Port of Redwood City, CA

Marine Terminal Plan

Background and Need

BACKGROUND

The Port of Redwood City plays a key role in Bay area Port infrastructure
system

Experiencing steady cargo growth, specifically related to dry bulk cargoes

Nearly 2.0 Million tons per year handled in FY2005

It is anticipated growth and demand will continue into the future

Reliability and stability of Port facilities critical to sustaining operations and

attracting new tenants that will foster continued growth

Wharves 3 and 4
SIMS Metal

HS&G/CEMEX Yard

Wharves 1 and 2

Background and Need

NEED for MARINE TERMINAL PLAN

Focus for Marine Terminal Plan is the redevelopment of Wharves 1 and 2

Wharves 1 and 2 are critical to present and future cargo activity at the Port

Berth 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 1937
Several Wharf and Transit Shed expansion projects since inception
Extensive repairs, upgrades and replacements to pile system
completed in 1979
Wharf system now significantly deteriorated; in need of replacement

Piles 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, and

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Preferred Marine Terminal Plan

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

Cultural resources, Air Quality, Biological resources, Traffic

NEPA/CEQA review will require studies of impacts including:

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

Cost Estimates
Environmental Document Preparation:
Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1:
$85,000
EA/ND:
$190,000
EIS/EIR:

$10,000 to $12,000

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

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/Stevedores 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

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 Firms 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

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

Project Schedule

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

Port of Redwood City, CA

Marine Terminal Plan