Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan

1. Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan

2. Background and Need

3. Background and Need

4. Marine Terminal Plan Three-Phase Approach Phase 1 – Completed October 3, 2005 Objective: Review cargo data and Port physical layout to determine the best use for Wharves 1 and 2 within the framework of the overall Port. Phase 2 – Completed November 16, 2005 Objective: Develop an efficient, cost effective and constructible Marine Terminal Plan that responds to the best current and projected use identified for Wharves 1 and 2. Phase 3 – Completed February 28, 2006 Objective: Further expand the Phase 2 conceptual plans and cost estimate and provide a plan for moving forward with the redevelopment project.

5. Marine Terminal Plan ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN Wharf Redevelopment Plan Demolition plan and recommendations Interim Conveyor Plan – relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berth Site Development Plan Raze Warehouse #1 and realign HS&G/CEMEX lease area to provide the Port with additional land for future development opportunities Environmental and Permitting Review Cost Estimates Project Schedules

6. Wharf Redevelopment Plan Concrete pile supported concrete platform, 60’ wide x 490’ long (nominal) 500psf design deck load Two approach trestles/ramps Walkways between existing monopile fender dolphins

7. Wharf Redevelopment Plan Combination barge/ship fenders spaced along length of proposed wharf Elevation to match existing timber wharf, slope access ramps to existing grade Storm water runoff contained on wharf and directed to land along access ramps Repair/replace landward seawall

8. Demolition Plan Recommend complete removal of existing timber wharf system Overall, long term cost savings for demolition Maintenance cost savings related to retaining deteriorating structures Existing wharf stability is suspect, safety issues Environmental benefit of removing old, creosote impregnated piles and deteriorating timber platform

9. Interim Conveyor Plan Relocate ship-unloading operations away from RMC/CEMEX Demolition of Warehouse #1 NOT required Realignment/modifications to HS&G/CEMEX yard NOT required Low cost solution to help (partially) mitigate berth conflict issues May initially utilize portable equipment on existing wharf, prior to reconstruction Viable alternative for permanent system if HS&G/CEMEX does not realign yard

10. Preferred Marine Terminal Plan

11. Environmental & Permitting Review Bay Fill Mitigation Strategy (Demolition & Construction) BCDC will require mitigation to offset any new construction Removal off all existing structures are proposed to mitigate proposed construction; remainder will establish a mitigation bank Can not lock in ratio of mitigation credit to new/proposed fill elsewhere in the Port NEPA/CEQA Process One joint NEPA/CEQA document will be prepared NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act NEPA/CEQA review will require studies of impacts including: Cultural resources, Air Quality, Biological resources, Traffic Warehouse #1 may be eligible to be listed as a historic resource under CEQA Demolition of Warehouse #1 could potentially effect the level of environmental documentation Potential Project Construction Permits identified and listed in Report Potential Terminal Operating Permits identified and listed in Report

12. Cost Estimates Environmental Document Preparation: Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1: $10,000 to $12,000 EA/ND: $85,000 EIS/EIR: $190,000 Wharf Redevelopment Plan: Wharf with complete demolition: $15,329,000 Wharf with partial demolition: $12,782,000 Costs shown include: Demolition and removal of existing timber structures Pile supported concrete platform with two approach trestles Fender elements, bollards and other hardware Line handler walkways between existing breasting dolphins Electrical power distribution system upgrades Contractor mob/demob, project administration, overhead & profit Expenses for bonds, engineering, testing, inspection, construction management 15% allowance for contingency

13. Cost Estimates Site Redevelopment Plan: Landside infrastructure improvements: $996,000 Cost includes: Demolition and removal Warehouse #1 and foundations Removal of existing rail adjacent to Wharves 1 and 2 Improved access road adjacent to waterfront Rail crossing and intersection improvements at Hinman Road Longshoremen/Stevedore’s building with paved parking area Service improvements including electrical, communications, potable water, sewer and drainage Contractor overhead & profit Expenses for bonds, engineering, testing, inspection, construction management 15% allowance for contingency Cost excludes: Purchase and installation of new hopper and conveyor system Realignment of HS&G/CEMEX storage yard; relocation of existing equipment Soil improvements, if required to accommodate new stockpile location

14. Project Schedule DESIGN-BID-BUILD vs. DESIGN-BUILD: The Port may opt to follow either contracting method Design-Bid-Build: Port advertises for and selects an A/E Firm to design the project Second advertisement and selection for a contractor to build the project using A/E Firm’s plans and specifications Traditional contracting method A/E Firm works for Port and Port has more input into details of design Design-Build: Port advertises for and selects an A/E-Contractor team to design and construct the project Generally results in an overall reduction in project cost and shorter schedule to delivery Disputes between A/E Firm and Contractor eliminated Has recently become the contracting method of choice for many owners RECOMMENDATION: Overall cost difference between contracting methods not substantial If project timeline is critical factor, recommend Design-Build contract

15. Project Schedule OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE: Time-line from the start of Environmental Documents to completion: Design-Bid-Build contract: 30 to 33 months (EA/ND or EIS/EIR) Design-Build contract: 24 to 27 months ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS and PERMITTING: Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1: 2 months Following Historic Evaluation, level of Environmental Documentation determined EA/ND: 6 months EIS/EIR: 9 months Permitting follows Environmental Document: 5.5 months

16. Project Schedule

17. Project Execution Plan WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Work with HS&G/CEMEX to install temporary system to relocate ship unloading operations closer to Wharf 2 and away from RMC/CEMEX cement wharf. Perform Economic Evaluation/Impact Analysis of wharf replacement Phased construction planning is possible Initiate Warehouse #1 Historic Review Results of assessment will determine the level of NEPA/CEQA review Prepare Environmental Document(s) Prepare RFP documents to advertise and select a Design/Design-Build Contractor to initiate project design and construction

19. Phase 1 ACTIVITIES: Reviewed and evaluated cargo data provided by the Port Provided cargo projections based on data Completed a ‘Mini-Master Plan’ of the complete Port facility with primary focus on the best use for the redevelopment of Wharves 1 and 2 CONCLUSIONS: Fundamental need for improving Wharves stems from poor current physical condition Wharves 1 and 2 are critical to the Port revenue stream and must be maintained BCDC lists Redwood City as a critical element in the BCDC Plan for bulk cargoes Primary cargoes at Wharves 1 and 2 is now and is forecasted to be dry bulk Cargo handling flexibility is a key consideration, but must be able to efficiently handle dry bulk cargoes

20. Phase 2 ACTIVITIES: Assessed terminal requirements Developed various wharf and site redevelopment plans Completed Structural and Geotechnical review of design options Developed conceptual-level cost estimates for design alternatives Completed an Environmental and Permitting review of design options Recommended a final Marine Terminal Plan CONCLUSIONS: Construct a nominally 60’ wide by 490’ long platform with two approach trestles in the location of Wharf 2 and the southwest end of Wharf 1. Concrete pile supported concrete platform, 500psf design deck load Relocate the ship unloading hopper to enable the ship unloading operation to move closer to Wharf 2 and away from the CEMEX cement vessels Raze Warehouse #1 and realign HS&G/CEMEX lease area to provide the Port with additional land for future development opportunities

21. Phase 3 ACTIVITIES: Further developed plans and cost estimates for Preferred Marine Terminal Plan Completed Environmental and Permitting review and assessment Developed Project Execution Plan and Schedules CONCLUSIONS: Demolition plan and recommendations Environmental and Permitting assessment Wharf design concepts finalized Interim Conveyor Plan – relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berth Cost Estimates: Environmental Document preparation Wharf construction with partial or complete demolition of existing wharf Landside infrastructure construction Project Schedules NEXT STEPS: “Where do we go from here?”