BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY – April 25, 2007
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
8:00 A.M.: Chairman Castle, presiding
Commissioners Present: Larry R. Aikins; Ralph A. Garcia, Jr.; Vice Chairman Lewis D. Miller; and, Chairman John J. Castle
Commissioners Absent: Secretary Richard A. Dodge
Staff Present: Executive Director Michael J. Giari; Special Counsel to Port, Francois X. Sorba; Director of Finance & Administration, Cynthia D. Hampton; Manager of Economic Development, Steve Wright; Manager of Operations, Donald Snaman; Assistant Manager of Operations, Eric Napralla; Receptionist/Administrative Assistant, Margaret Astesano; Executive Assistant, Rita F. Artist
Commissioner Garcia led the Pledge of Allegiance.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A Motion to Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 11, 2007 was made by Commissioner Aikins and was seconded by Commissioner Miller. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of all Commissioners present. Commissioner Dodge was absent.
III. CLAIMS:
A Motion to Approve Claims was made by Commissioner Aikins and it was seconded by Commissioner Garcia. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of all Commissioners present. Commissioner Dodge was absent.
IV. RESOLUTION
A. RESOLUTION APPROVING STANDARD SUBLEASE AGREEMENT – (Portside Investors – Phase I Lease Agreement) – (OSCAR KNOWS, INC.)
A Motion to Adopt was made by Commissioner Garcia. It was seconded by Commissioner Miller. The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of all Commissioners present. Commissioner Dodge was absent.
RESOLUTION
B. RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 FOR THE FORMER LBT DEMOLITION AND SITE REMEDIATION PROJECT AT THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF
Click here to view the staff agenda sheet and documents for this item
Executive Director Giari stated this change order involves extra labor for removal of the contents of pipelines on the LBT site. Snaman explained that when the contract documents were drawn up, it was assumed that all pipelines contained liquid waste that would be easy to drain and remove from site. This was explained to the contractors during the job walk, at which time the pipes were not open or available for inspection. However, the pipelines at the truck rack were full of hard-packed, nearly dry solids, which resulted in an extra 15 days of labor to remove the contents.
A Motion to Adopt was made by Commissioner Garcia. It was seconded by Commissioner Miller. The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of all Commissioners present. Commissioner Dodge was absent.
RESOLUTION
C. RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 FOR THE FORMER LBT DEMOLITION AND SITE REMEDIATION PROJECT AT THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF
Click here to view the staff agenda sheet and documents for this item
Executive Director Giari said this change order involves disposal of contaminated soils at the LBT site. Snaman explained that Cleveland Wrecking provided a bid item for Class II soil disposal at $38/ton to the Altamont Landfill. Altamont alerted Cleveland that due to conditions imposed by BAAQMD, Altamont could only receive 3-truck loads per day. Cleveland located an alternative Class II landfill (Forward Landfill) that had less stringent acceptance conditions. There would, however, be an increase in cost from $38/ton to $45/ton. Cleveland managed the soil disposal to minimize impacts to the Port, both in time and money. Project engineer, URS, reviewed the change order request and discussed the issues with Cleveland. An evaluation by URS in support of the increased rate for soil disposal is attached. Port staff and URS will monitor disposal activities to have as much material as possible be disposed to the Altamont landfill at the rate of $38/ton. Staff recommends acceptance of Change Order Request #6 for the $7 increase per ton for soil disposal costs to Forward Landfill.
Commissioner Miller commented that due to BAAQMD restrictions, sending only 3-trucks per day to Altamont Landfill would result in considerable delay to the project; therefore, the additional $7 per load to send the soil to Forward Landfill was justifiable.
A Motion to Adopt was made by Commissioner Miller. It was seconded by Commissioner Aikins. The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of all Commissioners present. Commissioner Dodge was absent.
RESOLUTION
D. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR THE EAGLE ROCK AGGREGATES MARINE AGGREGATE RECEIVING, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION TERMINAL PROJECT LOCATED AT THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY, CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS PERTAINING TO A CERTAIN PROJECT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR SAID PROJECT AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR SAID PROJECT; AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION AND THE PAYMENT OF EXPENDITURES, FEES, AND COSTS RELATED THERETO
Click here to view the staff agenda sheet and documents for this item.
Click here to view the Eagle Rock presentation for this item.
Click here to view the AMEC presentation for this item.
Executive Director Giari explained that Eagle Rock Aggregates is proposing to construct and operate an aggregate import terminal on a portion of the former LBT site. As lead agency under CEQA, Port contracted with AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. to conduct the Initial Study & Impact Analysis. AMEC also conducted an Air Quality Analysis. A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Air quality is the only environmental factor significantly impacted by this project. Eagle Rock would be required to apply mitigation measures to reduce emissions, which will be determined by BAAQMD in its issuance of permits for the project.
Giari stated that a Notice of Intent and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and circulated to adjacent property owners, businesses, and other interested parties. It was sent to the State Clearing House for circulation to responsible State agencies. The CEQA public review period was March 13-April 13, 2007. A copy of comment letters and responses to comments is attached. No changes to the Initial Study nor additional mitigation measures are required as a consequence of the comment letters received. Following the review of comments, the Final MND was prepared. Port staff recommends adoption of the resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration relating to the impacts of the Eagle Rock Aggregates project.
Bill Terry, General Manager of Eagle Rock Aggregates, Canada, explained the need for this project. In 2005 California used about 235-million tons of aggregate. The South Bay is projected to have the greatest future need for aggregate in the state but also has the greatest shortfall of local aggregate supply. Aggregate supplies in the Bay Area have been depleted and must be transported into this area. An Eagle Rock ship can carry 80,000 tons of aggregate from Vancouver Island, which is the equivalent of 1600 trucks over the highways. Eagle Rock has a long-term aggregate resource in Vancouver Island, which has been prequalified by CalTrans for good quality, uses economic and environmentally friendly transportation, and is committed to the California market.
Terry stated that Eagle Rock expects to reach 3-5 vessel calls per month in Redwood City within the next five years. Vessels would offload sand and gravel into an enclosed hopper, equipped with a canvas housing and dust suppression system. Aggregate would be transferred by a covered, overhead conveyor system to open stockpiles with an overhead sprinkler system. Aggregates would be conveyed from the stockpiles to enclosed “day bins” to be fed into the enclosed truck load out/weigh station for delivery to local markets.
Commissioner Garcia asked where the most noise would be generated during this operation. Terry replied that would be during offloading from the vessels into the hopper.
Commissioner Miller asked how long it would take to build the facility and Terry responded that it would take approximately 6-months.
Denise Toombs, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., and Program Manager for the CEQA analysis, commented on various impacts that AMEC considered for the analysis. She pointed out that the analysis is based on an assumption of maximum throughput. AMEC took into consideration that Eagle Rock agreed to suspend truck traffic during the peak afternoon traffic hours, from 4-6 PM. There are a number of dust control and suppression measures that will mitigate noise as well as air quality. Eagle Rock has agreed to use recycled water, when it becomes available, for both dust suppression and landscaping. Eagle Rock agreed to give Port tenants a minimum of 3-days notice prior to pile driving. Vessels will be positioned at Wharf 5 in a manner that the engines are turned away from the marina in order to avoid a potential for prop wash. Toombs explained that special attention was put on air, noise, and traffic analyses. The findings from the Impact Assessment indicated there were no significant affects after mitigation.
Commissioner Miller asked what the decibel level is for noise standards in Redwood City. Toombs replied it is 75 decibels for exterior noise and that the noise levels for the proposed project fell below that level.
Commissioner Aikins asked if the Traffic Analysis took into account that approximately one half of the truck loads were estimated to stay within the Port area. Toombs said the Traffic Analysis looked at traffic that would stay within the Port complex and the remainder of the traffic was assumed to go onto Highway 101.
Commissioner Garcia asked if anything could be done to reduce noise levels more significantly at the hoppers. Toombs replied that the hopper and the conveyors are enclosed and the hopper has a sonic fog system for dust suppression, which also will attenuate noise.
Chairman Castle announced that he would take questions from the public and that responses would be made after all questions had been presented.
Jack Bourla, Suite 101, 499 Seaport Ct., Redwood City, asked how long the pile driving would take after the 3-day notice had been given. He also inquired about the affects of noise and dust resulting from the 50% of truck traffic entering and exiting the Port area.
Dan Fivey, general partner for Portside Investors, stated that he is against the Eagle Rock project. He does not think the project is compatible with land uses of Portside’s office complex, the Marina, and other businesses along the waterfront promenade. Fivey questioned the decibel levels for residential and office areas in Redwood City. He stated that landscaping on the side of the project adjacent to Portside offices should be addressed and asked what the use would be for the vacant 4-acres between the Eagle Rock project and Portside offices. Fivey asked if the Port considered this to be the highest and best use of the property and if other potential uses for the site were considered.
Mike Croll, representing Operating Engineers, Local 3, stated that his issue had already been addressed.
Kent Russell, 499 Seaport Ct., Redwood City, commented that he operates a television production company from a 2nd floor office overlooking the project site. Russell’s concern was due to “earthquake-like” vibrations caused by truck traffic. Russell stated that he is against the project because he thinks noise levels would be increased considerably and would either hurt his business or force him to move.
Karsten Adam, Suite 105, 503 Seaport Ct., Redwood City, expressed concern about the way the hopper would affect the adjacent public access area. Adam asked if the visual impacts of having a ship block the view of the channel had been considered. He asked if tenants of the marina had been notified of this project. Adam also asked if vessel traffic would adversely affect fishing at the Port. His last inquiry was who would clean up extra debris that would result from additional truck traffic on Seaport Blvd.
Rayona Sharpnack, Suite 104, 495 Seaport Ct., Redwood City, expressed concern about an additional 266 trucks per day coming into the Port area, the view being obscured by aggregate piles, and that Seaport Blvd. could not accommodate the traffic that future development of the Cargill land might bring. Ms. Sharpnack asked what other sites had been considered for this project and stated she vehemently opposes the project.
Architect Mort Frank, 491 Seaport Ct., Redwood City raised issue with the comment that this proposal is consistent with other industrial uses at the Port. Frank does not believe the Port will continue to be exclusively zoned as an industrial area. Frank stated that the project is architecturally unattractive and not a compatible land use with Portside’s offices.
William Albanese, President of Central Concrete Supply, a redi-mix facility at the Port, stated that by having aggregate available through the Eagle Rock facility, 8,000 round trips per year of trucks bringing aggregate into Central’s plant on Seaport Blvd. would be eliminated. Central Concrete Supply needs a place to operate and there are very few locations available in the South Bay. Albanese stated that he is in support of this project.
Parker Painter, new tenant at 509 Seaport Ct., Redwood City stated that he would move out of Portside if the project was approved.
Greg Greenway, Executive Director of Seaport Industrial Association, explained that “port priority use” has a specific meaning related to the Seaport Plan, a long-range planning document and a joint effort between the Bay Conservation Development Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. It designates four public ports around the bay that are specifically intended for port priority use. The purpose of that is to satisfy a 20-30 year projection about the cargo the Bay Area requires in order to maintain its economic vitality. Greenway commented that while being sensitive to the concerns of neighbors, who are free to make choices about where they want to locate, the broader issue for the community is that this is the only place available for industrial uses. Benefits to the community are that the materials produced by companies at the Port are absolutely essential for the entire peninsula. The Port supplies a critical source of materials to meet the projected need in the local Bay Area. Additional truck trips in the Port area are a local issue. The broader issue is that by bringing 1-2 million tons of aggregate into the Port by ship, approximately 100,000 truck trips would be taken off the region’s highways.
Rayona Sharpnack, Suite 104, 495 Seaport Ct., Redwood City asked the Board to consider the impact on all the crew teams from Stanford and other schools that use the channel each morning.
Debbe Hoover, 503 Seaport Ct., Redwood City commented that as a resident of Redwood Shores, she can hear noises from Port operations late at night. Hoover’s expressed concern about traffic at the “Y” intersection of Seaport Blvd., Seaport Ct., and Frontage Rd, saying that additional traffic could result in accidents; and, debris from truck traffic could result in damage to automobiles.
In addressing these comments, Giari explained that this historically has been an industrial site. Texaco developed the site for a large tank farm, which received petroleum products by ship and barge, subsequently trucking the products out of the terminal area. The site was next operated as an oily waste reception facility, which received liquids by ship, barge and truck. Those activities were shut down in 1995 and the Port was ordered by the State to clean up the site. The area is considered a port priority use area by the BCDC Seaport Plan. The purpose of this regional plan is to identify areas around San Francisco Bay that are most appropriate for port activity and can accommodate growth without having to fill in or create harmful impacts on the Bay.
Giari commented that the Port currently does not have a specific project under consideration for the 4-acres adjacent to Portside offices. It is, however, designated for a marine terminal use in the BCDC Seaport Plan and is zoned for industrial use. When a use is proposed for that property, it would be appropriate to consider landscaping along the area between the LBT site and Portside offices at that time.
Giari explained that “highest and best use” is not an issue that was part of the CEQA analysis. It is an issue that would be addressed by the Commission when they consider project approval or possible lease agreement.
Referring to future use of the Cargill land, Giari explained that was not part of the CEQA analysis because there is no project proposed at this time.
Giari asked Bill Terry, General Manager of Eagle Rock Aggregates, and Denise Toombs, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., and Program Manager for the CEQA Analysis, to respond to the comments and questions from the above named speakers.
Bill Terry addressed the soil stability issue, saying that a geological study has not been completed as yet. This is a Seismic Zone 4, which has strict building code requirements to meet in order to stabilize soil. After the soil has been stabilized, there should be a considerable lessening of vibrations.
Addressing the issue of increased truck traffic, Terry explained that redi-mix plants already located at the Port are now transporting aggregates in and out of the Port area by truck. Eagle Rock proposes to bring in aggregates by vessel, thereby helping to decrease the amount of incoming traffic. Regarding increased debris from trucks, Terry explained that the use of enclosed day bins to load aggregate directly into the bed of the trucks eliminates sand and gravel being dropped onto the outside of the trucks and subsequently dropping onto the roadways.
In response to what other sites had been considered, Terry explained that Eagle Rock has researched the entire west coast of the U.S. for suitable locations. This site has the requirements of having a deep water channel for shipping, wharf access, is designated port priority use by BCDC, and is appropriately zoned.
Ms. Toombs explained that noise from the hopper would only occur during offloading of a vessel, which would happen approximately 3-4 times/month. Noise levels at the hopper fell below 75 decibels and were not considered significant in the analysis. The analysis cited that vibrations from trucks would be perceptible within 300 feet but was not found to be significant. AMEC also contacted the Bar Pilots to inquire about whether or not the turning basin and wharf were compatible for the types of vessels to be brought in. The Pilots concurred that this is an acceptable use. Considering the current volume of vessel traffic at the Port, adding 3-4 vessels/month would not make a significant change. Toombs said the maximum height of the piles would be 45 feet, which is similar to the 50 foot height of the nine tanks that were removed from the site.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants conducted field observations at the “Y” intersection to determine that it matched the designated level of service. The intersection has a signal light and the Redwood City traffic engineer did not identify that intersection as having any particular safety issues, therefore, it was not considered to have a significant safety affect in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Giari commented that the Analysis showed no impacts on the public access area and the fishing pier. Vessels are currently using the turning basin with no impact to recreational boaters and there should be no impact on fishing.
Referring to Redwood Landing Marina, Karsten Adam asked if tenants of the marina had been notified of this project. Giari responded that the owners of the marina were contacted and notified of the project.
Mort Frank said that if the Port wanted to go forward with this project, there should be a master plan of how this area should evolve from Route 101 easterly to the cement plant. Because there are other uses being discussed for the area, such as a ferry terminal and future use of the 4 acres adjacent to this project, Frank suggested there be a follow up meeting on these issues.
Parker Painter referred back to the question about whether or not other locations had been researched for this project. If there is to be mixed uses at the Port, there should be a buffer to support the compatibility of mixed use.
Dan Fivey commented that once the Port allowed an office complex to be built in an industrial zoned area, consideration should be given to use compatibility with those offices.
Giari explained that the Port is nearly at capacity and handles about 1.5 to 2 million tons of various dry bulk commodities per year. There are no other sites at the Port that meet the requirements of the Eagle Rock project.
Commissioner Garcia commented that regardless of the decision, someone is likely to be inconvenienced or discontent. The Port has been an industrial site for 70 years and it is the job of the Port Commission to run the Port in the most efficient manner possible. The Commissioners must consider Redwood City and the entire peninsula, and make decisions based on the good of the whole.
Chairman Castle explained that the Commission is here today to consider approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration document only and not project approval. The Commissioners must decide if the experts have presented the MND correctly, given us all of the necessary information, and included mitigation measures to meet the standards that are required.
A Motion to Adopt was made by Commissioner Miller. It was seconded by Commissioner Garcia. The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of all Commissioners present. Commissioner Dodge was absent.
V. PRESENTATION:
By Cynthia D. Hampton, Director of Finance & Administration
Click here to view the documents for this item.
A. Quarterly Financial Results – (March 31, 2007 Comparative Results)
B. Certified Quarterly Investment Report – (For quarter Ended March 31, 2007)
Cynthia Hampton gave a brief presentation of FY07 Third Quarter financial results. She reported that Fiscal Year to Date, March 31st, 2007 Net Income after Subvention was $1,500 less than budget and $33,000 more than last year.
Commissioner Aikins referred to the March 31, 2007 Investment Report and asked if the CDs which matured on April 9 (Union Bank) and April 16 (Bank of America) had been rolled over at higher rates at maturity. Ms. Hampton replied that the CDs at both banks were rolled over at the same rates as the expiring rates, 3.25% and 3.60% respectively. She explained that the difference between the rates the banks offered has to do in part with their capacity for public funds.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None
VII. MATTERS OF BOARD INTEREST:
Chairman Castle reported that he had recently attended an interesting Short Sea Shipping Conference. Castle stated that it is important to follow the potential in short sea shipping and that we take some traffic off the highways and move it by the waterways. He believes that San Francisco Bay will be involved in short sea shipping in the future and that the Port has the potential to meet this demand.
VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Executive Director Giari reported that the Port is a sponsor of the “World Café on Climate Protection” to be held on Thursday, April 26 at 6-PM in City Hall. Discussions exploring the issues of climate protection and global warming on the local level will take place at small café tables. People will periodically rotate from table to table for conversations with new people. Three Port Commissioners plan to attend and we have been informed by the City that there is still room available for others who would like to attend.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
At 10:17 a.m. Chairman Castle requested that the Commission adjourn to its next regularly scheduled Meeting of May 9, 2007.
A Motion to Adjourn was made by Commissioner Garcia and was seconded by Commissioner Miller. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of all Commissioners present. Commissioner Dodge was absent.
City of Redwood City | Tide Chart | Contact Us |