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
•
Flooding under landward seawall prevalent at high tides.
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
–
Demolition of Warehouse #1 could potentially effect the level of environmental
documentation
• NEPA/CEQA review will require studies of impacts including:
• Warehouse #1 may be eligible to be listed as a historic resource under CEQA
• 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:
• EA/ND:
• EIS/EIR:
Wharf Redevelopment Plan:
• Wharf with complete demolition:
• Wharf with partial demolition:
• Costs shown include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
$10,000 to $12,000
$85,000
$190,000
$15,329,000
$12,782,000
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:
• Cost includes:
$996,000
–
–
–
–
–
–
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
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
–
–
–
–
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
• Design-Build:
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