1. Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan

2. 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 1 and 2 HS&G/CEMEX Yard SIMS Metal Wharves 3 and 4

3. 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 Flooding under landward seawall prevalent at high tides.

4. Marine Terminal Plan Three-Phase Approach Phase 1 – Completed October 3, 2005 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 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 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 Wharf Redevelopment Plan Demolition plan and recommendations Demolition plan and recommendations Interim Conveyor Plan – relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berth Interim Conveyor Plan – relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berth Site Development Plan 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 Environmental and Permitting Review Cost Estimates Cost Estimates Project Schedules Project Schedules

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

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

8. Demolition Plan Recommend complete removal of existing timber wharf system 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 Relocate ship-unloading operations away from RMC/CEMEX Demolition of Warehouse #1 NOT required Demolition of Warehouse #1 NOT required Realignment/modifications to HS&G/CEMEX yard NOT required Realignment/modifications to HS&G/CEMEX yard NOT required Low cost solution to help (partially) mitigate berth conflict issues 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 Project Construction Permits identified and listed in Report Potential Terminal Operating 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 Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1:$10,000 to $12,000 EA/ND:$85,000 EA/ND:$85,000 EIS/EIR:$190,000 EIS/EIR:$190,000 Wharf Redevelopment Plan: Wharf with complete demolition:$15,329,000 Wharf with complete demolition:$15,329,000 Wharf with partial demolition:$12,782,000 Wharf with partial demolition:$12,782,000 Costs shown include: 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 Landside infrastructure improvements:$996,000 Cost includes: 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: 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 The Port may opt to follow either contracting method Design-Bid-Build: 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: 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 Overall cost difference between contracting methods not substantial If project timeline is critical factor, recommend Design-Build contract 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-Bid-Build contract: 30 to 33 months (EA/ND or EIS/EIR) Design-Build contract: 24 to 27 months Design-Build contract: 24 to 27 months ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS and PERMITTING: Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1: 2 months Historic Evaluation of Warehouse #1: 2 months Following Historic Evaluation, level of Environmental Documentation determined Following Historic Evaluation, level of Environmental Documentation determined –EA/ND: 6 months –EIS/EIR: 9 months Permitting follows Environmental Document: 5.5 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. 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 Perform Economic Evaluation/Impact Analysis of wharf replacement –Phased construction planning is possible Initiate Warehouse #1 Historic Review Initiate Warehouse #1 Historic Review –Results of assessment will determine the level of NEPA/CEQA review Prepare Environmental Document(s) Prepare Environmental Document(s) Prepare RFP documents to advertise and select a Design/Design-Build Contractor to initiate project design and construction Prepare RFP documents to advertise and select a Design/Design-Build Contractor to initiate project design and construction

18. Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan

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

20. Phase 2 ACTIVITIES: Assessed terminal requirements Assessed terminal requirements Developed various wharf and site redevelopment plans Developed various wharf and site redevelopment plans Completed Structural and Geotechnical review of design options Completed Structural and Geotechnical review of design options Developed conceptual-level cost estimates for design alternatives Developed conceptual-level cost estimates for design alternatives Completed an Environmental and Permitting review of design options Completed an Environmental and Permitting review of design options Recommended a final Marine Terminal Plan Recommended a final Marine Terminal PlanCONCLUSIONS: 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. 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 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 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 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 Further developed plans and cost estimates for Preferred Marine Terminal Plan Completed Environmental and Permitting review and assessment Completed Environmental and Permitting review and assessment Developed Project Execution Plan and Schedules Developed Project Execution Plan and SchedulesCONCLUSIONS: Demolition plan and recommendations Demolition plan and recommendations Environmental and Permitting assessment Environmental and Permitting assessment Wharf design concepts finalized Wharf design concepts finalized Interim Conveyor Plan – relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berth Interim Conveyor Plan – relocate ship receiving hopper away from cement berth Cost Estimates: Cost Estimates: –Environmental Document preparation –Wharf construction with partial or complete demolition of existing wharf –Landside infrastructure construction Project Schedules Project Schedules NEXT STEPS: “Where do we go from here?” “Where do we go from here?”