Port of Redwood City, CAMarine Terminal Plan

Background and NeedBACKGROUNDThe Port of Redwood City plays a key role in Bay area Port infrastructure systemExperiencing steady cargo growth, specifically related to dry bulk cargoesNearly 2.0 Million tons per year handled in FY2005It is anticipated growth and demand will continue into the futureReliability and stability of Port facilities critical to sustaining operations and attracting new tenants that will foster continued growth

Wharves 1 and 2HS&G/CEMEX YardSIMS MetalWharves 3 and 4

Background and NeedNEED for MARINE TERMINAL PLANFocus for Marine Terminal Plan is the redevelopment of Wharves 1 and 2Wharves 1 and 2 are critical to present and future cargo activity at the PortBerth conflicts between Wharves 1 and 2 and the cement berth demand attention. Need to partially accommodate two ships simultaneously to increase efficiency and berth capacity.Wharves 1 and 2 present condition:Timber construction, original wharf constructed in 1937Several Wharf and Transit Shed expansion projects since inceptionExtensive repairs, upgrades and replacements to pile system completed in 1979Wharf system now significantly deteriorated; in need of replacementPiles support system suspect no known inspections or upgrades since 1979 project,Timber deck worn and considered unsafe for vehicle traffic in many areas,Timber vehicle approach ramp and access walkway are deteriorated and not functional,Timber fender system collapsing and inadequate for vessel berthing, andFlooding under landward seawall prevalent at high tides.

Marine Terminal PlanThree-Phase Approach

Phase 1 Completed October 3, 2005Objective: 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, 2005Objective: 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, 2006Objective: Further expand the Phase 2 conceptual plans and cost estimate and provide a plan for moving forward with the redevelopment project.

Marine Terminal PlanELEMENTS OF THE PLAN

Wharf Redevelopment PlanDemolition plan and recommendationsInterim Conveyor Plan relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berthSite Development PlanRaze Warehouse #1 and realign HS&G/CEMEX lease area to provide the Port with additional land for future development opportunitiesEnvironmental and Permitting ReviewCost EstimatesProject Schedules

Wharf Redevelopment PlanConcrete pile supported concrete platform, 60 wide x 490 long (nominal)500psf design deck loadTwo approach trestles/rampsWalkways between existing monopile fender dolphins

Wharf Redevelopment PlanCombination barge/ship fenders spaced along length of proposed wharfElevation to match existing timber wharf, slope access ramps to existing gradeStorm water runoff contained on wharf and directed to land along access rampsRepair/replace landward seawall

Demolition PlanRecommend complete removal of existing timber wharf systemOverall, long term cost savings for demolitionMaintenance cost savings related to retaining deteriorating structuresExisting wharf stability is suspect, safety issuesEnvironmental benefit of removing old, creosote impregnated piles and deteriorating timber platform

Interim Conveyor PlanRelocate ship-unloading operations away from RMC/CEMEXDemolition of Warehouse #1 NOT requiredRealignment/modifications to HS&G/CEMEX yard NOT requiredLow cost solution to help (partially) mitigate berth conflict issuesMay initially utilize portable equipment on existing wharf, prior to reconstructionViable alternative for permanent system if HS&G/CEMEX does not realign yard

Preferred Marine Terminal Plan

Environmental & Permitting ReviewBay Fill Mitigation Strategy (Demolition & Construction)

BCDC will require mitigation to offset any new constructionRemoval off all existing structures are proposed to mitigate proposed construction; remainder will establish a mitigation bankCan 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 preparedNEPA: National Environmental Policy ActCEQA: California Environmental Quality ActNEPA/CEQA review will require studies of impacts including:Cultural resources, Air Quality, Biological resources, TrafficWarehouse #1 may be eligible to be listed as a historic resource under CEQADemolition of Warehouse #1 could potentially effect the level of environmental documentationPotential Project Construction Permits identified and listed in ReportPotential Terminal Operating Permits identified and listed in Report

Cost EstimatesEnvironmental Document Preparation:Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1:$10,000 to $12,000EA/ND:$85,000EIS/EIR:$190,000

Wharf Redevelopment Plan:Wharf with complete demolition:$15,329,000Wharf with partial demolition:$12,782,000Costs shown include:Demolition and removal of existing timber structuresPile supported concrete platform with two approach trestlesFender elements, bollards and other hardwareLine handler walkways between existing breasting dolphinsElectrical power distribution system upgradesContractor mob/demob, project administration, overhead & profitExpenses for bonds, engineering, testing, inspection, construction management15% allowance for contingency

Cost EstimatesSite Redevelopment Plan:Landside infrastructure improvements:$996,000Cost includes:Demolition and removal Warehouse #1 and foundationsRemoval of existing rail adjacent to Wharves 1 and 2Improved access road adjacent to waterfrontRail crossing and intersection improvements at Hinman RoadLongshoremen/Stevedores building with paved parking areaService improvements including electrical, communications, potable water, sewer and drainage Contractor overhead & profitExpenses for bonds, engineering, testing, inspection, construction management15% allowance for contingencyCost excludes:Purchase and installation of new hopper and conveyor systemRealignment of HS&G/CEMEX storage yard; relocation of existing equipmentSoil improvements, if required to accommodate new stockpile location

Project ScheduleDESIGN-BID-BUILD vs. DESIGN-BUILD:

The Port may opt to follow either contracting methodDesign-Bid-Build:Port advertises for and selects an A/E Firm to design the projectSecond advertisement and selection for a contractor to build the project using A/E Firms plans and specificationsTraditional contracting methodA/E Firm works for Port and Port has more input into details of designDesign-Build:Port advertises for and selects an A/E-Contractor team to design and construct the projectGenerally results in an overall reduction in project cost and shorter schedule to deliveryDisputes between A/E Firm and Contractor eliminatedHas recently become the contracting method of choice for many owners

RECOMMENDATION:

Overall cost difference between contracting methods not substantialIf project timeline is critical factor, recommend Design-Build contract

Project ScheduleOVERALL 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 monthsFollowing Historic Evaluation, level of Environmental Documentation determinedEA/ND: 6 monthsEIS/EIR: 9 monthsPermitting follows Environmental Document: 5.5 months

Project Schedule

Project Execution PlanWHERE 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 replacementPhased construction planning is possibleInitiate Warehouse #1 Historic ReviewResults of assessment will determine the level of NEPA/CEQA reviewPrepare Environmental Document(s)Prepare RFP documents to advertise and select a Design/Design-Build Contractor to initiate project design and construction

Port of Redwood City, CAMarine Terminal Plan

Phase 1ACTIVITIES:

Reviewed and evaluated cargo data provided by the PortProvided cargo projections based on dataCompleted 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 conditionWharves 1 and 2 are critical to the Port revenue stream and must be maintainedBCDC 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 bulkCargo handling flexibility is a key consideration, but must be able to efficiently handle dry bulk cargoes

Phase 2ACTIVITIES:

Assessed terminal requirementsDeveloped various wharf and site redevelopment plans Completed Structural and Geotechnical review of design optionsDeveloped conceptual-level cost estimates for design alternativesCompleted an Environmental and Permitting review of design optionsRecommended 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 loadRelocate the ship unloading hopper to enable the ship unloading operation to move closer to Wharf 2 and away from the CEMEX cement vesselsRaze Warehouse #1 and realign HS&G/CEMEX lease area to provide the Port with additional land for future development opportunities

Phase 3ACTIVITIES:

Further developed plans and cost estimates for Preferred Marine Terminal PlanCompleted Environmental and Permitting review and assessmentDeveloped Project Execution Plan and Schedules

CONCLUSIONS:

Demolition plan and recommendationsEnvironmental and Permitting assessmentWharf design concepts finalizedInterim Conveyor Plan relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berthCost Estimates:Environmental Document preparation Wharf construction with partial or complete demolition of existing wharfLandside infrastructure constructionProject Schedules

NEXT STEPS:

Where do we go from here?