Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan

1. TEC, INC • Project Management • Cargo Review & Port Overview (Ph. 1) • Port/Terminal Operations, Requirements Analysis, Planning • Alternatives Layouts, Evaluation and Selection • CASH & ASSOCIATES • Wharf Design, Construction and Structural Issues • Cost Analysis • TREADWELL & ROLLO • Geotechnical Design & Construction Issues • MARSTEL DAY • Environmental and Permitting Review Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan

2. Phase 1 Summary • 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 • Wharves 1 and 2 should be developed as a dry bulk materials handling berth

3. Terminal Requirements • Operational flexibility • Marine Requirements • Reduce berth conflicts; shift operations away from cement berth • Now: Offload Belted, self-discharging vessels • Future: Offload Geared and/or Gearless bulk vessels • Port’s deeper draft plans critical to increased throughput • Uplands Requirements • Provide Adequate storage for current and projected dry bulk cargoes • Optimize HS&G/CEMEX storage yard

4. Wharf Redevelopment Plans • Relocate belted vessel receiving hopper further from cement berth • Four wharf layout alternatives • Two structural design alternatives • Existing timber structures removed only where necessary. Remaining structures removed later as Bay fill mitigation credit.

5. Wharf Alternative 1 • Operational needs satisfied with Alternative 1 • Unload belted vessels to receiving hopper (shown) • Place portable equipment (swing crane, hoppers & conveyors) on the platform and unload open hopper barges and gearless ocean barges • Use portable equipment connected to the receiving hopper to unload geared vessels (barge or ship) • Optional platform at north end of Wharf 1 for servicing cement vessels

6. Wharf Alternative 2 • Operational needs satisfied with Alternative 2 • All operations capable with Alt. 1 are possible with Alt. 2 • Added capabilities include: • Increased cargo handling flexibility • Unload geared vessels using ships’ gear to hoppers and trucks (shown) • May install a crane in the future to unload gearless bulk carriers • May install a conveyor on the landward side of the wharf and unload vessels to conveyors (reduced operating cost when compared to trucks) • Optional / Future Platform at Wharf 2 adds flexibility

7. Wharf Alternative 3 • Operational needs satisfied with Alternative 3 • All operations capable with Alts. 1 & 2 are possible with Alt. 3 • No appreciable added capabilities considering current and forecasted operations • Longer wharf may prove beneficial and allow simultaneous (un)loading of two small vessels

8. Wharf Alternatives 4 • Operational needs satisfied with Alternative 4 • Similar to Alternative 3 • No appreciable added capabilities considering current and forecasted operations • Additional platform behind Wharf 2 beneficial, but Alternative 2 with the platform is preferred

9. Wharf Alternative 5

10. Site Development Plans • Relocate tenants, raze Warehouse #1 and move HS&G/CEMEX closer to waterfront • Relocate tenants, move HS&G office and shop to Warehouse #2 • Provide the Port with a new 1.1 Acre parcel next to Seaport Blvd • Optimize HS&G/CEMEX storage yard • Three equipment/yard layout alternatives • Hanson Silos to remain

11. Site Development Plan - Layout 1

12. Site Development Plan - Layout 2

13. Site Development Plan - Layout 3

14. Structural and Geotechnical Review • Design Options: • Pile supported concrete vs. sheet pile bulkhead wall with solid fill • 500 psf vs. 1000 psf deck load • Key Technical Issues: • Subsurface conditions – Bay Mud • Slope Stability • Settlement and rate of consolidation • Wharf design and stockpile areas concern • Seismic Hazards

15. Structural and Geotechnical Review Pile-Supported Wharf Bulkhead Wall with Fill Combination: Pile-Supported Wharf and Bulkhead Wall

16. Structural and Geotechnical Review • Conclusions: • Sheet pile bulkhead wall with solid fill not practical for this location • Excessive total and differential settlement primary issue • Settlement mitigation techniques not feasible or practical • Pile Supported Concrete Wharf, 500 psf design live deck load recommended • Stockpile loading in areas not pre-consolidated are susceptible to mud waves and possible slope failure at waterfront • Detailed Geotechnical investigation recommended for stockpile areas and waterfront.

17. Cost Estimates CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST ESTIMATES (20% contingency) • Wharf Alternative 1 (recommended) is: $8,252,000 (+/-) • Landside infrastructure improvements are: $700,000 (+/-)

18. Environmental & Permitting Review • Many potential issues are similar or identical for the various alternatives • Key discriminating feature is amount of Bay fill • Selected wharf alternative represents lower level of potential environmental impacts • The Port should expect a more streamlined environmental review and permitting process • Bulkhead wall with solid fill likely not considered the least environmentally damaging alternative

19. Conclusion: Recommended Marine Terminal Plan • Recommended wharf layout alternative: • Alternative 1: 60’ wide x 300’ pile supported wharf with one approach (cost consideration) • Alternative 2: 60’ wide x 485’ pile supported wharf with two approaches (operational advantages) • Recommended site layout alternative: • Site Layout 2 • Recommended structural design: • Pile supported concrete platform, concrete piles, 500 psf design deck load

20. Port of Redwood City, CA Marine Terminal Plan