 0 0 0 59400 0 0 CBP PRIMARY (DB) 1st Level 2400 2400 15000 2500 3500 25800 STORAGE (OB) 2nd Level 0 0 PROVISIONS STORAGE (OA) BAGGAGE LAY DOWN (DA) Group Sum BUILDING SYSTEMS (BA) E-D Pre-Screen Lobby (OD) CREW SPACE M / W T. (BB) TO MEZZANINE LEVEL E-E Entry Screening E-A 2500 3500 9900 4500 Embark Waiting/Check-in 15000 E-C Embark/Debark Passage E-B Embark Qeue SECURITY (OE) (OC) OFFICES CBP SECONDARY (DC) D-B B CBP Primary (EE) (OF) PORT POLICE ENTRY PRE-SCREEN LOBBY (ED) SCREENING ENTRY D-C C CBP Secondary *1-1 1500 1500 1500 900 6000 D-A A Baggage lay-down e 45000 EMBARK DEBARK OTHER BLDG O-C Cruise Line Offices O-E Security O-F Port Police O-D Crew Space O-B Storage O-A 4000 6000 Provisions 15000 MEZZANINE FLOW PROGRAM DIAGRAM FROM SHIP TO SHIP PASSAGE (EC) TO 1ST FLOOR (ON DEBARK) QEUE (EB) FROM 1ST FLOOR (BA) M / W T. BUILDING SYSTEMS (BB) (OB) STORAGE WAITING / CHECK IN (EA) B-B M/W T. B-A Bldg Systems Other Use *1-2 *1-3 Retail 15000 Sub Total 136600 *1-1: Based on 10 sf per passenger *1-2: This value excluded in the summary building areas *1-3: This is a one-story space with high ceiling. EMBARK DEBARK OTHER BLDG 32 P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives PROGRAM AXONOMETRIC EA / EB EC BB SITE PLAN FLOW DIAGRAM BA OA DA VIEW DC E LIN EE OD OB ED BA BB 0C/0E/ OF DB R DC BC DEBARKATION EMBARKATION DC FROM MEZZANINE LEVEL DB 0C/0E/ BB BA ED EE OF TO MEZZANINE LEVEL OTHER DA R OB OD OA 1st FLOOR BA BB FROM 1ST FLOOR LEVEL TO 1ST FLOOR LEVEL (ON NORTH EA / EB EC FROM SHIP TO SHIP 0 50’ 100’ 200’ MEZZANINE Conceptual Site Planning Study 33 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPTION 2 | DOUBLE PLAZA POV loading would be at the front of terminal. Since the amount of passengers using POVs are almost twice as large as those using buses, this layout would be the preferred option. OPTION 2 SITE PLAN DIAGRAM D St Chestnut E PLAZA SIDEWALK St Sansome Sa Maximize the view corridor to the Bay by aligning the south end of the terminal roughly parallel to Pier 23. Two types of open space areas: a triangular viewing area along Pier 27 apron and a linear park along the Embarcadero. Dedicated taxi loop closest to the Embarcadero for efficient circulation POV entry separate from taxis, buses and provisioning. Provision space on northern end of the Pier 27 terminal, away from the Embarcadero. Primary provisioning circulation does not require use of Pier 27 apron unless for emergency or traffic congestion purposes as determined by terminal operator. St Lombard Em ba APRON rca de TERMINAL PEDESTRIAN AREA ro NORTH Battery St PROVISIONING AREA Disadvantages: Changes to the BCDC Special Area Plan’s configuration will require a confirmation process with BCDC. With two (possibly three) access points, there would be greater potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. This impact could be mitigated by the likely use of a traffic manager(s) during peak cruise times. Bus loading area is within a short distance to the exiting driveway and buses would back into the driveway. However, bus backup maneuvering may cause backup of all exiting vehicles. A wider or a two-lane driveway at this location should be considered. Provisions storage is separated from the other building functions in an adjacent building. OPTION 2 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM 0 100’ 200’ 400’ D nut St E St Sansome St Lombard Advantages: Open space/building configuration creates a stronger linkage between the Embarcadero and the Bay, provides a greater range of open space in the area, and promotes the greater sense of connection between the public and the cruise ship as an attraction. Provision storage spaces are significantly larger in this option. There are two ingress points for POVs, buses, taxis, and provisioning trucks, creating less potential for backups on the Embarcadero. POVs would enter near Pier 29 while buses, taxis and provisioning trucks would enter at a separate point. Provisioning trucks can enter and unload stores at a designated area. At that point, forklifts would be used to service the cruise vessels. There is additional flexibility to use the Pier 27 apron entry point if necessary. x PEDESTRIAN CROSSING VIEW CORRIDOR Battery St Em ba rca de ro NORTH 34 P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l 0 100’ 200’ 40 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPTION 2 | VEHICULAR FLOW POV FLOW DIAGRAM TAXI FLOW DIAGRAM Privately-owned vehicles (POV) have a separate entry from taxis and buses. Provisioning vehicles can either use the taxi/bus entrance or a third, separate entrance. OPTION 1 COMBINED TRAFFIC FLOW DIAGRAM D E D E NORTH NORTH BUS FLOW DIAGRAM PROVISIONS FLOW DIAGRAM D BUS QUEUE E D E D E h hestnut St NORTH NORTH 0 100’ 200’ 400’ ’ Conceptual Site Planning Study Battery St NORTH 35 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPTION 2 TERMINAL BUILDING FLOW DIAGRAMS POV loading, which delivers twice as many passengers as buses, would be at the front of terminal. Provision storage spaces are significantly larger in this option. TERMINAL PROGRAMS - AREA REQUIREMENTS FROM MEZZANINE LEVEL 1ST FLOOR FLOW PROGRAM DIAGRAM 2nd Level 0 0 17000 2000 3500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 1500 2500 TO 1ST FLOOR (ON DEBARK) QEUE (EB) CBP PRIMARY (DB) STORAGE (OB) SECURITY (OE) (OC) OFFICES CBP SECONDARY (DC) PROVISIONS STORAGE (OA) BAGGAGE LAY DOWN (DA) TO MEZZANINE LEVEL BUILDING SYSTEMS (BA) Total PAX 2400 2400 5000 0 4000 9900 4500 45000 1500 1500 1500 800 12000 28000 2500 3500 46800 59400 36300 1st Level Group Sum E-D Pre-Screen Lobby 2400 QEUE (EB) (OD) CREW SPACE M / W T. (BB) E-E Entry Screening 2400 WAITING / CHECK IN (EA) E-A Embark Waiting/Check-in 22000 E-C Embark/Debark Passage 2000 E-B Embark Qeue 7500 D-B CBP Primary 9900 (EE) (OF) PORT POLICE ENTRY PRE-SCREEN LOBBY (ED) SCREENING ENTRY D-C CBP Secondary 4500 *2-1 D-A Baggage lay-down 45000 EMBARK DEBARK OTHER BLDG O-C Cruise Line Offices 1500 O-E Security 1500 O-F Port Police 1500 O-D Crew Space 800 O-B Storage 13500 O-A Provisions 28000 B-B M/W T. 4000 MEZZANINE FLOW PROGRAM DIAGRAM FROM SHIP TO SHIP PASSAGE (EC) B-A Bldg Systems 6000 * 15000 139500 28000 0 15000 2-2 Retail 15000 FROM 1ST FLOOR (BA) M / W T. BUILDING SYSTEMS (BB) (OB) STORAGE WAITING / CHECK IN (EA) Sub Total 167500 * *2-2: This is a one-story space with high ceiling. *1-3: This is a one-story space with high ceiling. 2-1: Based on 10 sf per passenger EMBARK DEBARK OTHER BLDG 36 P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives PROGRAM AXONOMETRIC SITE PLAN FLOW DIAGRAM EC B EA / EB BB BA OA OB OB DC VIEW OD R BA EA / EB EE ED DA DB OC/OE/ OF BB EMBARKATION DEBARKATION ENTRY ED R 1st FLOOR OD BA TO MEZZANINE EB LEVEL EE BB OC/OE/ OF DB DC OB EA DA FROM MEZZANINE LEVEL OA BA FROM 1ST FLOOR BB OB EA / EB EC FROM SHIP TO SHIP NORTH 0 50’ 100’ 200’ MEZZANINE TO 1ST FLOOR LEVEL Conceptual Site Planning Study 37 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives CONCEPTUAL EMBACADERO TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS POTENTIAL TRAFFIC FLOW CHANGES - CONCEPT DIAGRAM pier 29 ou t rn maintain bike lane on the Embarcadero ht tu ri g ri g ht t ur n in add right turn queuing lane at the Embarcadero eliminate left turn from Embarcadero south bound extend median and add palms eliminate left turn from Lombard St eliminate left turn out from Pier 27 pier 27 extend median and add palms NORTH 38 P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPEN SPACE CHARACTER - GRADE CONCEPTS As a gateway into San Francisco, as well as the cruise ships, the open space and architectural character should be distinctly contextual. There is a rich existing character to San Francisco’s Embarcadero waterfront, that should serve as inspiration for the open space and building concepts. This is a working waterfront and the character should reflect that maritime quality. Similarly, the functionality of the terminal should be the primary driver of the space - character should be expressive of this dynamic, and contrast to the more open and flexible nature of the plaza. Grade and Edge Concepts The success of the site depends on maximizing the opportunities of the edges. The limitations of planting on structure mean that hardscape and structural elements will be the dominant devices for spatial definition. In the plaza, the four foot grade transition is an opportunity to use steps and ramps as placemaking, framing elements for gathering spaces, as well as active spaces in and of themselves. Restaurant and retail activity will also engage people, drawing them into the plazas from the street. The water’s edge is another natural attraction. Grade transition could be also utilized here to strengthen the sense of space. Conceptual Site Planning Study 39 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPEN SPACE CHARACTER - STRUCTURE CONCEPTS Since the use of trees and other space defining vegetation is limited on-structure, re-using elements of the existing buildings would be a useful alternative vertical element. This can help transition between interior and exterior, punctuate spaces, and potentially provide shade/rain cover. This type of adaptive re-use would also lend authentic historic character, as well as contribute to a sustainable approach. 40 P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l 3 | conceptual site plan alternatives OPEN SPACE CHARACTER - PROGRAM CONCEPTS While the site will offer its own innate draw with the proximity of the big ships, addition programming can build on this to create a vibrant, active gathering space. The plazas should be designed with enough flexibility to support multiple programs, as well as with activity generators such as food vendors. Programs include ship viewing, casual gathering, lunch seating, integrated and interactive art, and special events. Conceptual Site Planning Study 41 2 | site characteristics & constraints ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER CONCEPTS As a building type, the terminal must provide functionality for its users, but it also offers great opportunity for expression of form, contextual materials, precedence of history, aspects of light, color, volume and the potential to inform its site and environment. Transient buildings like this terminal provide their own precedents and cues, consistent with their contexts. These buildings can be useful example for this terminal and warrant study during the creation of the terminal architecture. 42 P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l 2 | site characteristics & constraints Conceptual Site Planning Study 43 44 P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l conclusions 4 | NEXT STEPS The goal of the Pier 27 cruise terminal planning process is to develop a project that meets maritime needs, while also being successfully entitled and funded. This site planning exercise has identified the challenges for a new, primary cruise terminal and has detailed the competing concerns. Clearly, not all of the issues have been resolved. As noted earlier, Port staff intends to solicit community and regulatory response to the cruise terminal site plans. Based on that input, Port staff will return to the Port Commission with either a preferred site plan or a more detailed set of development criteria. Port staff would then recommend initiating the next stage of the design process, developing more detailed plans at a larger scale. can be included to achieve a sustainable, green project; and, thirdly, how to create an open space area that gives it a “sense of place” yet supports the functional needs of a cruise terminal facility. In addition, the site planning process could be expanded to include the Pier 29 shed, and how it might eventually be integrated into the Pier 27 cruise terminal project. direction whether the cruise terminal project budget is limited to the amount of funds currently available or whether additional funds can be budgeted. Based on emerging development criteria, detailed plans will ultimately have to address: firstly, the appearance, optimal functionality and adaptability of Pier 27 to become the primary cruise terminal facility; secondly, which Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) recommendations Successful resolution of these design elements will be dependent on project funding. Currently, the Port has funding of approximately $19.3 million for this project. This amount includes funds from the Watermark deferred land sale proceeds, the Port’s share of profits from individual condominium sales, and accrued interest earnings. During the Cruise Terminal Advisory Panel process, Port staff prepared an extremely preliminary project cost estimate of approximately $60 million to develop this project. However, detailed design and engineering plans are needed to determine a more realistic project cost. The Port Commission will have to provide 45 Conceptual Site Planning Study Consultant Team: Bay Area Economics EDAW/AECOM DMJM Design Ports and Maritime Group CHS Consulting Group Robin Chiang & Company P i e r 2 7 C r u i s e Te r m i n a l 46