MEMORANDUM

May 24, 2012

TO: MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION Hon. Doreen Woo Ho, President Hon. Kimberly Brandon, Vice President

Hon. Francis X. Crowley Hon. Leslie Katz Hon. Ann Lazarus

FROM: Monique Moyer Executive Director SUBJECT: Informational presentation on the Pier 70 – Crane Cove Park Planning and

Design DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Informational Only - No Action Required OVERVIEW The proposed Pier 70 Crane Cove Park Project (the "Project") is located on an approximately seven acre site generally east of Illinois Street between Mariposa and 19th Streets along the Bay shoreline (see Attachment A, Project Location and Setting). The concept of creating a Crane Cove Park is a public open space objective that is cited in the Pier 70 Preferred Master Plan, the Blue Greenway Planning and Design Guidelines, and the City’s Eastern Neighborhoods and Central Waterfront Plans. On June 14, 2011, the Port Commission approved the authorization (Resolution No. 11-44) to award Planning and Design Services for the Project to a consultant team lead by AECOM with sub consultants including: Architectural Resource Group, AGS Engineers, Ajmani & Pamidi Engineers and Martin Lee Corporation Cost Estimators. The funding for the Planning and Design of the park improvements is from proceeds of the 2008 Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks General Obligation Bond Measure. SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE The AECOM team scope of services for the Project picks up from the direction provided by the Port and City plans for Pier 70, Central Waterfront, and Blue Greenway and includes two phases of work:

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 9C

-2-

• Phase I - To prepare a Crane Cove Park Master Plan, including cost estimates and a phasing plan for improvements, scheduled for completion in Fall 2012.

• Phase II - To develop schematic plans for the initial phase of construction

improvements, paid by funding from the 2008 Proposition A Clean and Safe Parks General Obligation Bond. Phase II is targeted for completion in Summer 2013.

This report to the Port Commission is the first in a series of reports scheduled throughout the planning and design process. The project phases and schedule are illustrated in Attachment B, Planning and Design Schedule. The phasing plan is an important component because the current available funding is insufficient to improve the entire park site at one time. Phase 1 tasks include: a) analyzing existing conditions and identifying opportunities and constraints; b) developing preliminary concept plans and cost estimates; c) finalizing a park master plan and refining the cost estimates; and e) developing a phasing plan. This staff report summarizes Phase I, tasks a and b. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The physical setting and locational relationships of Crane Cove Park with Pier 70 and the surrounding neighborhoods are complex. The task of producing the Crane Cove Park Existing Conditions and Opportunities and Constraints analysis includes understanding: the neighborhood, City and regional context; natural and cultural resources; geologic and structural conditions; subsurface contamination and shoreline edges; and previous planning work conducted. The report provides key guidance for park planning design concepts. The AECOM team developed and presented their site analysis work to Port staff and at the Central Waterfront Advisory Group meeting on March 21, 2012. The presentation is posted on the Port’s Crane Cove Park web site at www.sfport.com/cranecovepark. The analysis was thorough and the response to the analysis presented was positive. The analysis included in depth research on each of the categories listed above. The most significant issues driving the development of the concepts include: 1) the historic resources, their interpretation and structural conditions; 2) site access and views from land and water to and thru the site; 3) site contamination and geologic conditions; 4) the shoreline edge and site adaptability to sea level rise; 5) the programming of the park uses; 6) the compatibility of the park use to the ship repair operations and the future adjacent development parcels; and 7) the site boundary and planning area boundary. This analysis is summarized in Attachment C, Opportunities and Constraints. In developing the Existing Conditions and Opportunities and Constrains analysis in the context of the larger Pier 70 area and adjacent areas including the Mission Bay project and Blue Greenway, an opportunity identified to consider for analysis is the potential to move the boat repair operations currently operated by SF Boat Works, located on Terry Francois Boulevard just north of Mariposa Street to an area within Crane Cove Park adjacent to the Pier 70 ship repair facility in former Slipways 1 and 2. This concept is illustrated in Attachment D, Site Boundary Study: Alternative 2. Port staff reviewed this concept with the current tenant and operators of the boat repair yard, SF Boat Works

-3-

and BAE Systems, the Port’s ship repair operator, and each supported investigating the opportunity. The benefits to this concept include: a) providing a buffer use between the park and the heavy industrial operations of the ship repair yard, a water-dependent maritime use with one that is more compatible with public recreational activities; b) the ability to relocate a development parcel that exists south of 18th street on Illinois Street to an area just north of the Knease Boat building, which would improve access and visibility to the park from Illinois Street; c) improving safety and access to the Ramp Restaurant; d) improving the pedestrian connection from Crane Cove Park to the Mission Bay, Bayfront Parks; and e) eliminating a barrier and opening up more public access to the Bay’s edge. As a component of the Opportunities and Constraints report, AECOM developed “Project Aspirations” (see Attachment E, Project Aspirations). The Project Aspirations are a tool that allow designers and stakeholders to begin to define project goals, by expressing desirable outcomes or qualities sought in the creation of Crane Cove Park. While individual aspiration statements may compete or conflict with others, they give direction on how to approach development of park design concepts. Eventually the Project Aspirations are refined into formal project goals and criteria, which are refined to further define locations and priorities for park features and activities. ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT PLANS Based upon the Existing Conditions and Opportunities and Constraints analysis, the AECOM team working with Port staff developed two Alternative Concept plans which will undergo public review and comment. They describe two distinct design approaches, that each seek to respond to the Project Aspirations. The two Alternative Concepts will allow stakeholders to “pick and choose” specific approaches, design features or ideas to incorporate into the Crane Cove Park Master Plan. Thus, the design process allows for a “hybrid” mix of elements that combine the best aspects of each Alternative Concept into the Master Plan. One of the significant challenges of the site is to transform an area that was created for a single purpose industrial use (ship building) with restricted access and develop a plan for a public park that is anticipated to support many different recreational needs, and environmental improvements. With this in mind, the AECOM team has developed two Alternative Concepts that would transform the site for its new purpose, while respecting and interpreting the natural and cultural history and responding to the site setting. Ultimately the design of Crane Cove Park should be able to accommodate and celebrate the multiple site characteristics and layers of history that define this unique place within the Pier 70 district. Each Concept Alternative has several elements in common including: a) retention and adaptive reuse of the contributing resources consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards (Secretary Standards), as identified in the Pier 70 Preferred Master Plan; b) interpretation of the site’s history; c) shoreline clean up and protection; d) facilities to support human powered boat access; e) an extension of 19th Street; f) a circulation system consistent with the Blue Greenway, including bicycle access and connections to other Pier 70 areas; f) vehicle parking; g) appropriate approaches to handle subsurface

-4-

contamination consistent with the draft Pier 70 environmental Feasibility Study and Remedial Action Plan (FSRAP); h) a variety of program uses; and i) recognition of new development sites directly adjacent to the park within the Pier 70 area. Alternative 1, “Lines and Traces” (see: Attachment F), takes an approach to keep the historic resources that remain (which are primarily from the World War II era) intact and use them as a framework for programming and interpretation of the site. This Alternative centers on matching the proposed open space program with the preservation of the existing historic resources, including the main contributing elements as well as the “traces” of all other artifacts and remnant objects. Additionally, historic maps representing all the different historic eras were overlaid and its historic “lines” were mapped. The proposed plan is thus a result of this composite of historic lines and existing traces. The park boundary remains the same as identified in the Pier 70 Preferred Master Plan. Access from the land would be from Illinois Street at Mariposa Street and a new 19th Street, from the waterside it would be through a water landing created within slipway #4. The new 19th street would be an elevated structure emphasizing views and lines of slipway #4 and improving expanded connectivity from the future development parcels to the south. Sea level rise is addressed by maintaining the existing site elevation that would allow portions of the site to be inundated during peak storm events. Alternative 2, “Patches and Uses” (see: Attachment G), has many similarities to Alternative1, but alters some of the historic resources and allows interpretation of the evolution of the site and its many eras, as opposed to primarily the last period of its active use (World War II) as illustrated in Alternative 1. The methodology utilized to create a design framework consisted of mapping all the spaces and corresponding uses/activities that overtime existed on the site. The emphasis in this option is not on mapping the historic artifacts, but instead the historic uses that took place in the spaces “in between”. The framework calls those spaces “patches”. The purpose of mapping these historic “patches” is to provide opportunities to “re-trace” the history of the site’s usage, and to translate them into new park uses and programs, hence connecting the history of the site with its new incarnation as a park. Alterations to the historic resources would meet Secretary Standards. Alternative 2 includes moving of the boat repair operations operated by SF Boat Works to former Slipways 1 & 2, adjacent to the Pier 70 ship repair facility. Access to the site would be accommodated at an expanded entrance on Terry Francois Boulevard at Mariposa Street and along Illinois Street between 18th and 19th Streets. 19th street would be created by filling the site around the street alignment rather than through a pile supported structure. Water access would be accommodated through a soft shoreline edge able to accommodate human powered boats. Sea level rise would be addressed by raising portions of the site with new fill. Moving the boat repair yard would require improvements, including new docks, lifts, site paving and utilities and other required ancillary facilities. Access would be from a new

-5-

19th Street and the eastern portion of building 109 may be used to support its new operations. Cost estimates for each of these Alternative Concepts, including the moving of the boat repair yard as depicted in Alternative Concept 2 is currently underway. This will provide additional information for the Port Commission and stakeholders to consider in their evaluation of the Alternative Concepts. These cost estimates will be presented in the community workshop and at a future Port Commission meeting. NEXT STEPS The Alternative Concepts will be presented for community review at a Crane Cove Park workshop scheduled for June 20, 2012 at the Port’s offices at Pier 1 at 5:30 p.m. Additional outreach will occur through coordination with the Central Waterfront Advisory Group, the San Francisco Parks Alliance and other neighborhood and stakeholder groups including the Port’s Pier 70 development partners and adjacent tenants. Staff will return to the Port Commission to report on the comments received through the public review process. The Alternative Concepts will then be refined into a draft Park Master Plan with a revised cost estimate, and will then be reviewed by the Port Commission, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the public and stakeholders. The current schedule anticipates Phase I of the planning and design process being completed in the fall and completion of Phase II in the summer of 2013.

Prepared by: David Beaupre, Project Planning Manager

Steven Reel, Project Engineer/Manager

Prepared for: Byron Rhett, Deputy Director Planning and Development

-6-

Attachment A, Crane Cove Park Site Setting

-7-

ATTACHMENT B: Planning and Design Schedule

-8-

ATTACHMENT C: Opportunities and Constraints

-9-

ATTACHMENT D: Site Boundary Study

-10-

ATTACHMENT E: Crane Cove Park Project Aspirations The aspirations below are mainly based on the summary of relevant vision statements and guidelines of previous planning efforts. The aspirations provide an initial foundation to frame site analysis and to highlight the project’s design potential. As the project develops and design ideas are tested and evaluated, it is anticipated that the aspirations will also evolve and ultimately become a project goals and a series of specific design objectives. The Project Aspirations are categorized into 8 categories and are: 1. Historic Preservation

A. Design a park that integrates with the historic elements of the site B. Celebrate the site’s heritage by incorporating its multiple histories into the park

elements and current activities C. Prepare a strong interpretive program

2. Program + Activities

A. Provide a diversity of activities on land and in water to attract local and regional visitors

B. Prepare a robust educational, cultural and recreational program of events that focuses on the site’s heritage and unique character

3. Access

A. Prioritize full pedestrian and bike access B. Provide best water access for human-powered crafts C. Provide managed access for vehicles, including emergency, surveillance, and

maintenance vehicles within park 4. Views

A. Maintain/enhance views towards the bay, both at the park level and from the adjacent communities

B. Capitalize on the crane’s potential to function as visual icons both from land and water

C. Integrate the “theatre” of shipyard operations into the visual amenities of the park

5. Integration with New Development

A. Design park to allow for the development potential of adjacent parcels with the objective of capitalizing on revenue generators that can help offset the park’s cost and long-term maintenance

-11-

B. Identify the most compatible adjacent land uses from the point of view of the anticipated park usage and programs

C. Suggest the best configurations of adjacent development parcels to allow for best views to and from the park

6. Safety + Security

A. Minimize contact with hazardous materials (contaminated soils, contaminated sediments, building materials)

B. Minimize dangerous conditions (fall, trip hazards, rusted elements, cranes) C. Anticipate and be prepared for sea level rise impacts (flooding, surges) D. Prevent conflicts with shipyard truck/service access, security and vessel

services/movements to allow safe park and water usage 7. Economic Sustainability

A. Aim to develop park programs that can be self-sustained B. Coordinate park design with the larger Pier 70 strategies to facilitate synergies

and minimize long-term maintenance cost 8. Environmental Sustainability

A. Integrate park design with anticipated sea level rise to maximize park usage B. Coordinate park design with anticipated sea level rise strategies to be

implemented bay-wide C. Establish conditions that support thriving biological communities (if/as

applicable)

-12-

ATTACHMENT F: Alternative 1 - Lines and Traces

-13-

ATTACHMENT G: Alternative 2 – Patches and Uses