Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Resolution 14893
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 14893 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN (MIP) ESTABLISHING THE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR THE BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE REDEVELOPMENT AND REUSE OF ALAMEDA POINT. WHEREAS, the MIP establishes the requirements and standards for the backbone P infrastructure, including the major framework of streets and utilities, to support the redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point over the next 30 years; and WHEREAS, this framework establishes the organization of the site and defines ;# corridors necessary to be reserved for infrastructure improvements in order to ensure the successful phased implementation of the MIP; and WHEREAS, the existing infrastructure within Alameda Point was installed by the Navy, mostly over 70 years ago, and is beyond its service life and has deteriorated over time and is generally unreliable and does not meet current codes or standards; and WHEREAS, the MIP provides a flexible road map for how existing infrastructure will be incrementally replaced with new systems over time; and WHEREAS, the MIP is a guidance document for future decisions about location, configuration, and infrastructure systems and provides the necessary information to enable the City Council to adjust and modify the infrastructure improvements to respond to changing physical and market conditions, new requirements, or changing community priorities; and WHEREAS, the proposed new utility systems described in the MIP include stormwater, wastewater, potable water, recycled water, electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication utility systems and each of these systems will be replaced and connected to reliable existing facilities surrounding the site; and WHEREAS, the proposed backbone infrastructure improvements at Alameda Point will also include corrective geotechnical measures in order to create a seismically stable site and will include extensive storm drain and flood protection improvements that are adaptable over time in order to protect the site from sea-level rise; and WHEREAS, additionally, the MIP describes a "complete streets" transportation network to support a variety of modes of transportation and will de-emphasize the automobile, provide protective bikeways and provide direct, convenient access to high quality transit options, such as bus rapid transit and water-oriented transit; and WHEREAS, the MIP outlines the open space framework, which provides an extensive network of parks, open spaces, trails and community facilities proposed at Alameda Point; and 0 TI 3 WHEREAS, the City of Alameda Planning Board considered the MIP on January 13, 2014 and recommended that the City Council approve the MIP; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Point Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2013012043) analyzing the impacts of the MIP was certified by the City Council on February 4, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the MIP (Exhibit A) and the Addendum Sheet (Exhibit B). EXHIBIT A MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT Master Infrastructure Plan Alameda Point ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA October 31, 2013 Prepared For: .as•ssss•••■ EWES r ■�r■s• IE " srlrssEZIESE. Prepared By: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, inc. C vr� ENGrNEEfS • SI. RS • PLANNERS E; 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com Exhibit 4 -A Item 7 -B 1/13/14 Planning Board Mtg. ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL Marie Gilmore - Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft - Vice Mayor Stewart Chen Tony Daysog Lena Tam PLANNING BOARD Dania Alvernaz- Morroni Stanley Tang David Burton Mike Henneberry John Knox White Kristoffer Koster Lorre Zuppan CITY OF ALAMEDA Robert Haun - Public Works Director Ed Sommerauer - City Engineer JenniferliOttBlrhiefEOperatingMfficerBlikl ameda Andrew Thomas - City Planner PREPARED BY: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. In Association with: Balance Hydrologics, Inc. ENGEO, Inc. Power Systems Design Coleman Engineering Willdan Financial Services I' oint Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page i ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 3 A. Purpose 3 B. Project Description and Land Use Program 3 C. Development and Reuse Areas 6 D. Existing Infrastructure 8 E. Backbone Infrastructure Framework 8 F. Backbone Infrastructure Phasing 8 G. Master Infrastructure Plan Flexibility 10 H. Sustainability Considerations 10 I. Backbone Infrastructure Costs & Value Engineering 10 J. Project Datum 11 III. DEMOLITION AND PRESERVATION 12 A. Demolition 12 B. Preservation 12 C. Environmental Remediation 13 IV. FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING 19 A. Sea Level Rise and Adaptive Management 19 B. Geotechnical Conditions 35 C. Value Engineering Opportunities 46 V. STREET SYSTEM 47 A. Existing On -Site Street System 47 B. Proposed On -Site Street System 47 C. Proposed Transit System 76 D. Proposed Off -Site Street Improvements 82 VI. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 85 A. Existing Parks and Community Facilities 85 B. City of Alameda's Urban Greening Plan and Parks Improvement Assessment 87 C. Proposed Open Space Framework 87 VII. WASTEWATER 91 A. Existing Wastewater System 91 B. Proposed Wastewater System 95 VIII. STORMWATER SYSTEM 100 A. Topography and Precipitation 100 B. Impervious and Development Areas 100 C. Soil Characteristics and Groundwater 100 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page ii ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 D. Tidal Characteristics 101 E. Existing Stormwater Management System 101 F. Proposed Stormwater Management System 102 IX. POTABLE WATER 122 A. Existing Potable Water System 122 B. Proposed Potable Water System 123 C. Value Engineering Opportunities 127 X. RECYCLED WATER 128 A. Existing Recycled Water System 128 B. Proposed Recycled Water System 128 C. Value Engineering Opportunities 131 XI. DRY UTILITIES 132 A. Electric System 132 B. Natural Gas System 138 C. Telecommunications and Cable Television 140 D. Street Light System 141 XII. SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS 142 XIII. PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION 144 A. Principles of Phasing and Implementation 144 B. Conceptual Financing Plan 147 C. Phase 1 - Scenario 1 149 D. Phase 1 - Scenario 2 151 E. Phase 1 - Scenario 3 154 F. Sub - Phases 156 G. Permitting 156 XIV. MIP FLEXIBILITY 162 A. Less Development 162 B. Transit Oriented Mixed Use 163 C. Implementation 163 XV. CONSTRUCTION COSTS 168 A. Backbone Infrastructure Costs 168 B. Value Engineering and Potential Cost Reductions 171 C. Public Services 171 XVI. NEXT STEPS 173 A. Infrastructure Design 173 B. Financing Plan 173 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page iii ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location 4 Figure 2 - Sub - Districts 5 Figure 3 - Reuse & Development Areas 7 Figure 4 - Backbone Framework 9 Figure 5 - Existing Buildings to be Preserved 14 Figure 6 - IR Site Status as of April 2013 15 Figure 7 - Marsh Crust Ordinance 16 Figure 8 - Utilidor Locations 17 Figure 9 - Utilidor Concept 18 Figure 10.1 - Existing Areas of Inundation 24 Figure 10.2 - Sea Level Rise 25 Figure 11 - Initial Flood Protection 29 Figure 12 - Adapted Flood Protection 32 Figure 13 - Flood Protection Adaptive Measures 33 Figure 14 - Flood Protection Adaptive Measures 34 Figure 15 - Fill Areas Map 36 Figure 16 - Northern Shoreline Cross - Section Locations 38 Figure 17 - Northern Shoreline Zone of Potential Deformation 40 Figure 18 - Liquefiable Soils 42 Figure 19 - Young Bay Mud Deposits 44 Figure 20 - Existing Street Framework 48 Figure 21 - Proposed Street Framework 49 Figure 22 - Proposed Street Classifications 51 Figure 23 - Conceptual Street Sections - Development Areas 52 Figure 24 - Conceptual Street Sections - Reuse Areas 67 Figure 25 - Proposed Bike Facilities 77 Figure 26 - Proposed Truck Route 78 Figure 27 - Proposed Transit Systems 80 Figure 28 - Off -Site Street Improvements 83 Figure 29 - Existing Park and Community Facilities 86 Figure 30 - Public Trust 88 Figure 31 - Proposed Open Space 89 Figure 32 - Existing Sanitary Sewer (On -Site) 92 Figure 33 - Existing Sanitary Sewer (Off -Site Transmission) 94 Figure 34 - Proposed Sanitary Sewer in Development Areas 97 Figure 35 - Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reuse Areas Initial Construction 98 Figure 36 - Proposed Sanitary Sewer Ultimate System 99 Figure 37 - Existing Storm Drain & Outfalls 103 Figure 38 - Existing Watersheds 104 Figure 39 - Proposed Storm Drain 106 Figure 40 - Proposed Storm Drain Ultimate System 107 Figure 41 - Proposed Storm Drain Reuse Areas Initial Construction 109 Figure 42 - Conceptual Two -Tier Multi- Purpose Basin 112 Figure 43 - Conceptual Basin / Outfall 114 Figure 44 - Proposed Storm Drain Watersheds 115 Figure 45 - Existing Water System 124 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page iv ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Figure 46 - Proposed Ultimate Water System Figure 47 - EBMUD East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Figure 48 - Proposed Recycle Water Figure 49 - Existing Electrical System Figure 50 - Cartwright Substation Figure 51 - Proposed Ultimate Joint Trench Figure 52 - Figure 53 - Figure 54 - Figure 55 - Figure 56 - Figure 57 - Figure 58 - Figure 59 - Figure 60 - Figure 61 - Figure 62 - Figure 63 - Existing Natural Gas Lines Phasing Plan Scenario 1 Phasing Plan Scenario 2 Phasing Plan Scenario 3 Phase 1A "South" Phase 1A "North" Phase 1A "Central" Proposed Ultimate Sewer System Proposed Ultimate Sewer System Proposed Ultimate Water System Proposed Ultimate Water System Estimate Phasing 126 129 130 133 136 137 139 150 152 155 157 158 159 164 165 166 167 169 (High Density) (Low Density) (High Density) (Low Density) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page v ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Land Use Program (1996 Community Reuse Plan) 6 Table 2 - Alameda Point Vertical Datum Summary 11 Table 3 - CO -CAT Sea Level Rise Projections (March 2013) 19 Table 4 - Wind Conditions 26 Table 5 - Site Grading Design Criteria 30 Table 6 - Bike Facilities 76 Table 7 - Wastewater Flow Generation Factors 95 Table 8 - Tidal Datum Elevations for Alameda Point 101 Table 9 - Preliminary Multi- Purpose Basin & Pump Sizes with Adaptive Measures 111 Table 10 - Potable Water Flow Generation Factors 123 Table 11 - Estimated Potable Water Demand (Buildout) 123 Table 12 - Estimated Electric Demand (Buildout) 134 Table 13 - Estimated Gas Demand (Buildout) 138 Table 14 - Low and High Density Alternatives Relative to the Reuse Plan 162 Table 15 - Backbone Infrastructure Construction Costs 168 LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 1 - 2013 Sea Level Rise Projection 20 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page vi ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES A) GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS MEMORANDUM (ENGEO, INC.) B) DETAILED UTILITY SCHEMATIC PLAN C) WASTEWATER FLOW CALCULATIONS D) SANITARY SEWER FLOW ESTIMATES AND MODELING (RMC) E) STORMWATER PROTOTYPICAL WATERSHED MODEL F) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM MODEL (FILES INCLUDED ON SEPARATE CD) G) DETAILED BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY H) FISCAL ANALYSIS (WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page vii ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) establishes the requirements and standards for the backbone infrastructure to support the redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point. The backbone infrastructure is the major framework ofBtreetsBndBtilitiesi Thislll rameworklbstablishesarganizationafBheBitel ndBlefinesBonidorsl ecessaryBo eB reserved for infrastructure improvements and ensure the successful phased implementation of the MIP. The land uses analyzed by the MIP are consistent with the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. The existing infrastructure within Alameda Point was installed by the Navy, mostly over 70 years ago, and is beyond its service life. Components of the existing infrastructure are currently operable and service the existing tenants at Alameda Point. However, the existing infrastructure is deteriorated, generally unreliable and does not meet current codes or standards. The MIP recommends that the existing infrastructure be incrementally replaced with new systems. The MIP distinguishes the Project Site as two main areas: Development Areas and Reuse Areas. The infrastructure needs and requirements for each of these areas are unique. Accordingly, the MIP describes the planned backbone infrastructureBpecificlTorBachBfBheBreas. H' heMevelopmentBlreasBreBhoseBreasBvithinBhef froj ectlliteBhatB are anticipated to consist of mostly all new construction. New infrastructure will be installed to support the proposed uses within the Development Areas. The Reuse Areas include the historic areas within the Project Site that are largely intended to be preserved and adaptively reused to the extent feasible. The preservation of the historicBhuildingsHndBandscapesBequireBpecificBnfrastructureB onsiderationsHndBequirements.B BequencedB implementation of interim rehabilitation improvements and eventual replacements of the existing street and utility systems is discussed in the MIP. This sequenced implementation will allow development within the Reuse Areas to proceed in the near term without being over - burdened with lengthy extensions of infrastructure replacements, while establishing a program to ensure that the ultimate infrastructure replacements are orderly implemented. The proposed backbone infrastructure improvements will create a seismically stable site that can adapt to the potentialBmpactsafBlimateBhange. HheMPautlinesBheBequiredBorrectivelgeotechnicalBndBloodlforotectionB improvements for Alameda Point. Corrective geotechnical measures are necessary to provide seismic stability of thel'roject'sBhorelinesandB nderlyingBoils. Bkdditionally, BioodlirotectionBmprovementsBrel l.escribedBvhichB include site grading, perimeter improvements and establishing future adaptive measures that are necessary to protect the site from the 100 -year tidal event and provide long -term protection for sea -level rise due to climate change. ForBklamedalPoint,BheEMIPRecommendsBnlAdaptiveBVIanagementiflanEforBheffloodliprotectionaystem.frheB floodl rotectionl aeasuresBonstructedlfnldaelnear rm,rithl iitiall development ,Bhall1ieBonstructedl ith1 uilt -inB protection against 18- inches of sea level rise above the 100 -year tidal event. 18- inches of sea level rise is within the range of sea level rise projected to occur by the end of century. The current sea level rise projections by the California Climate Action Team and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were referenced for the preparationBfBheIMIP .BfEutureBeaBevelBiseBmounts1 xceedfl 8-inches,lidditionalffloodgorotectionBneasuresB will I., ellmplemented. H 'he1Jloodl1rotectionBystemBvill I,' eadaptivelyBlesignedBoI ddressBeallevelBiseBnlixcessB of 18- inches. The adaptive measures will include preserving inland land and right of way along the perimeter of thel itel uchBhatl$ xistingBhorelinesBndBloodwallsBouldIDefilevatedBoBnanagel eaBevelBise.H'helioerimeterB improvementsBhallIbetl. esignedBoBtllowfforBheffutureBioodlprotectionBneasuresBoffieBVvidenedBtndBupportB additional I. eightBuchlIiatlto I :11Bslplacedlinllihe I t ay. ICItherBdaptiveBieasuresBhatBiayllleBmplementedBncludeB aBiexibleIjberimeterlprotectionBneasureBhatBhiftsBnlandandBllowsBheButBboardBandBoBbellonvertedBoBidalB wetlands. A sea level rise monitoring and funding mechanism will be established for the Alameda Point area to ensure the future adaptive measures will be implemented when necessary. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 1 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 The proposed utility systems described in the MIP include stormwater, wastewater, potable water, recycled water, electrical, natural gas and telecommunication utility systems. Each of these systems will connect to reliable existing facilities surrounding the Project Site. New outfalls will be constructed to the surrounding waters to convey stormwater runoff from Alameda Point. The amount of outfalls surrounding Alameda Point will be reduced and the site runoff will be treated consistent with the Alameda County Clean Water Program prior to discharge to the San Francisco Bay. The new wastewater system will consist of series of pipelines and lift stations that connect to existing transmission facilities along the northwestern waterfront of Alameda. These transmission facilities convey the site wastewater to the EBMUD Main Wastewater Treatment Plant. The proposed potable water, recycled water, natural gas and telecommunications facilities will connect to existing reliable facilities within Main Street, along the eastern edge of the Project Site. The proposed electrical system will connect to the Cartwright Substation, which is intended to be preserved and is located within Alameda Point near the W. Atlantic Ave and Main St intersection. Additionally, the MIP describes a "complete streets" transportation network to support a variety of modes of transportation. The proposed street system at Alameda Point will de- emphasize the automobile, provide protective bikeways and provide direct, convenient access to high quality transit options, such as bus rapid transit and water - oriented transit (i.e., ferries and water taxis). Proposed street sections for the backbone streets are provided in the MIP, demonstrating the integration of all the various modes of transportation. The proposed street system facilitates bicycles being a viable mode of transportation, providing an extensive network of protected bikeways, cycle tracks, buffered bike lanes and other bike facilities that extend into other areas of Alameda, creating cross - island bicycle access to Alameda Point. The proposed bike facility network is complemented by the proposed parks and open space system. The MIP outlines the proposed open space framework, which includes Nature Reserve Areas, Primary Open Spaces and Secondary Open Spaces. The organization of these components provides an extensive network of parks, open spaces, trails and community facilities proposed at Alameda Point. The MIP establishes a practical yet comprehensive approach to implementing the proposed backbone infrastructure. The MIP outlines phasing and implementation principles for each proposed infrastructure system. A phased implementationiefBhel iackboneBnfrastructureBstkriticalBoBnaintainingBcinanciall 'easibility.E'heBmprovementsB required for the redevelopment of Alameda Point will be phased to match the development phases as closely aslto ssible.Bf heRequiredBmprovementsfforBzachlphaseavillUncludeBlemolition ,llloodl irotection,B; orrectiveB geotechnical measures, site grading, utilities, streets and transit improvements. Each phase will construct the portion of infrastructure required to support the proposed uses and surrounding existing uses, while being balanced to maintain feasibility of the project. The MIP also includes a cost estimate for backbone infrastructure and City facilities envisioned for the development at» lamedal' oint. �hisBostl �stimateBvillI , >elitpdatedBndBefinedl sBlevelopmentlibroposalsBxeBpproved yBheB City Council and implemented by developers. Additionally, the City is in the process of updating its development impactl l iDnfrastructureIl ;ee,BvhichBvillBreateBF eeBpecificBolilameda I' oint 1, asedlprimarilyIibn >thelilatalincludedB in the MIP. This impact / infrastructure fee process will provide an opportunity for the City Council to evaluate and prioritize the funding of certain public improvements assumed in the MIP. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 2 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 II. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE A. Purpose The Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) establishes the requirements and standards for the backbone infrastructure to support the redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point, the Project Site. The backbone infrastructure is the major framework of streets and utilities. Additional internal streets and local utility systems, "in- tract" and "on- site" improvements, will connect to and be supported by the backbone infrastructure. The MIP describes the required replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing backbone utility systems, streets and open spaces at the Project Site. The MIP includes information regarding the stormwater, wastewater, potable water, recycled water, electrical, natural gas and telecommunication utility systems. Additionally, the MIP describes a "complete streets" transportation network to support a variety of modes of transportation. TheBvIIPBtlsoTutlinesBheBequiredRorrectivel eotechnicalBtndBloodirotectionBmprovementsfforBheE ProjectB Site. Corrective geotechnical measures are necessary to provide seismic stability of the Project's shorelines and underlying soils. Flood protection improvements including site grading, perimeter improvements and establishing future adaptive measures are necessary to protect the site from the 100 -year tidal event and provide long -term protection for sea -level rise due to climate change. The MIP summarizes the parks and open space system within the Project Site based on the detailed assessment included in the City of Alameda's Urban Greening Plan. Additionally, the MIP summarizes the proposed off -site street improvements and transit systems that are proposed as part of the Project. This summary is largely based onl telf itylofl iklameda' s1 RegionalH'ransitlAccessatudyBnd I, afficBtudieslpreparedBslilartBfBheffnvironmentalB Impact Report (EIR). The summary information regarding these elements of the Project is consolidated in the MIP to provide a comprehensive overview of the major improvements and framework at the Project Site. The detailed analysis of these elements is provided in the other referenced reports and plans. B. Project Description and Land Use Program Alameda Point is the former Naval Air Station Alameda located west of Main Street at the northwest end of the City of Alameda, California. The Project Site includes approximately 878 acres of unsubmerged lands and 1,229 acres of submerged lands, a total of 2,107 acres. It is bound by the Oakland - Alameda Estuary to the north, Main Street to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the south and west. Certain portions of the Project Site are bound to the south and west by a 624 -acre area including former airplane runways that are intended to be transferred from the Navy to the United States Department of Veteran Affairs (VA Property) and are not a part of the Project Site. Conservatively, the infrastructure demands associated with the proposed development within the VA Property are included in the MIP. Currently, the proposed development within the VA Property includes the construction of a VA Outpatient Clinic, Columbarium Cemetery and associated improvements. See Figure 1, Project Site Location. The Land Use Program analyzed by the MIP is generally based upon the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan), prepared in 1996. The Project is designed to accommodate a mix of land uses, including a combination of newly constructed buildings and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is concurrently being processed by the City of Alameda. This document establishes and organizes the Project Site into various Sub - Districts, Enterprise, Adaptive Reuse, Waterfront Town Center, Main Street Neighborhood and Open Space generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Table 1 outlines the proposed Land Use Program for each Sub - District. See Figure 2, Alameda Point Sub - Districts. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 3 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 ;71111,111111--,. z O L) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 4 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS1BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 1 SITE LOCATION.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 INNER HARBOR 0 MAIN STREET o tth '.) f •M7 1_7 SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY SUB - DISTRICTS w o w Z I— U) C) W z w CC cp w O Q I C) C C I w C) CL z z I— 1— < w w Q O EL 0 P-aV Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 5 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101 EXHIBITS \BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 2SUB- DISTRICTS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Table 1- Land Use Program (1996 Community Reuse Plan) TheIEnterpriseStsesBnclude> BnixIMBetail ,BommercialBecreation,l ommercialaffice, I,,usinesslbark,Bndustrial,B and institutional. The Main Street Neighborhood uses may include single family and multi - family housing units. The Main Street Neighborhood uses also include the 200 existing supportive housing units managed by the Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures for Women and Children, and Operation Dignity (Supportive Housing Providers). The MIP assumes these supportive housing units will be relocated to a new facility located in the northeast corner of the Main Street Neighborhood Sub - District. The Waterfront Town Center Sub - District will include transit - oriented design standards to create a mixed -use, transit- oriented, and walkable waterfront. The MIP assumes the Project will include the construction of a 530 -slip marina in the Seaplane Lagoon. The Open Space uses include parks, open space, waterfront promenade, a continuous Bay Trail, historic open spaces and parade grounds, neighborhood parks and recreation facilities, such as on -site parks, walking and bike trails, and on- street sidewalks and bike paths. C. Development and Reuse Areas For purposes of the infrastructure planning and MIP, it is important to distinguish the Project Site as two main areas: Development Areas and Reuse Areas. The infrastructure needs and requirements for each of these areas are unique.B,ccordingly,BlieB✓IIP escribesBhelplanned l,, ackbonel ifrastructureBpecific&or1ach flflaeBreas. The DevelopmentAreas are those areas within the Project Site that are anticipated to consist of all new construction. The existing structures, streets and utilities within these areas will be demolished. New infrastructure will be installed to support the proposed uses within the Development Areas. It is anticipated that development within the Development Areas will occur in cohesive areas and will be orderly implemented. The Development Areas encompass the majority of the Enterprise, Main Street Neighborhood and Waterfront Town Center Sub - Districts. The Reuse Areas include the historic areas within the Project Site that are largely intended to be preserved and adaptively reused to the extent feasible. The preservation of the historic buildings and landscapes require specificBnfrastructureBonsiderationsBndBequirements. BtBsBikelyBhatBlevelopmentBvithinWeuse &reasBvill 1,, eB fragmented. H' heIM IPIpresentsBheEnfrastructureBystemsBndBloodlyarotectionsBneasure sBequiredBoBupportBheB development of the Reuse Areas. A sequenced implementation of interim rehabilitation improvements and eventual replacements of the existing street and utility systems is discussed in the MIP. This sequenced implementation is necessary to allow development within the Reuse Areas to proceed in the near term without being over - burdened with lengthy extensions of infrastructure replacements, all the while establishing a program to ensure that the ultimate infrastructure replacements are orderly implemented within Reuse Areas. See Figure 3 depicting the limits of the Reuse and Development Areas assumed for the MIP, excluding new open space and park areas. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 6 Sub - District Land Use A B C D E Total Residential (Units) 563 575 70 217 - 1,425 Commercial IlilDfficeBB✓lanufacturingl(fSF) - 644,000 1,890,000 2,154,000 - 4,688,000 Retail and Service (SF) - 374,500 135,500 302,000 - 812,000 Subtotal Commercial - 1,018,500 2,025,500 2,456,000 - 5,500,000 Open Space (Acres) 3 24 16 8 258 309 TheIEnterpriseStsesBnclude> BnixIMBetail ,BommercialBecreation,l ommercialaffice, I,,usinesslbark,Bndustrial,B and institutional. The Main Street Neighborhood uses may include single family and multi - family housing units. The Main Street Neighborhood uses also include the 200 existing supportive housing units managed by the Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures for Women and Children, and Operation Dignity (Supportive Housing Providers). The MIP assumes these supportive housing units will be relocated to a new facility located in the northeast corner of the Main Street Neighborhood Sub - District. The Waterfront Town Center Sub - District will include transit - oriented design standards to create a mixed -use, transit- oriented, and walkable waterfront. The MIP assumes the Project will include the construction of a 530 -slip marina in the Seaplane Lagoon. The Open Space uses include parks, open space, waterfront promenade, a continuous Bay Trail, historic open spaces and parade grounds, neighborhood parks and recreation facilities, such as on -site parks, walking and bike trails, and on- street sidewalks and bike paths. C. Development and Reuse Areas For purposes of the infrastructure planning and MIP, it is important to distinguish the Project Site as two main areas: Development Areas and Reuse Areas. The infrastructure needs and requirements for each of these areas are unique.B,ccordingly,BlieB✓IIP escribesBhelplanned l,, ackbonel ifrastructureBpecific&or1ach flflaeBreas. The DevelopmentAreas are those areas within the Project Site that are anticipated to consist of all new construction. The existing structures, streets and utilities within these areas will be demolished. New infrastructure will be installed to support the proposed uses within the Development Areas. It is anticipated that development within the Development Areas will occur in cohesive areas and will be orderly implemented. The Development Areas encompass the majority of the Enterprise, Main Street Neighborhood and Waterfront Town Center Sub - Districts. The Reuse Areas include the historic areas within the Project Site that are largely intended to be preserved and adaptively reused to the extent feasible. The preservation of the historic buildings and landscapes require specificBnfrastructureBonsiderationsBndBequirements. BtBsBikelyBhatBlevelopmentBvithinWeuse &reasBvill 1,, eB fragmented. H' heIM IPIpresentsBheEnfrastructureBystemsBndBloodlyarotectionsBneasure sBequiredBoBupportBheB development of the Reuse Areas. A sequenced implementation of interim rehabilitation improvements and eventual replacements of the existing street and utility systems is discussed in the MIP. This sequenced implementation is necessary to allow development within the Reuse Areas to proceed in the near term without being over - burdened with lengthy extensions of infrastructure replacements, all the while establishing a program to ensure that the ultimate infrastructure replacements are orderly implemented within Reuse Areas. See Figure 3 depicting the limits of the Reuse and Development Areas assumed for the MIP, excluding new open space and park areas. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 6 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 SAN FRANCISCO BAY DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 7 G :11087- 10\ACAD- 10\EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 3 REUSE & DEVELOPEMENT AREAS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 D. Existing Infrastructure The existing infrastructure within Alameda Point was installed by the Navy. The majority of the infrastructure was constructed over 70 years ago, and is beyond its service life. The Navy installed, maintained and improved the existing infrastructure on an as- needed basis. The active existing utility systems include wastewater, stormwater, potable water, electrical, natural gas and telecommunications. The inactive existing utility systems include industrial waste, steam and fuel. Many of the existing utility pipelines and associated facilities are located outside of the existing streets, within future development areas. The active existing infrastructure is currently operable and services the existing tenants at Alameda Point. However, it is deteriorated and generally unreliable. Additionally, the existing infrastructure does not meet current codes or standards. There are numerous issues with the existing infrastructure. It cannot support the redevelopment of Alameda Point without rehabilitation or replacement. Some of the documented major issues with the existing systems include: •B TheaxistingBtormwater> ystemallowsBiighBideBvatersBolInterBhel ystemandBloodBowByingB areas within the Project Site. •B ThelitxistingffloodliforotectionBneasureslindlitormwaterBystemBloBiottiorovidelibrotectionafBheB Project Site from sea level rise. •B TheBanitaryBewerBystemBllowsBnfiltrationl $ndBnflowliitollshellownstream I,' ansmissionBystemB during wet weather conditions. •B The water system has been subject to breaks and repairs that are costly and sometimes require that tenants be without water service for up to several days. •B The telecommunications systems are unreliable and existing tenants have experienced breaks in service for multiple days. •B The natural gas system does not provide service to many areas within the site. •B The sidewalks range from good to poor condition throughout the site and many locations do not meet accessibility standards and require replacement. E. Backbone Infrastructure Framework The MIP establishes a program of backbone infrastructure improvements for Alameda Point. The framework of these backbone improvements is generally based on the grid of streets that comprise the existing street system within the Project Site and the adjoining areas to the east. The framework creates development blocks that range in size from approximately 1.5 acres in the Waterfront Town Center District to nearly 30 acres in the Adaptive Reuse Sub - District. B' helliackboneEllrameworkBefinesBorridorsBecessaryBollieBeservedll orliiifrastructureliinprovementsB and ensure the successful phased implementation of the MIP. See Figure 4, Backbone Framework. Additional internal streets, local utility systems and neighborhood parks, or "in- tract" and "on- site" improvements, will connect to and be supported by the backbone infrastructure. This internal / local infrastructure is dependent on theBpecificBiteIplanll lorBachBlevelopment eBlefinedBoncurrentBvithBheBnternal evelopments.B TheIM IPIiresents* eneralBtandardsBorBheBnternalBBocallinfrastructure I, utBloeslrotBstablishBpecificBocationsB or provide schematics for this level of infrastructure. F. Backbone Infrastructure Phasing The MIP divides the Project Site into three major phases of development as a means of analyzing and illustrating the implementation of the infrastructure improvements. These major phases correlate to the Sub - Districts established by the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Ultimately, each major phase will be further separated into smaller sub - phases as development occurs. The MIP discusses three "Phase 1" scenarios and presents the necessary infrastructure to be installed in each respective phase scenario. The intent of presenting these multiple scenarios Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 8 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 II 11 1�i I ; I I I III II 11 r+ IrI l I I I I III II I I III I Li I I-1-11 I 1 1 III ill I 1:rr 1-----tII I / II 1- -./.. , - 1 - - - - -< / 1 / 1 _I— --I- - - I I I I I / I 1 / I I/ `11� - I I I I I 11 J_ J-- 1 ] 1 r MAIN STREET SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY z DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED NEW PROPOSED REHABILITATED BACKBONE STREETS EXISTING STREETS .A Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 9 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101 EXHIBITS \BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 4 BACKBONE FRAMEWORK.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 is to outline the infrastructure requirements and coordination associated with the different potential scenarios and to inform future decisions regarding how to phase and develop the Project Site. EachlphaseaffinfrastructureBvilliprovidelIorrectivellgeotechnicallineasures,thoodiprotectionfimprovementslindB either new or rehabilitated street and utility systems required to support and serve the associated areas within that subject phase. The new infrastructure constructed with each phase will connect to reliable existing infrastructure systems as close to the proximity of each phase as possible. In most cases, permanent or temporary connections to the new systems will be required to maintain service to existing land uses to remain during each phase. Any connection to unreliable existing infrastructure systems will need to provide for the appropriate measures to protect the integrity of the new systems. G. Master Infrastructure Plan Flexibility Adjustments to the Land Use Program due to a change in economic conditions, market factors or other unanticipated change to the development concept may occur throughout the implementation of the MIP and redevelopment of Alameda Point. The MIP contemplates potential land use adjustments in the MIP Flexibility sections of the document. In particular, the MIP analyzes "Transit Oriented Mixed Use" and "Less Development" Project Alternatives that are presented in the EIR and presents the components of infrastructure that would need to be adjusted in each alternative. The reductions and additions to the infrastructure systems associated with these Project Alternatives are presented in the Section XIV — MIP Flexibility. H. Sustainability Considerations The Reuse Plan established the vision for the redevelopment of Alameda Point as a sustainable development promoting conservation of natural resources, reduction in energy consumption, water usage, greenhouse gases and solid waste generation. The MIP presents the components of green infrastructure and sustainable elements that can realistically be integrated with the major backbone infrastructure systems supporting the redevelopment of Alameda Point. As sustainability technologies continuously evolve, it is expected that Alameda Point infrastructure planning will evolve over time as well and implement sustainable components, where feasible. I. Backbone Infrastructure Costs & Value Engineering The backbone infrastructure for Alameda Point described in the MIP is estimated to cost approximately $550 to $575 million. The cost estimate in the MIP includes items, such as the amount of parks, that may be subject to future policy decisions by the City Council. Some of these items may also be considered during the preparation and adoption of the development impact / infrastructure fee for Alameda Point, as discussed above. It is critical to implementlEhel3ackbonelitifrastructurelifitthasesiblthaintainEnancialitasibility.fliTheEhasingEnamplementationB Section XIII, the MIP presents three initial Sub -Phase lA illustrative scenarios, one that establishes 23.5 acres of developable area within the Main Street Neighborhood Sub - District, another that establishes 34.5 of Developable Area within the Waterfront Town Center Sub - District and another that establishes 55 acres of Developable Area with the Enterprise Sub - District. The backbone infrastructure costs are estimated to range from $40 million to $67.5 million depending on the location and size of the scenario. The MIP also presents value engineering opportunities for components of the backbone infrastructure that could reduce the total cost of the backbone infrastructure by approximately $11.5 million. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 10 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 J. Project Datum The elevations presented in this document are based on the City of Alameda Datum. Table 2 provides conversions from the City of Alameda Datum to other published datum. Table 2 - Alameda Point Vertical Datum Summary NGVD 29 NAVD 88 City of Alameda NAS 0.00 Feet 2.70 Feet -3.41 Feet 104.23 Feet The difference between the North American Vertical Datum, 1988 (NAVD 88) and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929 (NGVD 29), based upon the NGS data sheet for PIC HT0880, a brass disc stamped "Main ATL 1947" at the intersection of Main Street and Atlantic Avenue in the City of Alameda, is 2.70 feet. To obtain NAVD 88 elevations, add 2.70 feet to NGVD 29 elevations. NAVD 88 = NGVD 29 + 2.70 feet The difference between NGVD 29 and the City of Alameda vertical datum, based upon the "City of Alameda Tide and Datum Chart from U.S.C. &G.S. Jan 1943" is negative 3.41 feet. To obtain City of Alameda elevation, subtract 3.41 feet from NGVD 29 elevations. City of Alameda = NGVD - 3.41 feet The difference between NGVD 29 and the Naval Air Station (NAS) datum, is 104.23 feet. To obtain NAS elevations, add 104.23 feet to NGVD 29 elevations. NAS = NGVD 29 + 104.23 feet Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page II ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 III. DEMOLITION AND PRESERVATION A. Demolition The existing buildings and infrastructure within the Development Areas will be deconstructed and demolished. This includes non - historic buildings, buildings not intended for Adaptive Reuse, existing utility systems, existing street improvements, and landscape elements not to be preserved with the proposed project. The existing buildings to be deconstructed and demolished were formerly a variety of military uses and supporting purposes. These buildings shall be deconstructed to maximize the reuse or recycling of materials, as feasible, consistentBvithBhelfityBgfalamedalkoalBoBlivertlf5 %1 flivasteEfromBandfills .lTheBieconstructionafl xistingB buildings will include the abatement of hazardous materials including asbestos materials, lead based paints and materials, andatherBnaterialsBhatBnayffieBdentifiedBisBiazardous. aleBbatementafBiazardousBnaterialsBnayB limit the amount of materials available for reuse or recycling. The existing utility systems to be demolished will either be abandoned in place or removed and disposed of. Generally, the existing utility facilities within the proposed rights of ways of the backbone streets will be removed andalisposediall'hisBslitxpectedBnThrderBoRliminateltonflictsBArithBhelloroposedBiewthtilityBystems.ffheB portions of existing utility systems within development blocks may either be abandoned in place or removed and disposedB f,1 sBletermined I, yBhheWity I,' asedl?enBheBlevelopmentlikeedsBvithinBachBpecific I., lock>indlbotentialB maintenance or operational impacts. The method of abandonment in place of existing utilities shall be provided byB► lteotechnicallangineerBindBikelyBvillBncludeBlurryBi11BnBargerlpipelinesandBemovalafflboxes ,BnanholesB and other structures. The existing street improvements to be demolished shall be recycled and reused on -site to the maximum extent feasible. A concrete and asphalt crushing operation and program will be established to process existing materials from building foundations, street sub - grade, street pavement, sidewalks and pathways. The location of the crushing operation and associated stockpiles will need to be approved by the City of Alameda to ensure impacts to existing residents and businesses are minimized. The recycled concrete and asphalt materials shall be processed to achieve CaltransBpecificationsfforBecycledBnaterials. Pf heseBnaterialsareanticipatedBoIDeBeusedan- sitelisliaroposedB buildingBl:oundationBlab 10 aseBnaterial,BtreetBub-gradelkiaterialtindBitility t,: enchlbackfillBnaterial.B The existing landscape elements to be demolished, including trees and plants, will be cleared and removed. The materials generated from this process shall be composted for on -site uses such as erosion control and proposed landscaping mulch areas. B. Preservation AlamedaWointincludestuildings ,Tbjects,1 tructuresBtndHandscapedB reasBhattavetistorical &ignificance.B These historical elements are associated with the military legacy of NAS Alameda and have been designated as the National Registered NAS Alameda Historic District and as a City of Alameda Local Historical Monument. The historical elements are generally located within the Adaptive Reuse, Waterfront Town Center and Main Street Neighborhood Sub - Districts. The majority of the existing structures within the Adaptive Reuse Sub - District and the Big White houses within the Main Street Neighborhood Sub - District are currently anticipated to be preserved. It is assumed that the majority of the landscape areas within these areas will also be preserved. This includes the parade grounds near the Main Gate. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 12 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 The existing utility systems and street improvements within the historic areas will remain operable and will be rehabilitated and replaced, through an incremental approach. The existing elevations of the street improvements will be preserved in order to maintain the historic street alignment, streetscape and appearance of these areas. See Figure 5 depicting the existing structures assumed by the MIP to be preserved. C. Environmental Remediation The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program manages disposal of excess military real estate. This may involve base closure, environmental cleanup, and property transfer to other federal agencies or communities for reuse. NAS Alameda is a former Navy base and therefore the Department of the Navy is responsible for cleanup and restoration of the Project Site with oversight from federal and state regulators. The Navy has been conducting environmental investigations and cleanup efforts at Alameda Point both before and since the military operations were terminated at NAS Alameda in 1997. The regulatory agencies with oversight of these cleanup efforts include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Alameda Point is divided into multiple cleanup Operable Units and Installation Restoration (IR) sites. There are 34 IR Sites within Alameda Point, all in various states of investigation or cleanup. The Navy has on -going remediation efforts within the Project Site. The purpose of these cleanup activities is to protect human health and the environment from contamination resulting from past military activities. See Figure 6 depicting the status of the various IR Sites as of 2013. Additionally, the eastern portions of Alameda Point are underlain with a layer of sediment that was deposited from the late 1800's to the 1920's which was contaminated with semi - volatile organic compounds. This layer is referred to as the Marsh Crust. The City of Alameda has adopted a Marsh Crust Ordinance that requires an excavation permit for excavations into the Marsh Crust to ensure that proper measures are implemented to protect workers from contaminated materials and to require proper disposal of contaminated materials that are encountered. The areas and associated depths of excavations that require an excavation permit in order to comply with the Marsh Crust Ordinance are depicted on Figure 7. To address the on -going protection of the human health and the environment through the construction of improvements at Alameda Point, a Site Management Plan (SMP) will be prepared for the Project Site. The SMP will provide guidelines that ensure that development activities at the Project Site will be conducted in a manner to protect the health and safety of workers, residents, visitors, and the environment. In the case that utility construction is required through areas that have active remediation on -going that has yet to be concluded and that may pose an unacceptable health risk to workers managing and maintaining the utility, the utility will be installed within an utilidor. The utilidor is a facility that will provide protection of the utility workers from surrounding contaminants and preclude the migration of these contaminants into the utility trench. This will also protect the workers from encountering contaminants during future maintenance activities in these specificBreas.l tBhisBime,BheBocationsBvhereli eBitilidorsBnay l alecessarylficludelitilitiesBrossingEOperableB Units 2B and 2C. See Figure 8 and Figure 9 depicting the potential locations where utilidors may be required and a conceptual detail for the utilidor. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 13 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR . -----,,.: 1 I 4AI°' a ' —'— '''4:6'ele al � Li 1 1 1 °1 1 I r = A LU fla �aag4 1 1 �- Eo D o °add �� moB_ odG `❑ p , 1 Ir I rri ,H'; I Icy .-3 SAN FRANCISCO BAY SEAPLANE LAGOON LEGEND 1 DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION -AREAS TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING BUILDING LIKELY TO BE PRESERVED ALAMEDA POINT FIGURE 5 _ FITZ MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OFALAMEDA ALAMEDACOUNTY CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDII i GS „�� DATE: OCTS5O��BERR,�, 2001n133n SCALE: 1” = 1,500' l C��arkon9 ° �4.1T-. ©*9 o coboono one . LIKELY TO BE PRESERVED Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 14 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES IXB 5 EX BUILDINGS TO REMAIN.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 15 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 6 IR SITE STATUS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN OAKLAND INNER HARBOR UPDATED DRAFT October 31. 2013 SEAPLANE LAGOON PROPERTY SUBJECT TO MARSH CRUST CRUP EXCAVATION PERMIT REQUIRED FOR EXCAVATIONS BELOW MEAN HIGHER HIGH TIDE EXCAVATION PERMIT REQUIRED FOR EXCAVATIONS BELOW 5 FEET EXCAVATION PERMIT REQUIRED FOR EXCAVATIONS BELOW 10 FEET EXTENT OF FORMER SUBTIDAL AREA — — EXTENT OF FORMER ISLAND 1865 (RADBRUCH 1957) ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' FIGURE 7 MARSH CRUST ORDINANCE Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_7_MARSH CRUST ORDINANCE.DWG Page 16 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 8 UTILIDOR LOCATIONS.DWG Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 17 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31. 2013 STREET SECTION RIM '1111" AC AB 6" BELOW SUBGRADE PRECAST --N BOX CULVERT ACCESS MANHOLE 11111111111111111111 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 NOT TO SCALE 6" (TYP.) FIGURE UTILIDOR CONCEPT Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_9_UTILIDOR CONCEPT.DWG Page 18 ° a ° DEPTH VA z PIPE STRAP PIPE INVERT 6" -\._ PIPELINE 6" PIPE 1 .CRADLE 6 >, J ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 NOT TO SCALE 6" (TYP.) FIGURE UTILIDOR CONCEPT Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_9_UTILIDOR CONCEPT.DWG Page 18 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 IV. FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING A. Sea Level Rise and Adaptive Management 1. Sea Level Rise Criteria Development sites along the San Francisco Bay shoreline are susceptible to future inundation with sea level rise. These sites shall develop strategies and design solutions to provide protection from the expected impacts of climate change. To assist the planning of these projects, the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO -CAT) issued a Sea -Level Rise Guidance Document in March 2013. This document provides guidance for incorporating sea -level rise projections into planning for projects within California. The CO -CAT projections are generally recognized as the best science -based sea level rise projections for California. The CO -CAT sea level rise projections are as follows: Table 3 - CO -CAT Sea Level Rise Projections (March 2013) Time Period Amount of Sea Level Rise 2000 - 2030 1.5 - 12 inches 2000 - 2050 5 - 24 inches 2000 - 2100 17 - 66 inches Also, recently in September 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a Fifth Assessment Report on climate change. This report is an update to their Fourth Assessment Report (2007) andBeflectsB dvancementsBnBnethodologie s> ndBinderstandingsafBheBiariousRomponentslitfB eaBevelB rise, such as loss of continental ice, thermal expansion of ocean water and past sea level changes. The IPCC report concludes that the global sea level is rising and predicts a global rise between 11 and 38 inches will occur by 2100. Identifiably,BhereatillItemainsaariabilityRof3 eaflevelltiselibroj ectionsBvithinBheBcientificItommunity .B See Graph 1 summarizing the CO -CAT and IPCC sea level rise projections through to the end of the century. Generally, up to 2050 there is agreement among the various climate models for the amount of sea level rise that is likely to occur within that timeframe (i.e., 5 to 24 inches). However after mid - century, the projections of sea level rise become more uncertain and variable, primarily due to the uncertainties associated with future global greenhouse gas emissions and land ice melting rates. Therefore, for projects with timeframes beyond 2050, such as Alameda Point, it is recommended to consider adaptive capacity and» daptive„ oodlprotectionBneasuresBhatlprovidell ;hel bilityBoBdaptBolincreasedBmounts ',fBeaTevelB rise and ensure long term protection. In addition, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) updated the San Francisco Bay Plan in October 2011 to address the expected impacts of climate change in San Francisco Bay. In order to understand the potential impacts of sea level rise to the shoreline communities around the San Francisco Bay, BCDC conducted a vulnerability assessment. BCDC selected two sea level rise projections to complete this assessment, 16- inches by 2050 and 55- inches by 2100. These projections are within the range of CO -CAT sea level rise predictions. The assessment provides an understanding of the areas susceptible to inundation at these various amounts of sea level rise. From this assessment, BCDC adopted policies within the Bay Plan Amendment that include guidance for addressing future sea level rise when planning projects along the Bay shoreline. BCDC's policies require projects within their jurisdiction to evaluate the potential risks associated with sea level rise, based on the most current science. Additionally,l$ CDC' slfooliciesBndicateBhatrforojectsBvithallife I,' eyondBheBnid- centuryBhallIkavellioodB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 19 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 protection measures that can be adapted to address additional sea level rise that is projected to occur by the end of the century. SpecificBol klamedafroint, BheIM IPBecommendsBnadaptivel Managemenalanl€orBheI loodlprotectionB system. ffhetood] rotectionBneasuresBonstructedBnBheBiearBerm, BvithBnitialBlevelopment ,BhalltheB constructed with built -in protection against 18- inches of sea level rise. The 18- inches of sea level rise protectionBhallteBnadditionBaddedBo )BoB>therBloodl rotectionBriteria,BncludingBheU 00- yearBidalB elevation and wave /wind run -up. 18- inches is within the ranges of sea level rise predicted by CO -CAT and IPCC to occur by the end of the century. Graph 1 - 2013 Sea Level Rise Projection 6.0 5.5 - 5.0 - 4.5 4.0 y 3.5 - u. 00 3.0 - d 2.5 2.0 1.5 - 1.0 0.5 - 0.0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2000 Time • CO -CAT 2013 Sea Level Rise Projections IA IPCC 2013 Sea Level Rise Projections The 18 -inch initial protection criteria was selected because it balanced a number of important development considerations: • Science and Regional Policies. IsBonsistentBvithBatestBcientificlprojectionsBndIBCDCB policies; • Phasing. Allows initial phases in Development Areas to commence without costly major perimeterBmprovementsBhhatBreBBeryBlifficultlorBhellirstBnitiallphasesBoBmplementBLpB front; • Geotechnical. Addresses geotechnical soil conditions associated with the compressible Young Bay Mud in a feasible and cost effective manner; and • Financial Feasibility. BZecognizesBhatBloodliorotectionBmprovementsBreBxpensiveBndB mustlbelphasedBndB daptableBoThalancellinancialB' easibilityBndlhear- termBievelopmentB with sea -level rise protection. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 20 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 2. Benchmarking Sea Level Rise Criteria ForlplanningBffilloodlprotectionBt easuresBndBhorelineBnprovements ,Ilshelproj ectedBmount riseBvill I. e I,, enchmarkedliaddedBo)BheMesign 13 oodBriteria1fBachBpecificlinprovement .B fBeaB$evelB AtIAlameda& oint, BheBhorelineBmprovementsBtndlloodij rotectionBneasuresBvithinBhe lDevelopmentB andEReuselAreasBvillffieBlesignedBoBomplyBvithIFBMA 'sBioodiprotectionBriteria.Pf hisBloodBriteriaB includes protection from the 100 -year tidal event, wave /wind run -up and storm surge. Levees will also require an additional 2 -feet of protection above this criteria, as freeboard, providing additional factor of safety and protection. This is further outlined in the Section 6 - Site Grading Criteria. Accordingly, the floodlprotection neasuresllor1Alamedalfoint1 reIplannedI ,iasedBnllhisfEMABriteria1 1usl nlidditionalB 18- inches of sea level rise added. In summary, the MIP recommends 18- inches of sea level rise protection bel BdditionBoBhelllloodliriterialbfB 00 -year ko' dallillevation ,Bvave /windBun- upBndBtormBurge. ThereBitreStherBhorelineBmprovementsBhatBnayIiaveBessBtringentBiesignBloodBriteria .ff orBxample,B the Bay Trail planned in the Northwest Territories does not need to be designed to comply with FEMA's floodl}lrotectionBriteria.H'hisll acility1Btiay ellesignedBlsolprovidel1rotectionllromBBheliiean I,: igh1 ideBndB wave /wind run -up only. The mean high tide elevation is approximately 4 -feet lower than the 100 -year tidal elevation. In fact, BCDC's vulnerability assessment benchmarked the projected sea level rise on thel manI t ighBideBoBfarovideBnBmderstandingBfBisksBssociatedBvithlpotentialB noreF requentBloodingB with sea level rise, not the very infrequent 100 -year tidal event. Figure 10.2 is from BCDC's assessment and depicts the areas within Alameda Point that would be inundated by 16- inches of sea level rise and 55- inches of sea level rise, both added to current mean high tide. Therefore, BtBBmportantEalotellt telfiroposedEloodliirotection theasuresBt14lameda I. oint1 i11Bave :; uilt- in sea level rise protection above the mean high tide of 66- inches (18- inches plus 4 -feet) with the near term measures. 3. Proposed Sea Level Rise Protection ThereStreaBiumberB• fBloodIjrotectionBtrategiesBhatlkanffieBmplementedBvithli tdaptiveltapacitiesBoB address sea level rise. These include: •B RaiseBheBlevationsafBheBiteBolb el3t tBrBt boveBheBxpectedBioodBevelsB tndEprojectedB amount of sea level rise within the life of the project. •B ConstructierimeterBneasures, BuchBtsfoodwallsBndBevees ,BtboveBheBzxpectedfoodB levels and projected amount of sea level rise. •B Set back from the shoreline and develop on areas with existing elevations above the expected li? oodBevelsBndlprojected]mount'' fBeal$evelBise. The MIP recommends a hybrid of these strategies for Alameda Point, implementing the strategy that is most appropriate for each portion of the site. Accordingly, the Development Areas are proposed to beRaisedBoH stablishBninimumalevationsBlttTrBboveBhelitxpectedfoodBevelsilusBl 8- inchesmfBeaB levellise. Ili' heBinishBioorsBfBllBiewBtructuresBvillTeB onstructeda4- inches1BtboveBheH 00- yearBidalB elevation, providing an additional 6- inches above the initial 18- inches amount of sea level rise. For the Reuse Areas where preservation goals of the Historic District preclude interior elevations from being raised, perimeter measures will be constructed. Lastly, there are opportunities within the Project Site for future tidal wetlands to be created as sea levels rise. These areas are along the western shore of the Seaplane Lagoon and within the Northwest Territories. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 21 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 WithlthelkientificBncertaintiesBegarding elliaceBnalmountBfflatureBeaPevelBise, I.. O- CATBndBPCCB arellommittedBollontinueBolperiodicallylitpdateliheirlibrojectionsBoBeflectBheBnostaccuratelE vailableB data and theories. Therefore a sea level rise monitoring program will be established at Alameda Point to periodically review actual sea level rise amounts, trajectories, and updated projections. Iff utureBeallevelBiselitmountsBrel nticipatedBoBxceedH 8- inches,BdditionalI loodlbrotectionBneasuresB will I,, eliiplemented.H'he oodlprotectionBystemBvill Ic, elildaptivelyliesignedBoaddresslkaBevelBisefB excess of 18- inches. The adaptive measures will include preserving inland land and right of way along the perimeterl ipfBheltiteftuchBhataxistinglihorelineslindBloodwallsltouldlibelllevatedBoBnanageBealievelB rise. 1T helperimeterBmprovementsBhallibelalesignedBoltllowliorBheFfutureg loodlprotectionBneasureslloB beBvidenedlindItupportlltdditional1 eightBuchBhatBiofiillBslblacedBnBhelEay .ILtherlTdaptiveBneasuresB thatBnayffieBmplementedBncludel; aBlexibleierimeterlprotectionBneasureBhatRhiftsBnland &ndlallowsB the out board land to be converted to tidal wetlands. This type of solution is only anticipated as an option for the western shoreline of the Seaplane Lagoon and Northwest Territories. A funding mechanism to implement these future adaptive measures will be established for the Alameda Point area. A Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) will be established at Alameda Point to serve as the mechanism to monitor,liinaintainandRinplementHheildaptive I oodlprotectionBneasures. TheliearBermllindlutureliperimeterlloodlprotectionBneasuresBhall1 eBlesignedBnliccordanc eBvithBheB National Flood Protection Insurance Program (NFIP), as described in Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 65.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 4. Existing Conditions a. Existing Topography Thel&xistingBopographylifEklamedalrointBs4enerally ' atBnd I.: asltradientsBanging Ic, etween .2B and 0.75 percent. The existing elevations throughout the Project Site range between 0.5 and 9.0 (City Datum). There is an existing slight ridge in the middle of the Project Site, near Midway Avenue. The elevations of this ridge are approximately 7.0. The existing ground slopes away from this ridge either to north or the south. The existing elevations of the southeast quadrant are also elevated, an average elevation of 7.0. This portion of the Project Site includes the existing piers, which are at elevation 9.0. The low lying areas include the northern entrance to the Project Site at the Main Gate, where the elevation is approximately 1.0. Also, the areas in the northwest corner of the Seaplane Lagoon are at elevations ranging in between 2.0 and 3.4. The existing elevations of Main Street adjacent to the northeastern portion of the Project Site are also low. The lowest point of Main Street is located at the Main Street / Ferry Terminal Parking Lot intersection, which is at elevation 0.5. This portion of Main Street is drained by an existing storm drain pump station. The existing topography of the Northwest Territories generally drains northerly to the Oakland - Alameda Estuary. The existing runways are elevated and crowned, approximately at elevation 7.5, and the surrounding areas are depressed, approximately at elevations 1.5 — 5.0. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 22 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 b. Existing Areas of Potential Flooding Currently, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not included Alameda Point within a Flood Insurance Study or Flood Insurance Rate Map, since it was a federal facility. The existing areas of potential inundation will need to be mapped and adopted by FEMA. This process is currently underway through FEMA's California Coastal Analysis and Mapping Project. This studyBvillliicludeBheBhorelines fliklamedaff'ointlandliefineBheBoastalBlood I.; azardsBvithinBheB project site based on regional -scale storm surge and wave models of the San Francisco Bay. The floodl &azardsliffectinglprtionsl1fffiie „rojectBitel icludeBreasBubjectBo oodinglikiffi1eB00 -yearB tidalliiventlindBhelerimeterBhorelineBhatBsBubj ectBoBloodingBnBheH 00- yearBidallventl1ndB wave /wind run up. See Figure 10.1 depicting the approximate existing areas that are subject to the currentH 00 -year I ood I.: azardsBvithin&lamedalfoint.B Thelportionl ibffin ainl1treetBdjacentBoBheliortheasternl1ortionB fBheffroj e cat iteBsBdentifiedl sB within1Zonelil ",BreasBubj ectBoll loodingBnBheB 00- yearBvent,anf EMA'sf IRMlpanel,BlatedB 2009. As part of BCDC's Bay Plan Amendment, BCDC conducted a vulnerability assessment. This assessment indicates the low -lying areas surrounding the San Francisco Bay that would be inundated by 16- inches of sea level rise assumed to occur by 2050 and 55- inches of sea level rise assumed to occur by 2100. See Figure 10.2 depicting the areas within Alameda Point that would be inundatedl1tBheseBwolimountsB fBeaBevelBise. BtBsBmportantBoBioteBhatBhisBlgureBepresentsB that areas inundated by comparing the projected amount of sea level rise to the mean high tide. As previously stated, the 100 -year tidal elevation is approximately 4 -feet above the mean high tide. Accordingly, the areas depicted as inundated by the 100 -year tidal event on Figure 10.1 are similar to those areas depicted as inundated by sea level rise added to the mean high tide as depicted on Figure 10.2 i. 100 -Year Tide TheB. 00- yearBidalIlevationBsltstablishedtyBheBloodEfrequencyB nalysisljreparedtyB the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in October 1984. This study, titled "San Francisco Bay — H' idal3tageBersusll 'requency3tudy "BnalyzedIBhe I oodgrequencyllbasedlitponBidalBlataB throughout the Bay Area for a 129 -year period. One of the tidal gauges utilized in this analysis in located near the piers at the southeastern portion of Alameda Point. The 100 - year tidal elevation at the Alameda Point tidal gauge presented in this study is elevation 3.4. In order to account for the increased mean sea level represented between the old and new tidal epochs, the 100 -year tidal elevation is increased by 0.2 -feet to elevation 3.6 for the MIP. ii. Wave /Wind Run -Up The perimeter coastal areas within Alameda Point will be designed to account for wave/ wind run up. The prevailing winds at the Project Site are from the west, with typical speeds up to approximately 25 knots. Extreme wind conditions for the Project Site were previously calculated in the Alameda Point Golf Course EIR and are summarized in Table 4. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 23 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 z C E0-,1 z z DA Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 24 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS1BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIX6 10.1 EX AREAS OF INUNDATION.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 A: _..e.,.. - A 02:1111 _- "A- - i -s-4, 1-,_..„._ jr. I Arta pi: t rlx oxp4p f4 14 en *kpr •rt• X11* 1 E -rrich I to Irty PI •L11 lino paste nth ®I espe5aar1 to qn dppr.IIrr°M1l dQ•Inrlr.aas IVOer1 miser 11 LIE Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 25 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_10.2_SEA LEVEL RISE (BCDC).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Table 4 - Wind Conditions Return Period (Years) Wind Speed (Knots) 2 29.7 10 36.8 25 40.3 50 43.0 100 45.6 The majority of the shoreline within with Project Site is well protected from wind generated waves and from swell. The northern shoreline along the Oakland- Alameda Estuary and the Seaplane Lagoon shoreline are sheltered from the wind waves. Wave /wind run -up for these shorelines is estimated to be a maximum of 1 -foot. The shorelines along the southern edge of the Project Site, east of the Seaplane Lagoon, are directly exposed to the wind generated waves. The 100 -year wind wave heights estimated for these shorelines are approximately 4 -feet. Tsunamis The Golden Gate limits the propagation of tsunamis through the San Francisco Bay providing sheltering of Alameda Point from the majority of potential tsunami damage. San Francisco Bay has had a tidal gauge, in various locations, recording data since 1854 to present. Over this period of time, there have been approximately 50 creditable tsunamis recorded or observed in the San Francisco Bay region. Of these, only 5 produced run up that exceeded 1.6 ft. ( -1.8 City Datum) within the Bay. The best - documented tsunami events are the 1946, 1960 and 1964 tsunamis generated by distant earthquakes in Aleutian Islands, Southern Chile and Prince William Sound, Alaska respectively. The highest recorded wave height associated with a tsunami event at the Alameda tidal gauge was associated with the 1964 Alaskan tsunami event. The tidal gauge recorded a maximum wave height during this event of approximately 2.3 ft. ( -0.8 City Datum). Based on the available records from tidal gauges within the San Francisco Bay Area, this maximum event is representative of a 100 - year tsunami event. The approximate maximum wave height associated with this event is less than the 100 -year tidal elevation and therefore is below the elevation of the proposed floodlprotectionEneasureslittliklamedaBPoint. Additionally, the US Geologic Survey (USGS) recently issued a report, "Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards in California" dated March 2013, which evaluated the potential community exposure to tsunami hazards along the California coastline, including San Francisco Bay. USGS completed simulation modeling of tsunami generation, propagation and run up to determine and investigate the "worst case" type scenario. USGS determined that large ruptures along the Aleutian subduction zone is the most likely to generate the strongest tsunami within the San Francisco Bay and presents the greatest hazard,BargerRhanli nyBhtherHnodeledljotentiallIourceEtitherflocallyTrBnBheH acific.B SpecificBol Alameda, BhisBypeBbfBnodeledBsunamillvent >iiresentedBnBhisBJSGSReportB indicates that the maximum onshore run up elevation is 10.6 (City Datum). While this event is an extreme case with a low probability of occurrence, the majority of Alameda Point would be inundated by a tsunami event of this magnitude. This report concludes Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 26 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 that because of the City of Alameda's high percentage of people and businesses within the tsunami>foroneBrea,ltheWity I. as 1. ighlpotentiall orBossesBelatedBol hisBignificant I .unamiB event. Accordingly, proposed developments within the Project Site shall work with the City of Alameda emergency services to establish emergency preparedness plans and evacuation routes for Alameda Point in the case of this extreme event. iv. Wakes Large vessels associated with the Port of Oakland's activities commonly travel along the northern shoreline. Additionally, ferry vessels may enter the Seaplane Lagoon as part of theBransitBolutionsfforlAlamedaWoint .11'hisI hippingBrafficBnayTenerateBBvakesB .ipBoB approximately 1 -foot. 5. Initial Flood Protection System a. Flood Protection Criteria The oodlprotectionBriteria ;t. rl 4.lamedaRointBombineBloseButlinedByTelfEMABiithBdditionalB considerationff orBeaBevelBise. fheWEMAl Tuidelines1T orl itstablishingBheliloodfflevationsB 'aryB for shoreline areas and for inland areas. FEMA's design criteria for shoreline areas require that the floodlprotectionliieasures I,, eltstablishedBbovell teB 00 -year dalBlevationlplusl $onsiderationlliorB waveBBvindBun -up.I f thel loodlorotectionliieasureflsBl ierimeterflevee ,Bhe>i£restlilevationfiiustB include the greater of either 2 -feet above the 100 -year tidal elevation or 1 -foot above the 100 -year tidal elevation plus wave / wind run up. The FEMA design criteria for the inland areas consider onlyflhell 00- yearflidall $levation.ffheBninimumB 1evationsBA BheBnitialBloodlprotectionBystemB for Alameda Point will adhere to FEMA's guidelines plus an additional 18- inches of sea level rise. b. Development Areas ThemevelopmentBAreasRvilltbe1elevatedEtoRi chieveltheHnitialEfloodlprotectionTriteria .BrheB minimum elevations of the inland Development Areas will be designed to be at or above the 1 00- yearBida11i21evationl lusBl 8- inchesBjfBeaBevelBise. ITheHinishBloorsTfBtllBiewBtructuresB will be constructed 24- inches above the 100 -year tidal elevation, providing an additional 6- inches above the initial 18- inches amount of sea level rise. The minimum elevations of the perimeter of the Development Areas will be designed to be at or above the 100 -year tidal elevation, plus considerationll iorBvave /windBunBtplandB 8- incheslbfBea1$evelBise.H'he I oodlprotectionBneasuresB within the Development Areas will be phased consistent with the development phasing. The shorelines will be designed to dedicate the necessary right -of -way and land for the future adaptive measures that will be employed as part of Alameda Point's Adaptive Management Plan for future sea level rise in excess of 18- inches. Typically, a 50 to 90 -foot wide corridor shall be reserved along the Development Area shorelines. This future adaptive measures corridor is anticipated to encompass the Bay Trail alignment. This corridor will accommodate a future levee or I$ oodwa111dlevatedleolprovidelprotectionitromll iutureBeaBevelBise. c. Reuse Areas The Reuse Areas include historic structures and landscapes that will be preserved. Generally, many of the existing structures are elevated relative to the street elevations. A sample of the existing structure sBvasIeldBurveyed .B'hel ajorityldf» ieseB tructuresiladBnBxistingilinishllloorBlevationB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 27 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 above the 100 -year tidal elevation plus sea level rise. However, there were some existing structures inliiheliorthwestEndBouthwestltiortionsliiffitie I. rojectlSiteliihatlliaveltxistingllinish I' oorBlevationsB below the 100 -year tidal elevation plus 18- inches of sea level rise. Additionally, the majority of the existing streets within the Reuse Areas are at an elevation below the 100 -year tide. Therefore, theBnitialEfloodEprotectionitystemEforBheiReuseB\ reasitvilllibeftomprisedaffitliaerimeteritystemB ofBevees& ndUloodwalls .ffheselterimeterBneasuresB villffieBlesignedBotaveStB ;restEtlevationB that meets FEMA's guidelines, which include 100 -year tidal elevation, plus wave / wind run up, 18- inches of sea level rise plus 2 -feet of additional protection (freeboard). The construction of the initial I.? oodlprotectionEystemliorBhel ReuselAreasBvi111beldompletedBver I. melitsBlescribedBnlliheB Phasing and Implementation Section XIII. TheBrveesEndfloodwallsEiVillBe ldesignedibbeEdapted eBmountlEa uturel$eallitvellBiseBxceedsB 18- inches. Typically, a 50 -foot wide corridor shall be reserved along the Reuse Area shorelines. This future adaptive measures corridor is anticipated to encompass the Bay Trail alignment. This corridorBvi111 ccommodateBurther> itlevatingBhetinitiallhonstructionBevee> rlloodwallBolitirovideB increased protection from future sea level rise. Seeff igureff 1IllepictingBheBnitialtoodljrotectionBysteml; andBninimumEtlevationsBhroughoutB Alameda Point. d. Bay Trail - NW Territories and VA Property In general, the Bay Trail outside of the Development and Reuse Areas within the NW Territories and VA Property will be constructed along the shoreline. The minimum elevation of the Bay Trail shall be in accordance with BCDC's design guidelines for public use areas along the Bay shoreline. Generally, the Bay Trail will be constructed at an elevation above the anticipated amount of sea level rise within the design life of this facility. However, the Bay Trail within the NW Territories andWA1PropertyBreliotBxpectedBo etkonstructedliathefFEMALitandardsaffilloodlibrotectionB bermBBeveeffndBhereforeBiotEprovidingUloodlibrotectionfforBhcWA1Property .BBdditionally,BheB segment of the Bay Trail along the perimeter of the VA Property is subject to review and approval by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, if open all year outside the breeding season of the endangered California Least Tern. Other design measures for the Bay Trail may be necessary to ensure the protection of endangered and sensitive species within the VA Property. e. Stormwater System A new stormwater collection system will be constructed in phases within the Project Site. The stormwater system will include the construction of new outfall structures that include tide valves toljreventBidalBnfluencesBnBhelhystem.W orBheBowByingBvatersheds ,ljumplltationsBvillffieB constructed to minimize the depth of the stormwater pipelines and ensure stormwater discharge during extreme tides and 18- inches of sea level rise. The new stormwater system will be designed to convey the 25 -year design storm with 6- inches of minimum freeboard. Additionally, the system will accommodate the 100 -year storm with a maximum ponding in the streets of up to the top of curblitl$owlpointsli nlBheStreetlitirofiles. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 28 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR W J ■ MAIN STREET W J W V9 A313 SEAPLANE LAGOON VL A313 SAN FRANCISCO BAY PERIMETER FACILITY PERIMETER FACILITY (LEVEE) ALTERNATIVE FLEXIBLE PERIMETER FACILITY LOCATION ELEVATED INLAND DEVELOPMENT AREAS (ELEV 5.1) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 29 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES\XB 11 INITIAL FLOOD PROTECTION.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 6. Site Grading Design Criteria TheBite1 radinglalesignBriteriaBorl aeRarious oodlOrotectioniteasureskIresentedBboveBreBummarizedB in Table 5. Table 5 - Site Grading Design Criteria Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 30 Location Improvements Min. Elev. (City Datum) Design Criteria Development Areas (New Construction) Perimeter Eastern Seaplane Lagoon Raise Ex Revetment 6' 1 100 -Year Tide +18" Sea Level Rise +1' Wind/Wave West & North Project Boundary Raise Ex Headwall or Revetment 7.1 100 -Year Tide +18" Sea Level Rise +2' Wind/Wave Existing Piers Raise Ex Floodwall 9 1 100 -Year Tide +18" Sea Level Rise +4' Wind/Wave Southeast Boundary Raise Ex Revetment 9 1 100 -Year Tide +18" Sea Level Rise +4' Wind/Wave Inland Areas Adjacent to Main Street Raise Finish Grade 5' 1 100 -Year Tide +18" Sea Level Rise Areas Adjacent to Seaplane Lagoon Raise Finish Grade 6' 1 100 -Year Tide +18" Sea Level Rise +1' Wind/Wave Reuse Areas Perimeter West & North Project Boundary Construct Berm or Raise Ex Revetment 7 1 100 -Year Tide +18" Sea Level Rise +1' Wind/Wave Inland Existing Areas to Remain Existing Elevations to Remain - Existing Elevations to Remain As Is Main Street Reconstruction N W Alameda Ferry Terminal Parking Lot Entrance to Atlantic Ave. Raise Main Street 3.6 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 30 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 7. Flood Protection System Adaptations for Future Sea Level Rise a. Adaptive Measure Criteria AslpreviouslyBlescribed,Bhel iitial ' oodlprotectionBystemBvilll1rovide lip oodlprotectionfor1 pBoB 18- incheslilf BeaNtvellikse.B'heseBnitial oodliirotectionhineasuresliwilllheldesignedBolleBdaptedBfB the amount of future sea level rise exceeds 18- inches. The adaptive measures for the Development AreastkillliticludebonstructingBlperimeterBystemBfIlveesBnd i oodwalls.B'heBdaptivelieasuresB forll e l;' euse»reasBvillBncludel $ levatingl eBnitiallyBonstructedllierimeterlItvees Bnd oodwalls.B The adapted perimeter measures will be elevated to meet FEMA's guidelines with the necessary amount of sea level rise. The inland edge along the eastern boundary of Alameda Point will rely on protection1 romBeaBevelBiseBnl xcessBfEI 8- inches yBegionalilloodIprotectionBneasures1 1ongB the perimeter of the remainder of Alameda. In some locations, the location of the perimeter system may be shifted inland as part of the implementation of adaptive measures. This would allow for the creation of tidal wetlands as part of the Project's response to climate change. A funding mechanism will need to be established to generate long term funding from the Alameda Point residents and businesses to monitor sea level rise and implement the phased construction ofitheadaptivethoodEtarotectionBneasuresBoBneetEfutureltorojections.ffhisBnechanismBnaytheB GHAD. EfheffundingBmdBinancingBnechanismsBvillibeEtvaluatedlisnoartB >flTutureBievelopmentB andll< inancingBliscussions1or llamedalfoint. SeelFigureBThhrough I. igureB4B.epicting aeIuture I' oodlilrotectionBystemBnd ow1the1$daptiveB measures will be implemented for future sea level rise in excess of 18- inches. b. Stormwater System The proposed stormwater system at Alameda Point can continue to collect and convey the required design storms regardless of the amount of future sea level rise. For those watersheds that do not includelpumpBtationsBvithliheBnitialBloodl irotectionl system, BheBdaptiveBneasuresBvillBnc1udeB the construction of a pump station, such that all watersheds within Alameda Point have pump stations as part of the stormwater collection systems. The pump stations will ensure stormwater discharge to the surrounding waters in extreme tides and with any amount of sea level rise. 8. Sea Level Rise Monitoring Program AnBn- goingBea1evelBisel ionitoringBnd I.: nancing1 rogramBvill I,, eBstablishedlhorl lamedaB oint.H'hisB program may be managed through a GHAD. It will be administered through the City of Alameda and funded through the residents and businesses at Alameda Point. The program will review the sea level rise estimates prepared for the San Francisco Bay by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, as well as other relevant publications regarding updated sea level rise estimates that are available at that time. H' heBeviewBvillBstimateBvhenBmprovementsBoBheBnitialBloodlprotectionBystemBvillBieedBo eB implemented,1 onfirml8hatBufficientlliundsBvill I,, eB vailableBol$ onstructBhelinprovementsBvhenlieeded ,B and, if necessary, accelerate the construction schedule and /or funding of improvements. Initially, it is anticipated that these reviews will be conducted every 5 years, however, more frequent reviews will occur over time, especially if new regulatory requirements are created to address sea level rise or the rate of sea level rise projections increases. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 31 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 INNER HARBOR T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ MAIN STREET 1 SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY Thii z W J W J O W CC O J W W 1— U LL_ W J J 0 Cn O J (n CY W J J 0 W CC O W O O O w O 0C W 0 Q J (!) 1 1 1 1 ALTERNATIVE FLEXIBLE PERIMETER FACILITY LOCATION Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 32 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101 EXHIBITS IBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 12 ADAPTED FLOOD PROTECTION.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 IMPROVEMEN 25' FLOOD PROTECTION J J W LLJ uJ CL EX HEADWALL 3.2± - H \ I I w U) O I'7 \ Q Q O m LLJ CW W - _ \ o �I N I MHW -0.36 RAISE HEADWALL J (3 � o d o U 0 z a Cd o© O 1' p 00 CD Q 5c Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 33 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_13_ADAPTIVE MEASURES (HEADWALL - BCDC).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 55-85'± FLOOD PROTECTION EASEMENT N 3 O qj cn w O m w cL co N >H FREEBOARD N D CO w O O co r7 O N J RAISE BERM OR Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 34 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_14_ADAPTIVE MEASURES (BERM - BCDC).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 9. FEMA Floodplain Initially, the existing areas of potential inundation within Alameda Point will need to be mapped and adopted by FEMA. As previously stated, this process is currently underway through FEMA's California CoastalBmnalysisB .ndBvlappingwroj ect. BmtB: heB: imeB: hatRiesigntflTlooditorotectionBneasureslsffieingB completed, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be processed and approved by FEMA. ThewLOMRBvillBiemonstratef EMA' sB; oncurrenceBhatBlesignmfBhelllood ljrotectionBneasuresBvillB removeBhelforoposedBlevelopmentBreasllromBheBloodliones. l3DnceBheBloodfforotectionBneasuresl iaveB been)constructed,Bllield} urveyBannbeBompletedBoBlocumentliheBis- builtBlevationsafBheselfacilities .B ThisBnformationvvillteStsedBol rocessaFfina1] 1etterTfBvIapERevisions $LOMR),IDnceBheILOMRBsB approvedBy I EMA,theffIRMiane11ii11Bel 2evisedllbldepictTeBonstructed ood>irotectionldieasuresBndB removeBhelprotectedBreas lfromBhe oodplain .ffhe1CLOMRBnd1LOMRliian 10 elpreparedBndlirocessedB in phases with the development phasing. 10. Earthwork Quantities The site grading activities will include the geotechnical corrective measures to stabilize the site and site grading to achieve minimum elevations described above. The estimated earthwork quantities of these activitiesHsapproximatelyr25 ,000RubicByardstfB;utlrndBl , 800, 0008; ubic1 'ardslIflill.Bfherefore,BtB is estimated that approximately 1,775,000 cubic yards of import material will be required in order to complete the necessary site grading including a surcharge operation discussed in SectionlV.B.2.c. The import materials may be either trucked or barged to the Project Site, depending on available sources. See Figurel 5BIepictingBheBreasBvhereth11BnaterialBsBequiredBnarderBol ;AchieveBheBninimumBlevationsB specifiedlinBheBitelradingliesignlitriteria .H'hislaloesliotBicludeEhe I.: 11BnateriallitiatEnaybeBequiredlforB the Bay Trail outside of the Development and Reuse Areas. The geotechnical corrective measures and site grading will be phased with the development phasing. The surcharge operation will likely include additional sub - phases in order to optimize and minimize the amount of import and export of materials for this operation. B. Geotechnical Conditions 1. Subsurface Conditions TheBubsurfaceBonditionsl$ tliklamedal fointl enerallyltonsist'' flirtificial I,,111dIfB'arying1 aickness.H'oungB BayB✓ IudlizxistsB> eneathBheBfillBnBhelportionsafBhelfiteBoBheBiorthafBhelltieaplanef Lagoonl vithBheB greatest thickness of approximately 130 feet. Merritt Sand and the San Antonio formation sand exist directlyBeneathlie 111iinitieBoutheasternIportionilflitieBite,Bpproximatelylii013o130Neetffilitickness,litndB dipping beneath the Young Bay Mud to the north and the west. Yerba Buena Mud, also commonly called Old Bay Mud, lies beneath the San Antonio formation. Due to site elevations and proximity to the San Francisco Bay, the site has relatively shallow groundwater. Based on historic groundwater measurements, the groundwater is approximately 4 to 6 feet below existing grade of the site. Much fBaelixisting I.: 111itndBomelaflfhelMerritt3andl$lepositsBrelpotentially Ic quefiable.H'helYoung I ayB MudldepositslireThtighlylaompressiblelilnderl$ oadsBssociatedBvith1ffi11BndIbuildings .H'helYoung I ayl$✓IudB is also soft, typically leading to relatively low stability of cuts and slopes as well as low bearing capacity. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 35 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 F:41 � 1R LEGEND 1 Q' -1' PRD FILL 1' -2' PROD F1LL 24 PROPOSED F1LL ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN Or Cr£. /Ii: A!21 +E Ledii' - m y rggtl9y � _ �l ralya "mr�g� Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 15 FILL AREAS MAP GAON•10U A[ 1110111Bf1;3 K WE ALT • rG.11M.4'? °,1 1. /11! 14 Page 36 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 2. Geotechnical Considerations The main geotechnical considerations for Alameda Point are commonly encountered at waterfront development sites throughout the Bay Area. The considerations include: •B Shoreline Slope Stability •B Liquefaction •B Compressible Soils •B Underground Utility Construction These considerations and proposed corrective measures are discussed below. A design -level geotechnical analysisBolIonfirmBhelhecessaryl orrectiveli7ieasuresBhalllbelibreparedasIpartafBhel lesignIprocessafB proposed improvements. a. North Shoreline i. Slope Stability The northern shoreline of Alameda Point is adjacent to a portion of the Port of Oakland's shipping channel. The historical dredging of the shipping channel has resulted in the northern shoreline having a steep slope below the water surface, down to the bottom of the channel. In 2009, the Port of Oakland completed a project deepening and widening the Inner and Outer Harbor shipping channels. This project included deepening of the shipping channel along the northern shoreline of Alameda Point. The static slope stability and seismic performance of the northern shoreline was evaluated through the permitting process of the Port's recent project. The Port analyzed the slope stability of various locations along the northern shoreline of Alameda Point. The locations of the cross sections the Port analyzed are shown on Figure 16. The Port's analysis concluded that the static stability of cross section I -I' was marginal and the seismic performance was poor with potential deformations at all seismic levels. The seismic performance of cross section J -J' was concluded to be good at the channel limit but poor at the shoreline. The additional cross sections adjacent to the Northwest Territories , F -F', G -G', and H -H', were found to be stable under static conditions. But, the seismic conditions were also predicted to experience deformations at these cross sections. In summary, the Port's analysis indicated that the northern shoreline was marginally stable in static conditions, but had predicted deformations to occur in seismic conditions. As part of the MIP, additional analyses of the slope stability of cross sections I -I' and J -J' have been conducted to verify the Port's conclusions. The MIP slope stability calculations confirml atthel iorthernBhorelineBlopesBdjacentl >1vthelDevelopmentBnd I.' euseli reasBreB marginallyBtableBmderldurrent> conditions.» nyllewB oadsNromlfilllplacement »rlhuildingsB within 50 feet of the northern shoreline would likely have an impact on static slope stability. Additionally, the MIP calculations also predict deformations under seismic conditions, ranging from 6- inches to over 3 -feet, which are considered seismically "unstable" under the California Geological Survey presented in Special Publication 117A (SP117A). According toBhesel guidelines ,Buchlieformationitmay I,' eBufficientBo liiauseBeriousIroundlarackingB or enough strength loss to result in continuing (post seismic) failure." Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 37 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 MAIN STREET I— VD W W ow E- z SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY NORTHERN SHORELINE CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 38 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_16_N SHORELINE (CROSS - SECTIONS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Deformations could extend more than 1,000 -feet from the shore at cross section I -I' and approximately 200 -feet at cross section J -J'. The distance of potential deformation for the portion of the northern shoreline adjacent to the Northwest Territories is approximately 200 -feet. Lateral stability issues at the shoreline are not unique to this site and are found in other sites with similar subsurface conditions along the border of the San Francisco Bay. The amount of potential displacement and potential distance from the shoreline are exacerbated by the adjacent dredge cut in the channel. The amount of displacement and distance from theBhorelinelkantelefined &sljartTfBhe> roj ectillesignthyliaerformingadditionalffieldB exploration and soil testing along with using more advanced analytical methods, such as numerical modeling. See Figure 17 depicting the approximate zones of deformation along the northern shoreline in seismic activities. ii. Corrective Measures For the portion of the northern shoreline adjacent to the Reuse and Development Areas and thelSportsWomplexliBignificantBetbackEfromBheBhorelineBsBioefeasible.also,aptionsB have been evaluated to minimize the length of the northern shoreline that will be stabilized, including limiting the improvements to only adjacent to Pump Station R. However, there are multiple existing critical components of infrastructure, such as Main Street for site access, Pump Station R and the 20 -inch force main, within the zone of potential deformation. Therefore, strengthening of the shoreline will be necessary in these areas to reduce the loss or damage of these facilities in a seismic event. The most cost effective shoreline stabilization measure is anticipated to be performing ground improvement such as soil/ cementBnixing. S3ecauseTothBheBiquefiableBill1nd lYoungf ayB✓IudBmpactBheBeismicB slope stability, the soil /cement mixing will need to extend about 40 feet below the ground surface to the bottom of the Young Bay Mud layer. To appropriately improve shoreline stability it is estimated that the soil treatment may need to be performed on 15 to 30 percent of the soil volume over an area between 20 to 30 feet wide. Other shoreline improvement measures,Buchl sal1evee1nd io oodlprotectionBystem1 ould I,, el onstructedBnlitonjunctionB with the improvement area. An alternative to soil /cement mixing would be construction of a structure, such as a deep bulkhead wall. There are no corrective measures proposed for the remainder of the northern shoreline adjacent to the Northwest Territories. This area is generally planned for passive open space uses that can accommodate the potential deformations in a seismic event. Any critical or important improvements or amenities planned within the Northwest Territories shall be located outside of the zone of deformation. Otherwise, additional shoreline stability measures will be required in these areas. b. Liquefaction i. Liquefiable Soils Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. The previous explorations at the site encountered sand and silty sand deposits thatBouldlilotentially 'quefyanderBeismicBoading.l hallow I 'quefiableBoill host I, kelyB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 39 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY z NORTHERN SHORELINE CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS ZONE OF POTENTIAL DEFORMATION 11 J Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 40 L DEFORMATION).DWG FIGURESIXB 17 N SHORELINE (POTENT EXHIBITSIBASE CASE A 6 U 0 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 to vent to the surface in the form of sand boils. Sand boils were observed in portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. An evaluation of liquefaction potential was performed for the Project Site. The results indicateBhatBandflndBiltyBandlilllriaterialflndBlativeBlepositsflrelpotentially I i quefiableB down to 40 feet below existing grades. These analyses also indicate that the potentially liquefiableBoillhouldBettlelislitauchlisfl flinches. 1anBhowingBheBlepthB f liquefiableB soil material within the Project Site is provided as Figure 18. ii. Corrective Measures The amount of potential liquefaction settlement and lateral spreading are greater than typical structures and infrastructure can tolerate without corrective measures. Ground improvement techniques will likely be necessary to reduce the liquefaction potential of the sandy deposits at the Project Site to levels that improvements can be designed to tolerate. LiquefiableBoi11 an Ic el$ddressed I,, yltitherl$ lynamiclhnpact/ vibrationBol$lensifyBheBoil''rB mixinglivithliiementBo> create lloneslilfBton- liquefiableBoil.fl heBuccesslifBlynamicBmpactB methodsBlepends nBheBlsinesl dontentB& fBheBandlindBhellepthlbfBhel$iquefiableB iaterial.B The following are 4 methods of corrective measures that may be implemented to address liquefiableBoils1 Seek; letailed1Blescriptions ''Mach',fBheseli$ieasuresl l ppendixli): •B Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) •B Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) •B Vibratory Replacement •B Soil / Cement Mixing In the Development Areas, DDC will be the most applicable and cost effective liquefaction mitigation method. DDC results in relatively large noise and vibration impacts, so a buffer zone of up to 100 feet will be necessary from any existing structures to minimize impacts. Inside this buffer zone, other ground improvement methods such as rapid impact compaction, vibratory replacement or soil /cement mixing will be implemented. In the Reuse Areas, liquefaction mitigation measures will be constrained by existing structures and utilities. Ground improvement techniques are not possible for existing buildings; therefore, potential liquefaction induced settlement must be mitigated structurally. Where new utilities are to be installed, RIC could be used to densify the top 15- feet ofBiquefiableBnaterial, IindBheBitilitiesTRouldffieBlesignedBoB vithstandI ettlementfipBoB 8- inches and differential settlement up to 4- inches. Alternatively, vibratory replacement or soil /cement mixing could be used in these areas to reduce settlement of utilities and other improvements; total and differential settlement using these approaches would be less than using RIC. Based on typical construction costs, ground improvement using RIC will likely beBheBnostl ostlBfficientflolutionBhoughlhtherl roundBmprovementBnethodsBvouldBheB morel ffectiveBn> i; lecreasinglpotentialBettlementBvhereBiquefiableBoillIsB leeperlBhanfl 5- feet. Existing utilities that will remain in place can be supported by grouting underneath the utility. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 41 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 ALAMEDA CO Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 42 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 18 LIQUEFIABLE SOILS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 c. Compressible Soil i. Young Bay Mud Soft, highly compressible Young Bay Mud deposits were encountered in the previous explorations at the Project Site. See Figure 19 depicting the depth of the base of the Young Bay Mud throughout the Project Site. The locations and thicknesses of these deposits are variable, ranging from nil to over 130 -feet in thickness. The Young Bay Mud can settle due toBoadingffrom& nyBiewBillarEfromBiewBtructures lconstructed]EtBheBite.ff he1EmountB of settlement is a factor of load and thickness of Young Bay Mud. Assuming the Young BayB✓ IudBsBiormallyBonsolidated ,BettlementBanBeBsl reatBB72- footBorBachBoot'' f11�i11B placed over the thickest areas of Young Bay Mud. While the majority of settlement from newBoadsBvill appenBilthell rstBlfoal* earsBfterBonstruction ,BalieBreasBtlPheBliickestB Young Bay Mud, settlement can continue for a period of 50 years or more. ii. Corrective Measures Depending on the type of buildings planned at the Project Site, corrective measures of the compressible Young Bay Mud deposits may be feasible. One measure that can be used to mitigate the loading from small, relatively lightweight structures is pre - consolidation ofBr ompressibleBnaterialBhroughnill urchargelprogram .BSurchargefillDsEplacedaboveB design grade elevations in areas of the site where pre - consolidation measures are necessary toBeduceBettlement. fheBurchargeBillBemainsBnilacefforBiieriodBufficientBoBillowB the desired degree of consolidation to be achieved, such that the risk of settlement is sufficientlyReducedfforBhel lannedBtructure.1 urchargingBvillinduceBomeBettlementB in adjacent areas; therefore, it may not be feasible to use surcharge as a compressible soil corrective measure in areas near existing structures and utilities. Likewise, surcharging of initial phases of construction should be placed wider than the footprint of the construction area so that subsequent phases of surcharge do not cause settlement of already constructed areas. Accordingly, surcharge areas of initial phases should be overbuilt by at least 20 feet laterally from the improvement area. The amount of time necessary to effectively mitigate compressible soil through surcharge is directly related to the thickness of the compressible soil deposit. Where the Young Bay Mud is thicker than about 20 feet, it is likely that wick drains may be desired to shorten the drainage path of the compressible deposits and accelerate the surcharge program. Wick drains are small drain lines that provide a conduit for the water to escape the Young Bay Mud layer. By doing so, the voids created by the removed water accelerate the consolidation process. TheBypicalBimell ramesBhatBheBurchargefkllBsBequiredBo I', efieftBnlblaceBvithoutBvickB drains can range from 1 to 2 years. Whereas, with the use of wick drains this time frame can be reduced to approximately 6 to 9 months. ABurchargeliprogramBslkenerallyBotBfficientfforBtructuresBvithibearingl iressuresBverB 750 to 1,000 pounds per square foot. In these cases deep foundation systems deriving support from below the Young Bay Mud could be suitable at the Project Site. Where deep foundationsBreBsed, BtilitiesBhouldBncorporateBlexibleBonnectionsBsBhe I,,uildingBvillB not settle with the surrounding soil. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 43 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 NOLLVHO1dX3 110S 1N3HHf10 JO IIW11 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONTOURS OF EQUAL THICKNESS OF YOUNG BAY MUD DEPOSIT (FEET) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 44 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 19 YOUNG BAY MUD DEPOSITS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 DutsideIDfBheffiuildingBreas, Bidditionalffi111f 'romlgradingBoB-aisel hel reasaboveBheB floodinglitlevationslwi111ik1soBnducel onsolidationBettlementlefBhel Youngl $ aylMud,BndB other measures may be necessary to mitigate potential settlement that could adversely affect site improvements (i.e., streets, parking areas, drainage, underground utilities, concrete 1, atwork, latc.) .1TheBelectedIiitigation13vi11T artly1 ependl1nBvhatBevel''fBiskBsB acceptable, and could range from: •B Acceptance of settlement risk and periodic maintenance, •B Implementation of a surcharge program to pre - consolidate the soil and Reduce long term settlements, •B UseBfBightweightl illBsBompensationBoadBoBeducelkttlement ',rB •B Critical utilities could be supported on cement/soil mixed columns. A surcharge program is anticipated to be implemented in the Development Areas. The surcharge will achieve the amount of pre - consolidation to reduce the risk of settlement associatedavithRheatructures13andffillanateriallEplannedPforithesePareas.BTheaurchargeB programBvillBncludeBhothBhelibuildingBreas ,Btreet> reasBndliberimeterBloodliorotectionB measure areas. This program is intended to eliminate the potential for long term settlement within the Development Areas. Wick drains will be implemented as part of the surcharge program for areas with Young Bay Mud thicker than 20 feet or when surcharge time frames are desired to be accelerated. New structures proposed within the Reuse Areas will be constructed on a deep foundation system. New utilities will be designed to accommodate the anticipated remaining amount of potential long -term settlement. The design considerations for utilities within these areas includeliiroviding li' exible e intsBnd /orl icreasedliiipeBlopesBoBiaintainitIositivearadientsB forltravitylpipelinesllhouldltettlementlIccur. BThelterimeterBioodlprotectionBneasuresB surrounding the Reuse Areas will either be surcharged or be supported on a soil /cement mixed corridor. d. Underground Utilities i. Utility Trench Shoring & Bedding Due to the soft nature of the Young Bay Mud, excavations that extend into Young Bay Mud deposits may become unstable. Installation of temporary sheet piles or the use of a shield or continuous hydraulic skeleton shoring should be anticipated for excavations that extend below a depth of about 3 to 5 feet. Additionally, increased pipeline bedding measures will be required in order to achieve a stable foundation for installing the pipeline. This may include a thickened section of base below the pipeline with fabric or other measures as recommended by a geotechnical engineer. ii. Trench Dewatering Shallow groundwater is expected at the site and trench excavations may encounter perched groundwater. Therefore, utility trench excavations may require temporary dewatering during construction to keep the excavation and working areas reasonably dry. In general, excavations should be dewatered such that water levels are maintained at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation prior to and continuously during shoring installation and the backfi111 rocessBoBontrolBheBendencyforBheffiottomfbfBheBxcavationBoBieaveBinderB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 45 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 hydrostaticlOressuresl andlibBeduceBnflowlilf BoillarliaterEromlheneath i -mporaryBhoring.B Dewatering for underground utility construction will likely be accomplished by pumping from sumps. Utility trenches adjacent to existing improvements should include a low permeability cutoff toleduceBheBisklIfBnadvertent >rroundwaterBlowlilongl ermeablerbeddingTrffiackfill.B In these areas dewatering may not be an option; therefore, a relatively impervious shoring system of tight interlocking sheet piles, or other impervious wall type, can be utilized to reducelfiltration1BluringBonstruction. 1) In addition, possibility of encountering contaminated soil and groundwater should be considered during underground construction and addressed in accordance with the SMP developed for Alameda Point. C. Value Engineering Opportunities ABi aluellngineeringTpportunityBhafft ouldffieBmplementedfforBheljroposedBioodljrotectionfineasuresBsBoB minimize the length of the northern shoreline that is proposed to be stabilized to only those areas necessary to protect the critical components of infrastructure. These areas to be stabilized would be from Pump Station R, near Main Gate, and easterly along Main Street to protect the 20 -inch force main and site access. The portion of the northern shoreline adjacent to the Sports Complex where the potential zone of deformation is only 200 -foot wide couldlheBiaintainedlikaslixistingBonditiontIndBotBtabilized .1The*roposedl3erimeter li oodljirotectionBieasuresB would be setback from the zone of potential deformation, approximately 200 -feet from the shoreline. Areas exteriorBoBielperimeter oodl OrotectionBzeasureBvi1111leBubject11 3oll oodingB sigh dallTventsliirlvithlllutureBeaB level rise. The improvements of these exterior areas would be passive landscaping that could be converted to tidal wetlands if future sea level rise inundates these areas. Effectively, this would reduce the active areas of the Sports Complex from 44 acres to approximately 25 to 30 acres. Assuming that the length of the Northern Shoreline Stabilization is decreased by 1,500 feet, the backbone infrastructure construction costs would be reduced by approximately $5.5 million. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 46 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 V. STREET SYSTEM The City of Alameda adopted a Transportation Element of the General Plan in 2009. The Transportation Element describes) ariousBlassificationsRorMeStreetBystemBvithinlilamedaWointbasedBiponitheBxistingBtreetBystemB framework. The MIP proposes a street system framework to enhance the integration of Alameda Point with the circulation and multi -modal elements within the rest of Alameda's street system. The following describes the updatesBoBheH 'ransportationlilementBoBeflectl helproposedBtreetBystemlitEklamedal toint. A. Existing On -Site Street System The existing street system at Alameda Point includes a variety of street types. Street types range from industrial serving streets to residential streets. The framework of the existing streets has multiple connections to Main Street, a regional arterial. The existing system also extends three east -west island arterials into Alameda Point, including Stargell Avenue, West Atlantic Avenue (the MIP uses the current street name for W. Atlantic Avenue, butBtliIsBnticipated1olleBfficiallyBhangedEo I. alphlAppezzatolMemorial I. arkwayBimilarlioll el1ast)Bnd I. acificB Avenue. The framework of the existing system ranges from circuitous areas in the northeast portion of the Project Site to a grid system in the northwest and southeast portions of the site. See Figure 20 depicting the existing street framework within Alameda Point. The existing streets were designed by the Navy with expansive areas of pavement for the movement of large airplanes, trucks and materials. Accordingly, the existing street system does not easily facilitate pedestrian and bicycle uses. Not all existing streets include sidewalks and where sidewalks do exist, they are generally narrower than current City standards. In some locations, sidewalks are in poor condition with obvious effects of settlement, resulting in non - accessible paths of travel. The existing paved portions of the streets are usable, but in varying levels of need for rehabilitation. The existing streets have evidence of wear beyond the pavement service life. There are also areas of abandoned rail line crossings that have not been removed or improved. The existing streets require rehabilitation or reconstruction to extend the service life and usability. An important additional consideration is that the existing streetscape and alignments within the Historic District of the Project Site contribute to the historic quality of this resource. B. Proposed On -Site Street System The redevelopment of Alameda Point as a proposed transit - oriented community is designed to provide a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that promotes all modes of transportation, emphasizing walking, bicycling and direct and convenient access to high quality transit options. The proposed street system at Alameda Point will de- emphasize the automobile, provide protective bikeways and will be consistent with the City's Complete Street Ordinance (Resolution 14763) to provide for safe, comfortable and convenient travel for all transportation users. The proposed street system facilitates the integration of the historical Reuse Areas within Alameda Point to the surrounding street system in the adjacent portion of Alameda. The proposed street system includes the construction of new streets within the Development Areas and the rehabilitation / reconstruction of existing streets within the Reuse Areas. The proposed framework will maintain the east -west system of island arterials ,BncludinglltargellBwenue ,)Atlantic) Avenue, B' acificlAvenuelindliCentrallAvenue .PfhelEproposedl treetB framework is a grid pattern extending the City's street network into the Project Site. See Figure 21 depicting theljaroposedBon- sitetackboneStreetBystemfframeworkBvithinBdlamedalPoint. IThisffigureBloesBiotBlepictBheB additional in -tract / on -site streets that will be constructed within each development block. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 47 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 REDLINE AVE TOWER AVE IS HAYMOW ATLANTIC AVENUE SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY WEST TICONDEROGA AVE WEST HORNET AVE EXISTING STREET O 0 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 48 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 20 EX STREET FRAMEWORK.DWG U z dE- / ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 o d ¢3 N d 2 w P. W d 6 ed. d a O a w ■ ; 7� w J 1 IS V90,LVIIVS J J LS NOIDNIX3'I MIDWAY AVE aw TOWER AVE IS H3NVNOw c 7. 7' C- 2.1 z L33N.LS NOINO a z F SEAPLANE LAGOON HORNET AVE LSV113NV'IdV3S SAN FRANCISCO BAY w C7 PROPOSED STREET - TO BE CONSTRUCTED PROPOSED STREET - TO BE REHABILITATED EXISTING STREET Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 49 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 21 PROPOSED STREET FRAMEWORK.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 ThelfIroposedl3treetBystemEncludesBl iarietylaf ikreetkilassifications .H,hel3treetl lassificationslitxelhasedlanlilioseB definedI nBheffransportationWlementT orl1heWity'' f»lameda. 1. Street Classifications The proposed street system includes a Regional Arterial, Island Arterials, Island Collectors and Local Streets. 135eeEFigure1322B1epictingRhel? roposedfftreetflassificationsRvithinmlamedaWoint .BTheB;treetB classificationsBareB stablishedBoirovideStlhtreet lystemBvith& dequateBrafficB ;apacity,ffiikeffacilities,B transitffacilitiesffndBruckltoutes .BrhelhtreetlhectionsPaf i achlIfEtheseBndividuallhtreetB ✓lassificationsB wi11BheBinalizedBhroughBhelTuturel ialanningl/processesa f eachhbub- DistrictBvithinlAlamedaB 'oint.ElleB MIP has prepared street sections as depicted on Figure 23 and Figure 24 to present the transportation componentsBequiredBvithinBachBtreetBegment lilndll eIfiroposedllwidths. H 'hellinalBtreetBectionsBhallbeB substantially consistent with these presented in the MIP, but may be adjusted to meet the needs of the City andl1vera1111roject.H'he I.: nalEtreetBectionsHorlaachliareeditegmentEvill elipprovedBvithIiiachIilespectiveB development. The existing street pattern within the Reuse Areas will be maintained in order to preserve the historic street grid and streetscapes. The street sections have been designed consistent with "complete streets" principles to facilitate a range of transportation uses as well as maintaining compliance with the currentll;'ireWodesalso, I.: afficBalmingl eaturesBvill I, eIprovidedBol inproveBndlpromotellhelpedestrianB and bicycle experience. New streets will be constructed within the Development Areas. This new system of streets will be tree - lined and designed to mirror the patterns and appearance of historic Alameda. See Figure 23 depicting draft conceptualltrossflectionsfforBheBrarious> treet> lassificationsBvithinBhelDevelopmentBAreas ,BncludingB MainStreet,EnTest) tlanticlAve,B'acificl velAndWIrionStreet. The proposed street system will maintain the historic character of the existing streets within the Reuse Areas of the Project Site. The pavement areas will be repurposed to achieve the objectives of the Project Site street system. Generally, existing travel lanes will be narrowed in order to accommodate protected bike facilities. See Figure 24 depicting the conceptual street sections for the existing streets within the Reuse Areas. These streets will be rehabilitated including pavement resurfacing, pavement section replacement, sidewalk replacement and accessibility improvements. The rehabilitation of the streets within the Reuse Areas will be completed over time as described in the Phasing and Implementation Section XIII. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 50 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 w w REDLINE AVE wI ->t I g I LS HAN NON TOWER AVE SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY WEST' HORNET AVE ISLAND COLLECTOR LOCAL STREET Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 51 G:11087- 10WCAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 22 PROPOSED STREET CLASSIFICATIONS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 III CLASSIFICATIONS J LLJ w w O Q U) U (1) w CC CC CL I— U • • • • 0 w X w X w w CC N X w X W J w > Q CC I— /) U w W C2 U) X w 2' BUFFER NB TRAVEL* O w J J SB TRAVEL* CC ° ?G' 4,�i W w S Cdr 0 q;; °" o J. ei ,,, z Q S , >'' 'tip — �, W w CL w X w 0 X w Q w O w M W z ~ Cfl • Cr) ILL J O X W CL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: MAIN STREET w w CC CD cn o z_ U � Z w W O (2 w w Q o > o Q < O w z w J LI W CD Z ~ 1 O H- w J Z I- Q Q Q U) I- - < CLLLJ o fY U LI- TO MAIN GATE 00 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 52 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 53 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 ■Nowil (111WEI LIR w cip CLASSIFICATIONS N X w W > X w J w CC 1 �N U W LLJ Li_ --...,..„w +I w d- J Q ›— ¢ CO J U Z J J ~_ u CO Q LLJ CO J Z > - w LC) O I- X N J w O w LLJ ZQ w _ CC I— O Q zQC)U Q o icL d I— U • • • • w 01111r3r._ J MAIN STREET TO ATLANTIC U U Q 0_ C Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 54 0 0 1— Z w a 0 L.1.1 L.1.1 Cl CO z 0 U W CO W W 1- N MI NI ca CO CO W H Q w a U w co LLJ Q co ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN APEMEN MI 1 CLASSIFICATIONS J ~ < Cr) CC LLJ Q o >_ 12L Q � � J CC cL • • • • UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 ° 00 z �o a d o g efq as � o � U o Q0 Q e UV Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 55 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 ( WIPE= W J Cr) O O CLASSIFICATIONS REGIONAL ARTERIAL W C/) J U X W J m Cr) er U) J • • • o 1 • w 1- CO Z O LiE n ,r_ 0 r ¢ uJ w CO WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 56 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ( I I Pon I CLASSIFICATIONS UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 PACIFIC AVENUE z6 a � 00 0 co m d o elq w as o � U 0 Q0 Q e UV Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 57 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 J O Cr) O O CLASSIFICATIONS W In ,H z: Lai J U w CC N CO 0L w CO o � W 0_ u- E co cn O J W > CC CO DO CD CC CL W CL Cn W W w CO N a 1- 11 , • CI) w TRAVEL LANE NOTE: CL O� ¢ W CL w �¢ o 0 CC W W CD D cn�wUrj CD >- w co C.) o ¢ z J J — � W W CO cD CO O 0- J - ~ CL ¢ ¢ F- < (/) W U) W W �Q CC I- Z 0 O cn ¢¢� J (/� m —I I— CD > W = J ¢o ¢ IY I— O = U) V (I) CC HO w � z CD C) W W CC ¢ m w >- J C7 Lu - Z_ > I— Lei w o MING NOTE: L..) TO BE INCORPORATED. U) 1 CO J CO CO CC O Lil W CC (1) W TRAFFIC CALMING Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 58 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 W J U (f) O O CLASSIFICATIONS W ckAtia TRAVEL LANE NOTE: 1Q LJ- O� Q w o_ p � w ¢ 0 p p 6 W w (J) w O ▪ >_ W COz O o J u J LLJ W CO > O m O J - ▪ I— CL ¢ ¢ H- < (/) W (f) - ¢ CL CC =LOCI) O cn W • c/) o - CO > ▪ W ▪ = J ¢f ¢ CC I— o I— CT) N) v) ISLAND COLLECTOR CC w w CC O W (n W J J W CC w MING NOTE: TO BE INCORPORATED. W CC Cr) ¢ W TRAFFIC CALMING Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 59 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 =� tSTREET CLASSIFICATIONS III`I • LOCAL STREET ,.I • CLASS 3B BIKE FACILITY III KEY MAP MIMI NOT TO SCALE R/W R/W 44? 56' R/W 4ser, N,' lfl 5' _ /1i 5' -1 8' 10' 10' 8' : '� a5;F 5" � 5; WALK . LDA / PARKING TRAVEL & TRAVEL 8c PARKING;iVLDA/ `L LK - "4'4, ' d. N, a:�` �:, tr1. �. z �`'— ',BI0zr BIKE SHARROW BIKE SHARROW BI 5, g \,, it mown - ■ ` 11 LOCAL STREETS TRAVEL LANE NOTE: PARKING NOTE: TRAVEL LANES SHALL BE INCREASED TO 13' FOR SHARROWS STREETS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS GREATER THAN WHEN TRAVEL LANES ARE GREATER THAN 10' 30' HIGH (OR AS APPROVED BY FIRE DEPT) AND WIDE, PARKING MAY BE REDUCED TO 7'. SHALL BE STRIPED AS 10' LANES. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG Page 60 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN C MONNE MEI w J U V) O O CLASSIFICATIONS • • • wCC UPDATED DRAFT Pctoher 31 2013 w J w CO � Z CD J W O V) w � Y CD maleT,.�S;Q U, LOCAL STREETS BIKE LANES H 0 zz Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 61 0 1- z w a 0 w w z 0 U W N W w cc co coMI X 0) w LL J w U w CO m 1- x Q U co U ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN W J O V) O O CLASSIFICATIONS w J CC • J_ ~ O V) Q CC Z J W J LJ r m CC U) 0 N J Z (/) Q O V) O O Q LLJ _J OJ V) O UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 TRAVEL LANE NOTE: LOCAL STREET 0 ice) O D J V) J CC O J m J J (/) V) J J J J O J U (/) J J CC J J CC L_ CO J 0 CC CL CL V) CC 0 C_D O r7 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 62 0 1- z w a 0 W W z 0 U W N W cc W co MI NI m X 0) W 0 F J W U W m 1- 0 U 0 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 IP, MEI CLASSIFICATIONS cn Qo w U) W CC U rr) U r) N In waga J 3 W Y m L T H zz ■-4 1-� vi W J C) U7 D W CL CC F- U) W CO Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 63 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 •-< I I tI CLASSIFICATIONS >- 1— LLJ LLJ — LLJ M CC M (f )(N 0 —I c.) • • SEAPLANE (NORTH) cJD " 0 P-4 c/ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 64 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 w J v CA O ZID CLASSIFICATIONS 1- J_ U LL- C/) Luz — w Q — w m CC I- • < J Q U") Q — (n — OJ d U • • • TRAVEL LANE NOTE: WEST HORNET AVENUE o� • • Q w • • w O F- Q w L, ▪ w w (l7 ▪ L_ w > O - w cm z zJ o w w m m O O D CC d J ▪ I- CL Q < I— < = Z Cr) U Q 0_ w Q • Q H- Z O O U) Q w J ▪ I- CO m w = J < o _ < I- Cr) r') (n Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 65 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 CLASSIFICATIONS J o U) J Q J Q LJ m J m ¢ • ¢ N z U) z p Cr) U) C.) • • • WEST MIDWAY AVENUE Qo o� bJ w ¢ w CI-' W C' a (/) (/7 Li CD LJ >- W Co - 5 w m LJJ o CO 0D J ▪ I- CL ¢ ¢ I- < = Z 0 Q LU UJ = z :(-)Ljj< o cn ¢� J W J I- CD m LJ = -J ¢ - ¢ CC o = Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 66 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 CLASSIFICATIONS z � Cc w J m J =�. > Q LJ_ < Cf) CC 0 LC I- Q m ■ z w cn O w U CD CC Z Q J W I— CC J Cn U) (n I— O to • • • W cp 0 r-� I-� 0 0 4 EXISTING CO AT TRUCK ROUTE, 10' TRAVEL IS INCREASED TO 11' Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 67 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPD;4TED DRAFT CLASSIFICATIONS LU w GO J Q >_ O • ~ ▪ J \ U O L W W m 0< - N z J J • U • • VEL LANE NOTE: E-� 0 w W Cr U W CO J J Cr) GO W J J W CC O 0 U 0 GO W W CC cn Cr O Li 0 0 r7 CC W W Cr CD Cr) CD 0 0 CO GO 0 W W_ GO W co J J GO 0 RETROFITTED CROSS- SECTION 0 -CLUB NOTE: ADD LOADING BAY IN FRONT OF EXISTING 0 -CLUB. bar 31 2013 Pm• z CD cip Nw w� w Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 68 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 F-4 F~ CID CLASSIFICATIONS J U LJ- W LLJ W m V)N J (n Q V) Ci Q O ▪ U • • TRAVEL LANE NOTE: Vi ° w W O = z Q —▪ H--J W = CL W W O Z U W V) W m ° Q m o J Q - >- W J (/) m CL = LJ CC Cr) W ▪ W V) V) W O W W Cr) CC CC CO ZQ CC 0 0_ J 0 Q CD J Z V) Q Cr) CC J ° CC O m O EXISTING CONDITIONS RETROFITTED CROSS- SECTION WHEN TRAVEL F ALAMEDA CO CITY OF ALAMEDA Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 69 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 CLASSIFICATIONS _ 1- Z J < J — U 1- Q `i Q CC C/) •> W W w W = E W CC ▪ O Q ( m C/) N J Q W Y (n < > w U Cr) U CC = Q J CL C) H- U • • • • TRAVEL LANE NOTE: 0 J (1) w CC U CD O N) Z Q CC W w CD CD z 0 J _ CO F- 0_ W 0 w CC L3 CO W O CC CL CL C/) CC O EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 O Z 59' ROADWAY± RETROFITTED CROSS- SECTION ALAMEDA CO Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 70 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES\XB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 CLASSIFICATIONS • • RETROFITTED CROSS- SECTION TRAVEL LANE NOTE: TRAVEL LANES SHALL BE STRIPED AS 10' LANES. N) � zp4 w w 0 F ALAMEDA CO CITY OF ALAMEDA Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 71 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 CLASSIFICATIONS • • • • TRAVEL LANE NOTE: 0 J cn W O O J 0 Q 0 W J O i") 0 O r ) z W J CD C5 z 0 J _ 0 m J W 0 w CC U_ CO 0 W 0 J J Cn 0 EXISTING CO RETROFITTED CROSS- SECTION /�1 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 72 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 CLASSIFICATIONS • • . TRAVEL LANE NOTE: 0 J (n w U CD z 0 J CO EXISTING CONDITIONS RETROFITTED CROSS- SECTION EDA Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 73 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES\XB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS • • EXISTING CONDITIONS UPDATED PRAFT Oct b r 31, 2013 CONSTRUCTION NOTE: RETROFITTED CROSS- SECTION V-lao o0 p �O z o Ug w cvm oa � O �p p ❑O q F e UV Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 74 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS 1— J v w w m M U) r) J V) Q V) U Q 0 • • EXISTING CONDITIONS UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 RETROFITTED CROSS- SECTION /�1 a 0 e UV Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 75 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 2. Proposed On -Site Bicycle Facilities The proposed street system facilitates bicycles as a viable mode of transportation. The proposed bicycle priorities for the proposed street system include Classes I, II and III facilities throughout the Project Site. The proposed bike facilities may include bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, protected bikeways or cycle tracks and sharrows depending on adjacent land uses. The proposed bicycle facilities extend those within the other areas of Alameda, providing cross - island bicycle access to Alameda Point. Additionally, the construction of the perimeter Class I facility, Bay Trail, will enhance the recreational bicycle opportunities for the entire Alameda community. For purposes of the MIP, the following designations are used to delineate the various types of bike facilities planning throughout the Project Site. Table 6 - Bike Facilities * Walking facility is sidewalk See Figure 25 depicting the bicycle facilities proposed as art of the Alameda Point street system. 3. Proposed On -Site Truck Route The proposed street system includes provisions for a truck route. The proposed truck route will limit the numberafBtreetsBhatBhroughBruckBrafficBs> plowed. B1hel iiroposedBruckRouteBvi111lirovideBufficientB intersectionalesignEtoBillowEforEtruckEturningBnovementsBuidaddressEtonflictsBNithEipedestriansandB bicycles. Additionally, the travel lane widths within the truck route may be widened up to 11 or 12 -feet to accommodate trucks. See Figure 26 depicting the truck route proposed as art of the Alameda Point street system. C. Proposed Transit System 1. Existing Transit Systems There are two existing transit options at Alameda Point. There is existing bus service to portions of Alameda Point. Currently, AC Transit operates Line 31 which provides daily bus service through the central portions of Alameda Point. The destinations of this bus route include MacArthur and the Oakland Civic Center BART Stations. Additionally, the Alameda Ferry Terminal is located on the north side of Main Street adjacent to the northeastern portion of the Project Site. Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) operates daily commuter and excursions ferry service from this terminal to San Francisco Ferry Building and Pier 41. Limited commuter service to South San Francisco is also provided. 2. Proposed Transit Systems Alameda Point is a transit - oriented community designed to maximize the transit options for the community.Weliablelandlafficient i, ansitBerviceBhatl$ onnectsBoBheBegionalBransitBystemisBritica111 :orB the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The transit options must be attractive to the residents and employees at Alameda Point. Transit will be effective if it is comparable or even faster than vehicles. A range of Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 76 Class I Class II* Class III A Biking and walking are separated Cycle with buffer (CT is between curb and parking Bike boulevard B Biking and walking are shared Buffered bike lane - buffer is pavement markings Sharrows and signage C Bike lanes - just a stripe Signage only * Walking facility is sidewalk See Figure 25 depicting the bicycle facilities proposed as art of the Alameda Point street system. 3. Proposed On -Site Truck Route The proposed street system includes provisions for a truck route. The proposed truck route will limit the numberafBtreetsBhatBhroughBruckBrafficBs> plowed. B1hel iiroposedBruckRouteBvi111lirovideBufficientB intersectionalesignEtoBillowEforEtruckEturningBnovementsBuidaddressEtonflictsBNithEipedestriansandB bicycles. Additionally, the travel lane widths within the truck route may be widened up to 11 or 12 -feet to accommodate trucks. See Figure 26 depicting the truck route proposed as art of the Alameda Point street system. C. Proposed Transit System 1. Existing Transit Systems There are two existing transit options at Alameda Point. There is existing bus service to portions of Alameda Point. Currently, AC Transit operates Line 31 which provides daily bus service through the central portions of Alameda Point. The destinations of this bus route include MacArthur and the Oakland Civic Center BART Stations. Additionally, the Alameda Ferry Terminal is located on the north side of Main Street adjacent to the northeastern portion of the Project Site. Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) operates daily commuter and excursions ferry service from this terminal to San Francisco Ferry Building and Pier 41. Limited commuter service to South San Francisco is also provided. 2. Proposed Transit Systems Alameda Point is a transit - oriented community designed to maximize the transit options for the community.Weliablelandlafficient i, ansitBerviceBhatl$ onnectsBoBheBegionalBransitBystemisBritica111 :orB the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The transit options must be attractive to the residents and employees at Alameda Point. Transit will be effective if it is comparable or even faster than vehicles. A range of Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 76 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 W 4 z zz a z MIDWAY AVE TOWER AVE IS H »lVNOW 1'1213d08d VI\ NO SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY r W WITH BUFFER WITH STRIPE ONLY I I I I I - SHARED ROADWAY (SHARROW) m Q CO v CO N N N (n (n (n (n (n U) (n (n (n (n Cr) (/) Q Q Q Q Q Q CD CD CD CD CD CD J J J J J J J ▪ J J J J J U U U U U U Q Q a Q Q Q W w W w W w CO CO CO CO CO m OTHER STREETS Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 77 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 25 PROPOSED BIKE FACILITIES.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 INNER HARBOR 0 03 dx x F. ^I Q d C:1 H g W J, 4 v> F�jO wC(+S $'S/ REDLINE AVE q TOWER AVE LS HJaVNOV z TICONDEROGA A SEAPLANE LAGOON HORNET AVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRUCK ROUTE OTHER STREETS Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 78 PROPOSED TRUCK ROUTE DWG 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES\XB ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 transit strategies, measures and services will be combined into a comprehensive program that will be continuallyBnonitoredandl aintainedBoBemainlidffectivelind I: eneficialBoBhel ommunity. The proposed transit system includes an on -site Multi -Modal Transit Center, Shuttle Service, street improvements to facilitate Bus Rapid Transit (for west end Alameda), enhanced Ferry Service, and a Transportation Demand Management Plan. See Figure 27 depicting the proposed locations of the components of the proposed transit system. a. Multi -Modal Transit Center The proposed Multi -Modal Transit Center will be located near West Atlantic Avenue, within the Waterfront Town Center Sub - District. The Transit Center could include parking areas, car - sharing services, bicycle- sharing services, and connections to the multi -modal components of the proposed street system. Other elements of the Transit Center may include taxi stand, casual carpool loading area, „'. avelBnformation ,Bvay- findingBignage,Bnal t,: ansportationBnanagementliienter. b. Shuttle Service As part of the initial development phases at Alameda Point, a shuttle will be implemented between Alameda Point and the 12th Street BART Station in Downtown Oakland. This shuttle will provide a high frequency transit option for residents and employers at Alameda Point. This shuttle would originate at the Multi -Modal Transit Center, potentially stop at other locations within the Project Site as well, and then utilize the Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (RAMP) / Webster Street corridor to reach Downtown Oakland. The shuttle service is anticipated to evolve with each phase of1levelopment .BmplementationBnd'' peration fRlaeBhuttleBerviceBvill I, e .3 exibleBoBiatBtl1anB quickly adapt to development patterns guided by market forces. c. Bus Rapid Transit The City of Alameda is actively preparing and processing a Regional Transit Access Study. This study evaluates opportunities to enhance transit service to connect the City of Alameda, including Alameda Point, with regional BART transit facilities. The Study provides recommendations and findings1TorBheliiroposedl $usWapidffransit$ BRT) BmprovementsEforalameda &oint.f'heStudyB also provides information for the proposed Rapid Bus service improvements for northern central Alameda. The draft proposed BRT improvements are summarized as follows: The BRT will originate at the proposed Multi -Modal Transit Center. The BRT will connect Alameda Point to the 12th Street BART station and Downtown Oakland. Exclusive transit lanes will be provided in both eastbound and westbound directions along W. Atlantic Ave and RAMP, from the Multi -Modal Transit Center to the intersection with Webster Street. For outbound (eastboundRraffic,ae RTBvi111iirovideBldedicated1 us -only I., neBromtheffransitlCenterBtBATestB Atlantic Avenue to eastbound RAMP, and northbound Webster Street. The dedicated lane will end atFgtargellBwenueBmdBheEBRTBvillBhenaperateBnBnixedBiowlitransitBmdBlutomobiles )ffromB StargellBWenueBo1DowntownB3akland /BART.FEheBnboundBraffic1 vi11TperateBnBnixedfowB from Downtown Oakland/BART to RAMP. A dedicated bus -only lane will be provided westbound on RAMP, from Webster Street to the Transit Center. The BRT will also incorporate measures to increaselthe us peratingBpeed.H'heselineasuresBvillBricludarafficBignallpriorityBrieasures,busB queue jump lanes and enhanced boarding. The BRT will utilize the RAMP / Webster Street corridor. Improvements at the intersections of Webster Street / RAMP and Webster Street / Stargell Avenue will be required to improve the bus operating speed. Enhanced bus stops will also be provided at the Multi -Modal Transit Center, RAMP/Main Street, RAMP/Poggi Street and RAMP/Webster 13 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 79 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 C7 � z 1 LLJ Cf)UJ w›- w 0 w 2 LL 1 1 REDLINE AVE MIDWAY AVE L 1 1 -r — I TOWER AVE IS HD 1Vr1oYV w CC ▪ LIJ p 0 ▪ w z cC SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY EXCLUSIVE RIGHT -OF -WAY (RBS / BRT) PRIMARY TRANSIT STREET SECONDARY TRANSIT STREET OTHER STREETS FAIII■1 '.' t -,- = -Lt_ ._ _ . ---- Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 80 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES IXB 27 PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEMS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Street intersections. The proposed route of the BRT within Downtown Oakland will include shared travel lanes on the following streets: •B North of Harrison Street to 14th Street • B West of 14th Street to Clay street • B East on 12th Street •B South on Broadway • B East on 7th Street •B South on Webster Street (return to Alameda) Transit signal enhancement will be incorporated at the following intersections within Downtown Oakland: •B Harrison Street and 14th Street •B 14th Street and Clay Street •B Clay Street and 12th Street •B Broadway and 7th Street Similarly, up to four enhanced bus stops are contemplated within Downtown Oakland at the following locations: •B 14th Street and Broadway •B 12th Street and Broadway •B Northbound stop on Harrison Street •B Southbound stop on 7th Street or Webster Street It is anticipated that these improvements will result in BRT approximate travel time of 12 minutes from Alameda Point to the 12th Street BART Station. The Alameda Point Project will construct transit improvements within West Atlantic Avenue and RAMP corridor to facilitate the implementation of the BRT. The actual implementation of the BRT is subject to coordination between the City of Alameda and local public transit agencies and providers. d. Ferry Service Ferry service for Alameda Point will be provided either at the existing Alameda Ferry Terminal along the northern shoreline of Alameda Point, or at a new ferry terminal located in the Seaplane Lagoon near the Multi -Modal Transit Center. Either location will provide the Project Site with frequent, high -speed ferry service between Alameda and San Francisco. e. Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) with an annual monitoring and reporting requirement will be prepared for Alameda Point to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed transit system and other transportation demand management strategies. Based on the monitoringBesults ,IthefDMPBvillBefineBhe I,: ansitEtrategieslandBlemandlikianagementlprogramsB to minimize project impacts, reduce congestion, and meet vehicle miles travel reduction goals. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 81 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 D. Proposed Off -Site Street Improvements The transportation planning for Alameda Point will also include improvements to off -site streets and intersections located in the surrounding areas of Alameda to address project impacts outlined as mitigation measures in the EIR. These are in addition to the transit improvements discussed above and will either be constructed by Alameda Point or Alameda Point will make a fair -share contribution towards the construction by others. See Figure 28 depicting the locations of the off -site street improvements associated with Alameda Point. The proposed off -site streetBndlfitersectionBmprovementslnayl cludeBlieliollowingBtems r thersl1sBpecified I.,yBheWIR: •B Project Improvements - Vehicle Improvements •B Fernside Boulevard / Otis Drive - Intersection and Signal Improvements •B Mainlffitreet acificlvenueMignalBmprovements •B Webster Street / RAMP - Signal Improvements •B Park Street / Otis Drive - Signal Improvements •B Broadway / Tilden Way - Signal Improvements •B High Street / Fernside Boulevard - Signal Improvements •B AtlanticHivenue E onstitutionlWayBl igna1J Modification •B Project Improvements - Bicycle Improvements •B Stargell Avenue Class I Trail - Main Street to 5th Street •B Main1StreetWlassBH 'rai1BIKAMPBoWacific1 venue •B Centrall venueWlassBBndBIH'rai1BB'acificl venueBol4thl treet •B Project Contributions (Pro -Rata Share) - Vehicle Improvements •B Park Street / Clement Avenue - Intersection Improvements •B Park Street / Encinal Avenue - Intersection Improvements •B Broadway / Otis Drive - Intersection Improvements •B Tilden Way / Blanding Avenue / Fernside Boulevard - Intersection Improvements •B High Street / Fernside Boulevard - Intersection Improvement •B High Street / Otis Drive - Intersection Improvements •B Island Drive / Otis Drive / Doolittle Drive - Intersection Improvements •B FernsidellioulevardB1Otis1DriveB1 igna11 Modification •B Park Street / Blanding Avenue - Intersection Improvements •B Challenger Drive / Atlantic Avenue - Signal Improvements •B Park Street / Lincoln Avenue - Signal Improvements •B Project Contributions (Pro -Rata Share) - Pedestrian Improvements •B Mainlffitreet FA) acificl1venueBBignalBmprovements •B Webster Street / RAMP - Signal Improvements •B High Street / Fernside Boulevard - Intersection Improvements •B Atlantic1 venue r 3:, onstitutionlWayB1; ignalB✓lodification Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 82 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 83 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 28 OFFSITE STREETS & TRANSIT.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 •B Project Contributions (Pro -Rata Share) - Transit Improvements •B Park Street Transit Signal Priority - Blanding Avenue to Otis Drive •B RAMP Transit Corridor Improvements - Main Street to Webster Street (including transit Signal priority, exclusive transit lane eastbound) •B Stargell Avenue Queue Jump Lanes - Main Street and 5th Street Intersection •B Project Contributions (Pro -Rata Share) - Bicycle Improvements •B Stargell Avenue Class I Trail - Main Street to 5th Street •B MainBtreetWlassBf frai1BWAMPBo1J acific1 venue •B CentrallAvenuelll; lassBlindBIH' rai1BB 'acificAvenueBol4thlttreet •B Oak Street Bicycle Boulevard - Santa Clara Avenue to Central Avenue Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 84 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 VI. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE A. Existing Parks and Community Facilities There is a number of existing park and community facilities within Alameda Point that are currently actively used. TheseffacilitieslrovideaBangeTfBhenefits &ndBisesBoBheRommunity.fheB xistingffacilitiesBvithinB \lamedaB Point are as follows: 1. Existing Parks & Open Space Areas •B Alameda Point Multi- Purpose Field (W. Redline Avenue) •B City View Skate Park •B Main Street Dog Park •B Main Street Linear Park •B Main Street Soccer Field •B Hornet Soccer Field •B Lexington Street Soccer Fields •B Encinal Boat Ramp •B Parade Grounds •B Entry Monuments 2. Existing Community Facilities •B Alameda Point Gymnasium •B Albert1eWittEDfficer's1O)Wlub See Figure 29 depicting the locations of the various existing parks and community facilities within Alameda Point. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 85 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 INNER HARBOR ca 0 MAIN STREET 1 11 li 1 r. .�•• VMIN L SEAPLANE LAGOON SAN FRANCISCO BAY z C.7 EXISTING PARK AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES FA_ --Lwa Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 86 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES IXB 29 EX PARK FACILITIES.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 B. City of Alameda's Urban Greening Plan and Parks Improvement Assessment The City of Alameda prepared an Urban Greening Plan and Parks Improvement Assessment in 2012. This Plan definesalitrategyIDfRefinementsandanhancementsBoBheEtxistingandliaroposediparkBystemBvithinithelrityB of Alameda in order to meet the evolving needs of the community. This plan integrates the existing and new park improvements with a Urban Greening Plan targeted to mitigate the long -term effects of climate change and achieving a more sustainable and healthy community. Through this process the plan has established goals, standards and recommendations for the open space and park facilities at Alameda Point. These are summarized as follows: •B Assign high priority to maintenance and renovation of existing parks and facilities, where feasible. •B Develop new neighborhood and community parks to achieve 3 acres of park area for each 1,000 residents. •B DeveloplITRegionalESportslromplexBhatilncludes13tBrarietylIfftportsEfieldsandiksesBhatareaB benefitBoBhaintirelitommunity '' fllamedaB►ndBargerBegion. •B Promote public water - oriented uses within the Public Trust Areas depicted on Figure 30. These usesBnaylncludeBiavigation ,ttsheries,Bnaritime,Biotels, Bvater- orientedlecreation ,Bestaurants,B visitor serving retail, parks and open space. •B Establish partnerships with public and private partners for the management of large passive parks. •B Expand access to Alameda's shoreline. •B Improve and expand the City's trail system to provide recreational opportunities and improve access to parks and shoreline. •B Upgrade parks and facilities to ADA standards to ensure accessibility for all. C. Proposed Open Space Framework The proposed open space framework at Alameda Point is comprised of three major components: the Nature Reserve, Primary Open Spaces and Secondary Open Spaces. The redevelopment ofAlameda Point will incorporate numerouslparks,apen13pace,Braillindliommunityffacilities.ff hel3pecificlimountanditimingaflibroposedlparks,B open space and community facilities to be constructed at Alameda Point are subject to future policy decisions by the City Council and will be further evaluated as part of the development impact / infrastructure fee study for Alameda Point. See Figure 31 depicting an illustrative depiction of the anticipated proposed open space system. Additional,B`in- tract "IDrB`on - site "EparkslikreBiotBlepictedIDnBhisE igureBhutBvillBhelkonstructedasltartIDfBheB proposed system. The proposed facilities are outlined as follows: 1. Nature Reserve The Nature Reserve is located in the western portions of Alameda Point and is owned by the Federal Government. The Nature Reserve provides long -term protection of habitat primarily for the endangered California Least Tern and other wildlife. Public access within the Nature Reserve will be limited to a seasonal trail along the perimeter of the reserve consistent with federal requirements. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 87 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 88 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 30 PUBLIC TRUST.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 MAIN STREET I— o U < w CC 10) Q 1-_ w Z Z O O H J < Q Q I— O w O U O d 1- �IIIIIIIIII 0 CC 0 O VIII DA Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 89 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURES IXB 31 PROPOSED OPEN SPACE.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 2. Primary Open Spaces The Primary Open Spaces provide full public access and focus on visitor and community serving uses that support active recreational, community and social functions. The Primary Open Spaces include: •B Alameda Point Regional Sports Complex — Integrate the existing Alameda Point Multi - Purpose Field, Alameda Point Gymnasium, and City View Skate Park with additional sportsl ieldsBndl sesaesired I., y1 aelklamedaBommunity ,BvherelIeasible. •B Main Street Dog Park — Preserve this existing facility, if possible. •B Main Street Linear Park and Flood Control Channel — Preserve this existing facility. •B Enterprise Park — Integrate and upgrade the existing campground and Encinal Boat Ramp with additional open space consistent with the Public Trust. •B Lexington Street Soccer Fields — Preserve this existing facility. •B Parade Grounds — Preserve this existing historic facility. •B Neighborhood Parks — Construct new neighborhood parks to serve the residents which include a variety of elements, such as children's play areas, picnic tables, gathering areas, community gardens, etc., especially within the Main Street Neighborhood Sub - District. •B Seaplane Lagoon Frontage — Improve a shoreline park that frames the edges of the Seaplane Lagoon. Portions of this features will be highly amenitized, including water oriented elements such as pedestrian walks, bicycle paths, vista points, seat /rest areas, etc. •B Northwest Territories — Improve this large area with passive uses such as, wetland restoration, picnic areas, trails, trailhead, etc. 3. Secondary Open Spaces The Secondary Open Spaces are park areas of a smaller scale that provide environmental, agricultural and social gathering areas supporting passive recreational, social and transportation uses and provide linkages throughout the new neighborhoods. The Secondary Open Spaces include: •B Bay Trail — Construct the Bay Trail along the perimeter of the Project Site, Seaplane Lagoon, and VA Property. The portion of the Bay Trail along the perimeter of the VA Property, if open all year, will be subject to review and approval from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure appropriate measures are implemented to protect endangered and sensitive species. Additionally, if the alignment of the Bay Trail near the securedI,remises]fBheNIARADf 1eetBnovesBvestBloserBoBheWIARADIJIeet ,BtBvi11 I,' eB subject to coordination with MARAD representatives. •B Main Street — Construct a Class I trail along the west side of Main Street to provide a linkage between the northern and southern shorelines. 4. Community Facilities •B Alameda Point Gymnasium — Preserve this existing facility and implement ADA and seismic1etrofits. •B A1bertBIeWitt1Dfficer' s1ClubB- B' reserveBhisBaxistingf facilityltndBmplementBADABndB seismic1etrofits. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 90 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 VII. WASTEWATER A. Existing Wastewater System 1. Existing On -Site Wastewater Collection System The existing wastewater collection system within Alameda Point is owned and maintained by the City of Alameda. The existing collection system consists of gravity pipelines ranging in size from 4 -inch to 30 -inch in diameter, 15 pump / lift stations, and force mains ranging from 4 -inch to 8 -inch in diameter. There is approximately 28 miles of existing wastewater pipelines within the Project Site comprised of the following: •B Gravity Mainlines = 14.2 Miles •B Force Mains = 2.3 Miles •B Building Laterals = 8.7 Miles •B Previously Abandoned Lines = 2.8 Miles This system collects and conveys wastewater from the Project Site to the existing Pump Station, referred to as Pump Station R, located just west of the Main Gate at the northern edge of Alameda Point. The Navy began the installation of this system approximately 70 years ago. The system is currently functional, Biowever, BheBystemBsIb eyondBtsBerviceBifeBndBiasBumerousBleficiencies .WIostBiotably,B the majority of the system has deteriorated due to the age of the system and differential settlement has occurredTverBimeB ttBheEProjecti ite.Bl1'hese1 ffectsBhfBimetaveResultedBnPgroundwaterBnfiltrationB entering the on -site collection system and downstream transmission system. Additionally, portions of the existing system have adverse slopes causing wastewater build -up and stagnant conditions. There are portions of the collection pipelines that are located under existing buildings and outside of the existing and proposed backbone street rights of ways. The existing wastewater collection system does not meet the City'sBtandards.l1eellr igureB2BiepictingBheRonfigurationB fBhel$ xistingBvastewaterlikollectionBystemB at Alameda Point. RecentBBowBnonitoringliionductedBbyBEMBUDIlustRipstreamB PumplltationBZBndicatesBhel $xistingB peakBvetBveatherBvastewater I, owlfromalamedaWointBsBpproximatelyB .93IMGD.B 2. Existing Off -Site Wastewater Transmission Facilities The existing on -site wastewater collection system terminates at Pump Station R. Historically, the wastewater flowsll romlilamedalfointBverelilumpedf romIt umplffitation&BmderhthelDaklandBl lamedalEstuaryl ndB through the Port of Oakland site, eventually connecting to an EBMUD trunk main, "Interceptor ", that conveyedBheilowsBoBhef BMUDBBIainBJVastewaterff reatmentEP lantIMWWTP).FTheBocationB>fBheB historical Estuary crossing was approximately 3,000 -feet west of Pump Station R. In the early 2000's, theWortBABJaklandBlredgedBheB3stuaryBoBiSlepthBhatltonflictedBvithBhe ltxistingljipelinel rossing.B Accordingly, the City of Alameda, EBMUD and the Port of Oakland coordinated a project to reroute the wastewater from Alameda Point to the east and to cross the Estuary at the existing EBMUD siphon facility near the Webster / Posey Tubes. This project was completed in 2003 and included the installation of approximately 8,600 linear feet of a 20 -inch force main from the Pump Station R to the siphon facility. ThisfforceBnain lip owslllromBvestBoldastl longBlielliorthernBhorelinel bfBvesternalameda .>3ldditionally,lisB third 48 -inch diameter siphon was added to the two existing 30 -inch and 48 -inch diameter siphons. These siphonsBonveyBvastewaterBlowslfromBhelizntireBnainl slandafBhelfityafalamedaBinderBhelloaklandB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 91 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 • OAKLAND INNER HARBOR Alr PS1 -R - ►- - -�- `vim -- r) 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) . — i11ii1 7-71 _ qt, i ijat, 1 1 .� r J r I, „,- - - -r,i, 1 ., i. ' SAN FRANCISCO BAY SEAPLANE LAGOON 1 • LEGEND-5- :! L 1__7 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PIPELINES —IP- — EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW • EXISTING LIFT OR PUMP STATION ALAMEDA POINT FIGURE 32 ��'''''' r MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ,ot ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (ON -SITE) LA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,500' ©aTben9 o arrbss9 o aobaon9 [Inc. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 92 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_32_EX SEWER (ON- SITE).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 / Alameda Estuary. The siphons then connect into EBMUD's Interceptor, which convey wastewater from the City of Alameda and portions of the City of Oakland to EBMUD's MWWTP. EBMUD's MWWTP is located near the eastern landing of the Bay Bridge in West Oakland, approximately 2.5 miles from the Project Site. See Figure 33 depicting the existing off -site wastewater transmission and treatment facilities. Pump Station R, the 20 -inch force main, the siphon facility (Alameda Siphon) and the EBMUD Interceptor are owned and maintained by EBMUD. These facilities convey the wastewater generated at Alameda Point to the EBMUD MWWTP. EBMUD's design reports indicate that the existing capacity of Pump Station R is 7.5 MGD. The capacity of this pump station can be increased by increasing the size of the pumps and other equipment within the pump station. The existing 20 -inch diameter force main has an existing capacity of 12.1 MGD. The third siphon that was constructed with the previously described project that rerouted the wastewater from Alameda Point is part of the Alameda Siphon. The existing peak wastewater flowBvithinBheliklamedalltiphon r 1 pproximately1181MGD. 3. Existing Wastewater Treatment TheIIMMUDlM ainNVastewaterlf reatment>$ lantkIMWWTP )BurrentlyBas13xcessBryliVeather is owlBapacity.B Thel urrentl verageBlryBveatherlllowBoBheIMWWTPBslipproximatelyl343 /1GDl ndllhe> ermittedBlryB weather In owlilfBlieIMWWTP1 sB201MGD. In tegardsBoBvetBveatherBlowB✓ apacityTfWBMUD 'sBreatmentEracilities,Bn 1anuary1 O09,WBMUDB entered into a Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State of California Water Resources Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. This Stipulated Order outlines the measures EBMUD is required to implement in order to address inadequately treated sewage discharges to San Francisco Bay during wet weather conditions. EBMUD's operates three wet weather facilities that handle excess sewage during storm events when flowsliixceedl helitapacitylilfI e1Fistrict 's1MainBVastewaterH'reatment I. lant.H'heli3xcess I' owsBre I.. rgelyB caused by storm water and groundwater leaking into the region's aging sanitary sewer collection pipelines andBhroughlimproperl$ onnectionsBhatlillowl3tormBvaterBo I., owlkito1 heBewerBystem.H'helfitent', f1heB Stipulated) orderBsBolll ormulateBong- termBolutionsBoBninimizeThe }kighBevel»fl nfiltrationBoBheWastB Bayl ollectionBystemsHndHliminateBheBlischargelb fBheHxcessBlowsE romBheIEBMUD'sBvetBveatherB facilities. TheeS tipulatedliOrderBequireslEBMUDBoBonductll owBnonitoringBtudyBoBdentifyliheBegionstivithinB the) District' sBerviceBreaBhatikenerateBheEargestBvetBveatherBlows .H'hisBlowBrionitoringBtudyBsl lsoB intendedBoBstablishl iBangelbfBcenarioslilfBapacity I ow I . mitsllSorBpecificBocationsBvithinliheBDistrict 'sB systemBhatBouldBliminateBheliiieedliorBlischargesHromBheBvetBveatherHacilities .H'his owlitionitoringB study was completed by EBMUD in March 2012 and approved by the EPA in December of 2012. LargeBedevelopmentliitesltuch &sEMamedaEPointarelkxpectedBol educeBhelimountafBnfiltrationlindB inflowB✓ nteringBheBvastewaterB :ollectionllystemBhroughBheB eplacement /rehabilitationaatheBiging,B deteriorated sewer infrastructure with new systems that are constructed to current standards. EBMUD has indicated that the conclusions of their efforts to address the Stipulated Order will not limit the future growth or redevelopment at Alameda Point. EBMUD recommends that the project incorporate the following measures to comply with the Stipulated Order and maintain capacity for the Project Site: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 93 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 //v7-6.. RC /37. R �R. PS 1-R ALAMEDA POINT 1 FIGURE 33 MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1 "= 3,000' ©STWDR9 0 ar>'b6s9 a Gobaon9 h©a (OFF -SITE TRANSMISSION) EXISTING SANITARY SEWER Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_33_SEWER (OFF- SITE).DWG Page 94 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 •B Replace or rehabilitate any existing sanitary sewer collection system, including sewer lateralBines ,BoBeduceBnfiltration/inflow,>nd •B Ensure any new wastewater collection systems for the project, including sewer laterals, are constructedBolpreventBnfiltration/ infiowBoBheBnaximumBxtentBeasible. B. Proposed Wastewater System 1. Proposed Wastewater Demand The total estimate peak wastewater generated by the full build -out of the redevelopment of Alameda PointBs1pproximately13 .161MGD.H'heBvastewaterBiowl enerationf actorsBorBheBrariouslibroposedBandB uses are based on the current City of Alameda design criteria utilized in the City -Wide sewer model and outlined in Table 7. These wastewater generation factors do not account for the implementation of water conserving) ixturesBhroughoutBhelproposed I,uildings.H'heBvastewater ow111romBheffroject1 iteBvill 1, eB decreased with the implementation of sustainable strategies that achieve reductions in water consumption. Table 7 - Wastewater Flow Generation Factors Land Use Flow Factor (Peak Dry Weather) Residential 480 GPD / Unit CommercialBROffice /Wetail 0.20 GPD / SF Commercial - Manufacturing / Warehouse 0.04 GPD / SF Commercial - Service 1.00 GPD / SF Park 3,000 GPD / Each Park with Sports Complex 45,000 GPD / Each Note: All areas additionally include a GWI and ' /I flow of 1,300 GPD /Net Acres (excluding Parks) EBMUDBiasBtdequateBiryBveatherRapacityBtBheRvTW WTPEforBheiroj ectedBVvastewaterBlowsEfromB theltedeyelopmentRofBklamedalPoint.Brhelibroj ectBhuildTutBvouldBncreaseBhel ieakBvetBveatherBlowB incrementallyayB.pproximately ».23BvIGDBboveBheStxistingl ieakBlows .H'hisBakesBntoBonsiderationB thatReplacementBABxistingBnfrastructureBsrixpectedBoReducerpeakBnfiltrationBBnflowBndEpartiallyB offsetlthel1rojectedBncreaseBniaseBvastewater I . ow. I asedlonl aeBurrentlieakBvastewater I' owlkromlllheB City falamedalofEt8IM GD, BheBstimatedBnaximumadditionalBlowlfromlilamedal fointBepresentsanB increase BfBess BhhanHl ercentBniturrentl eakBvastewaterBlowlitonveyedBhroughBhelAlamedalliphon .B ItBepresents> ► nBvenBmallerlbercentagelbfBhel urrentlfpeakBvastewaterBlow »ffl07B✓IGDBnWBMUD'sB south interceptor just downstream of the Alameda Siphon. 2. Proposed On -Site Wastewater Collection System a. Development Areas A new wastewater collection system will be installed within the Development Areas, where large - scale areas of new construction are anticipated. The proposed collection system will include gravity pipelines, ranging in size from 8 -inch to 24 -inch in diameter, and 5 lift stations. The proposed system Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 95 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 will connect to the existing Pump Station R located at the Main Gate. The existing wastewater system, pipelines and pump / lift stations, within the Development Areas will be replaced in phases consistent with the development build -out. The proposed wastewater collection facilities will be installed within all backbone streets within the Development Areas. See Figure 34 depicting the proposed on -site wastewater collection system schematic within the Development Areas. The proposed on -site wastewater collection system will be owned and operated by the City of Alameda. The system shall be designed and constructed consistent with the City of Alameda's StandardBSpecificationsBandBDesignBCriteria. BAlll3liftlItationsl3villBincludeBredundantBpumps ,B alarm systems and emergency backup power supplies to ensure no disruption of service. The proposedBvastewaterRollectionflysteml ha111ifficientlyllollectBindllonveyBheBvastewaterfluchB that the amount of lift stations required is minimized. The gravity pipelines will be designed to accommodate settlement at locations where long term differential settlement is anticipated. b. Reuse Areas The existing wastewater collection system within the Reuse Areas will be incrementally replaced over time. Initially, the Reuse Areas will continue to utilize the existing wastewater collection system through an enhanced maintenance program. This program will rehabilitate the existing systemBtoPaddressaleficiencies. BEachE iroposedBdevelopmentB, withinBtheBReuseBAreasB,willibeB responsible for investigating and documenting the condition of the existing collection facilities thatlkollectandRonveyBheBvastewaterl TromBhatBpecificBite. lAnyBleficienciesBdentifiedBhallB be addressed at the time of that development to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The anticipated enhanced maintenance improvements include cleaning and lining of existing pipelines andEnanholesBoRddressIinfiltrationandlinflow.Efilso,litlisanticipatedBhatlportionsIMBhelitxistingB pipelinesBvillibeftequiredBoBheBeplacedBoliddresslidverseBlowBonditionsl indlireasBhatBiaveB settled resulting in stagnant wastewater conditions. Additionally, each development project within the Reuse Areas will replace the wastewater lateral and on -site pipelines serving that site, consistent with the City of Alameda's Private Sewer Lateral Replacement Ordinance. See Figure 35 depicting the existing on -site wastewater collection system schematic within the Reuse Areas to initially to be rehabilitated. Ultimately, the wastewater collection system within the Reuse Areas will be replaced. The new system will be installed incrementally over time. As funds become available through a fee program, new backbone wastewater facilities will be installed. The City of Alameda will coordinate these improvements to ensure they are implemented orderly and with appropriate priorities. The proposed backbone collection system will be similar to the system proposed within the Development Areas, including new gravity pipelines and lift stations. The new collection pipes will connect to the adjacent on -site laterals and pipes. The system shall be designed and constructed consistent with theWitylRfBhlameda's1 tandardl' bpecificationslind1DesignWriteria .BBeeffigureB 6BlepictingBheB ultimate on -site wastewater collection system schematic within the Reuse Areas. 3. Proposed Off -Site Wastewater Transmission System Improvements The existing off -site wastewater transmission facilities, Pump Station R, 20 -inch force main, Estuary siphonffacilitylindBheIEBMUDIlnterceptor, thaveStdequatellapacitylforBheljroposedBvastewaterBlowB generated by the full build -out of Alameda Point. There are no proposed improvements to these facilities as part of Alameda Point. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 96 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 - -»-- (FROM VA PROPERTY) PS 1 -R OAKLAND INNER HARBOR 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) i' SEAPLANE LAGOON LS -1 ■ } LEGEND PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED LIFT STATION — — SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' ©U1E _mn9 B arrbgC 9 0 Main, h©. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 34 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_34_SEWER (DEVELOPMENT).DWG Page 97 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) (FROM VA PROPERTY) LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON --�— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW • PROPOSED LIFT STATION — — - — SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW EXISTING SANITARY SEWER TO BE REHABILITATED ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' CEITkaTI, BeTbgg, 82 Mom, h©. FIGURE 35 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER REUSE AREAS INITIAL CONSTRUCTION Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_35_SEWER (INITIAL REUSE).DWG Page 98 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 PS 1 -R OAKLAND INNER HARBOR 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) )Or - -- (FROM VA PROPERTY) LS -5 LEGEND • - - SEAPLANE LAGOON LS -2 0 LS-14i PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED LIFT STATION SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN Sc DIRECTION OF FLOW ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' Caftan, Barbee, a MbeaTI, Mc. FIGURE 36 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ULTIMATE SYSTEM Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_36_SEWER (ULTIMATE).DWG Page 99 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 VIII. STORMWATER SYSTEM A. Topography and Precipitation The existing elevations at Alameda Point are generally quite low. The highest existing elevations, just over 8 feet are located in the southeast portion of the site. The lowest elevations are less than 1 foot and are generally found in the northern portions of the site. These relatively low elevations have important implications in the design of stormwaterland I oodl$ ontrollinfrastructure lisBliscussed I,, elow. PrecipitationliaatternsalongBheRentralLealiforniaRoastareStronglyBnfluencedayaltumberafFfactors ,BvithaB marked tendency to greater rainfall intensities and associated high mean annual precipitation values in locations with higher elevations that are exposed to incoming storms, with the opposite effect in areas of low elevation. The low elevations at Alameda Point result in a mean annual precipitation of approximately 18 inches /year, which is much less than in the neighboring City of Oakland where rainfall totals are impacted by the East Bay Hills. In fact, isohyetal mapping by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District shows that storm intensity and magnitude at Alameda Point can be expected to be among the lowest in the County, the only lower totals being found in the southern bayside areas that lie in the lee of the highest mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Design storm information provided in the Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) for the City is based on a mean annual precipitation of 19 inches /year, slightly higher than that expected at Alameda Point. However, preliminary stormwater infrastructure design for Alameda Point uses the information from the SDMP for consistency, noting that the result will tend to be slightly conservative. On this basis, the design precipitation for the 10 -, 25 -, and 100 -year 24 -hour duration storm events are 3.2, 3.8 and 4.7 inches respectively. B. Impervious and Development Areas The eastern portions of the Project Site were densely developed, with the most intensely used areas located around the Seaplane Lagoon. Overall impervious cover is very high at approximately 83 %, with large blocks of land having nearly 100% impervious coverage. Therefore, overall impervious coverage at the site is expected to decrease with redevelopment. With respect to stormwater management planning at the site, it is important to distinguish between Development and Reuse Areas. In Development Areas, existing structures and facilities will be completely replaced. This allows ground elevations to be elevated during the redevelopment process. The greater difference in elevation betweenthel1roundBurfacelil heseBreasBnd ilwaterBlevationsIitilthei2aylAivesIgreater exibilitylhBtormwaterB system design and buffers the impact of potential sea level rise on such systems. This contrasts with the Reuse Areas, where constraints such as historical preservation, preclude completely replacing existing structures and modifying the existing street pattern and elevations. Therefore, Reuse Areas will generally be constrained to the existing elevations which in some areas are low, imposing immediate design considerations with respect to meeting prevailing storm drain standards and adaptively responding to sea level rise. C. Soil Characteristics and Groundwater The soils at the site are characterized by a shallow depth to groundwater, consistent with the low existing ground elevations.ffi'hese I.: igh> roundwaterBlevationsBignificantlyBestrictBheStseaflinfiltrationlilfl tormwater tol ieB ground as a stormwater management option at Alameda Point. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 100 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 D. Tidal Characteristics As pointed out previously, tidal characteristics are an important consideration at Alameda Point. The very highest tideflevelsassociatedBvithB; tormaurgeBzventsit anffieFhighEtnoughBoBr auseflocalizedflloodingBofftheflowest- lying portions of the site under existing conditions. Additionally, all storm drain systems have to discharge to the Estuary or Bay against the tide elevations that prevail during any given storm event. This is generally not a problemlforBowBidel onditions, ut> anllbeBBignificantlfactorBimitinglgheBonveyance) apacity»fBxistingandB proposed storm drain lines during high tides. Alameda Point experiences a diurnal tidal cycle that is typical of coastal California with two high and two low tide periods occurring each day. Important tidal datum information is included in Table 8 below, which shows the range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 6.6 feet. Several of the datum values are of direct relevance in stormwater infrastructure design. Most importantly, mean higher high water elevations are nlyBlightly Io elowBhelowestl roundBlevationsBtBheBite .ffi'herefore,Bocalized lip oodingBsBlpotentialBssueB alongBnuch', fBheBorthernljlerimeter': fBheBiteBvheneverBnyBignificantBainfallBoincidesBvithBhe I.: igher I.: ighB tide peak, even without consideration of storm surge effects. Higher tide elevations are also of concern. For example, the SDMP presents a thorough derivation of high tide values to be used in storm drain system design to account for the joint probability of very large storm events coinciding with storm surge events in the vicinity of Alameda. The calculated 25 -year coincident peak tide elevation for this case is 1.7 feet, which is well above the lower lying elevations at the site. Likewise, the 100 - year stillwater tide elevation is 3.6 feet, an elevation high enough to put portions of the site in a FEMA designated Special1JloodBlazardl real 100 -year lip oodplain). Low tide elevations can also be important with respect to storm drain design. For example, constructing storm drain outfalls above the lowest tide elevations allows for easier routine maintenance inspections. For Alameda Point this would mean having outfall structure pipe inverts no lower than -5 feet, and preferably even higher. Table 8 - Tidal Datum Elevations for Alameda Point Tidal Datum City of Alameda Datum Mean Higher High Water 0.3 Mean High Water -0.4 Mean Tide Level -2.8 Mean Low Water -5.2 Mean Lower Low Water -6.3 Highest Observed Tide 3.3 100 -Year Tide 3.6 25 -Year Coincident Peak Tide 1.7 E. Existing Stormwater Management System Stormwater runoff at Alameda Point is currently conveyed directly to outfalls by a storm drain system. The portions of the storm drain system within land owned by the City of Alameda are also owned and maintained by the City of Alameda. Whereas, the remainder of the existing storm drain system within land still owned by the Navy is owned by the Navy. The existing stormwater system was installed by the Navy starting over 70 years ago. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 101 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 The system is currently operable, but does not meet current standards in several regards. These include notable capacity limitations and the fact that there is no stormwater quality infrastructure in place at present. The majority of the existing system within Alameda Point is a gravity system that consists of pipelines, ranging in size up to 48- inches in diameter, inlets, junction boxes / manholes and outfalls to surrounding waters. See Figure 37 depicting the existing stormwater collection system and outfalls within Alameda Point. There are over 30 existing outfalls discharging stormwater runoff from the Project Site to the surrounding waters of the Seaplane Lagoon, Oakland / Alameda Estuary, and San Francisco Bay. Much of the existing infrastructure has deteriorated and has components that are in a state of disrepair. Many of the existing outfalls have missing or non - functioning flap1 atesl llowing> ae *dalBrifluenceslikIiih eBurroundingBvatersBoBmpactBhelbn- siteBystem,Bausing li: oodingBfB low- lyingBreasaslireviouslyBliscussed .111heBxistingl$ow- lyingareasBhat I? oodBlueBoBxtreme igh I,: desBnd/orB storm events coinciding with high tides include areas along the northern shoreline and Main Gate, north and west edges of the Seaplane Lagoon and the Main Street / Ferry Terminal Parking Lot Entrance intersection. In fact, the exception to gravity drainage at the site is an existing stormwater pump station that was installed approximately 1513TearsligoBoliddressEfloodingafBhenowl3yinglibortionsafiMainEStreet.IThislibumplEttationBsBocatedBaBheB northeast corner of the Project Site. 11 The existing drainage patterns of the Project Site are consistent with the existing topography. See Figure 38 depicting the existing drainage pattern and associated existing watersheds within Alameda Point. Stormwater runoff from the northern half of the Project Site, generally north of West Midway Avenue, is collected and conveyed by the existing system and discharged to the Oakland / Alameda Estuary through multiple outfalls along the northern shoreline. Stormwater runoff from the southeastern portion of the site is collected and conveyed by the existing system and discharged to San Francisco Bay through multiple outfalls along the southern shoreline. Stormwater runoff from the central portions of the Project Site is collected and conveyed to the Seaplane Lagoon through multiple outfalls along the Lagoon shoreline. The watersheds for the existing stormwater system are almost exclusively limited to areas within the Project Site. However, there is one notable exception. Off -site runoff from a small watershed located along Main Street immediately to the north of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway is collected and conveyed to the southwest where it outfalls the Seaplane Lagoon. F. Proposed Stormwater Management System A new stormwater collection system, owned and operated by the City of Alameda, will be installed at Alameda Point. The proposed system will integrate new pipelines, pump stations, multi - purpose basins, and outfalls with water quality treatment features designed to meet current City of Alameda, County of Alameda, and Regional Water Quality Control Board design criteria. The new stormwater management system will also be designed to address the potential impacts of future sea level rise through forward planning of adaptation strategies and infrastructure. The proposed stormwater collection system will maintain the existing drainage patterns of the Project Site. Additionally, BheljroposedllystemBwillltignificantlyReduceBheBiumberTfEbutfallsBoBhellurroundinglIvatersB in order to facilitate and minimize future maintenance obligations of the City of Alameda. Preliminary system designRallsEforallotallibavelbutfalls,litlownlinarkedlyFfromavergOautfallslitlioresent.EIThelforoposedlibutfallsB will be constructed at existing outfall locations to minimize potential environmental impacts associated with installation and operation of these facilities. Where used, stormwater pump stations will include redundant pump systems,Rlarms,andBmergency I, ackuplpowerBuppliesBoBeduceBheBiskBflillooding Ic, yBnsuring l.: ighBevelsBfB reliability. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 102 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR ITT • SAN FRANCISCO BAY w C7 EXISTING STORM EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTFALL EXISTING STORM DRAIN PUMP STATION • • =-L- -7=== Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 103 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 37 EX STORM DRAIN & OUTFALLS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 illkilp OAKLAND INNER HARBOR .f, — r -71 N 0- /`� I C r_ I I I 11 F , K z'.) 'r , . I \ 161, , 1 ~ _ L _I. I JJ4J f. Y , L „ A. r 1 )- ' r II � to ,...„- ,---\\_, , , r-r 1 . .-Ni _J f 9 SAN FRANCISCO BAY SEAPLANE LAGOON b r i ,_ I, , i r / I Ate --gio LEGEND - 1 EXISTING STORM DRAIN • EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTFALL I APPROX EXISTING WATERSHED BOUNDARY r= APPROX DIRECTION OF EXISTING STORM DRAIN FLOW ALAMEDA POINT FIGURE 3 8 Il,,00�'''' MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA OCT ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA EXISTING WATERSHEDS Lt.' J DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,500' ©aC ©U9 o arrbss9 o Cho em [Inc. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 104 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 38 EX WATERSHEDS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 The new stormwater system will be built within all Development Areas. In the Reuse Areas, the existing system will initially remain in service with rehabilitation improvements such as repair or reinstallation of tide gates at existing outfalls. Eventually, as soon as there are available funds from development projects within the Reuse Areas, the existing system will be incrementally replaced. The installation of the downstream components, including trunk stormwater lines, multi - purpose basins, pump stations, and outfalls, will be prioritized. Ultimately, new stormwater management infrastructure will be incrementally installed over time throughout the Reuse Areas as well. 1. Development Areas As discussed previously, large -scale areas of new construction are anticipated in the Development Areas. This will allow high existing ground elevations to be maintained, and even increased somewhat, and for early construction of an entirely new stormwater management system. The proposed system will include gravity storm drain pipes ranging in size from 12 to 60 inches in diameter and new outfall structures. These facilities will be installed within all backbone streets in the Development Areas. See Figure 39 depicting the proposed on -site stormwater collection system schematic within the Development Areas. The installation of updated infrastructure, along with the higher ground surface elevations in the Development Areas, will allow for collection and conveyance of the 25 -year design storm event consistent with City standards. Storm drain lines will drain by gravity to the respective outfall locations, which will beilquippedlitrith aplAatesBndBnergy» issipationlEbilontroll ilischarge>tbtheldeceivingIaters. ii tormIrainB pipes will be designed to accommodate settlement at locations where long -term differential settlement is considered possible. Development Areas may also require future pump stations and/or multi -use stormwater basins as an adaptive response measure to future sea level rise . The pump station and multi -use basin sizes are inversely related, meaning that with a larger pump station the multi - purpose basin could be smaller or with a larger multi - purpose basin the pump station could be smaller. Additionally, the locations of the multi - purpose basinslindipumpBtationsBlepictedBnBheI MIPIirel lexibleBindRanlheadjustedl sBheBandltse&ndapenB space plans for these areas are advanced. 2. Reuse Areas The Reuse Areas, with their constraints on building and street replacement, will require a stormwater management system that can function effectively with many areas of low ground elevation. These low elevations will require stormwater pump stations to meet City design standards. See Figure 40 depicting the ultimate stormwater collection system schematic within the Reuse Areas. The Reuse Areas will initially continue to utilize the existing on -site stormwater collection system .The existing stormwater management system will be progressively improved through an enhanced maintenance program. The enhanced maintenance program will rehabilitate the existing system in a step -wise manner toBiddressBleficiencies. ffipecifically ,BheanhancedBnaintenancel rogramBvilll rioritizeBhefinstallationB of new tide valves on the existing outfalls. Additionally, each proposed development within the Reuse Areas will be responsible for investigating and documenting the condition of the existing stormwater infrastructureB, vithinBhat& pecifiat ite. mnyB1eficienciesBdentifiedBavillEbeStddressedBttRhatRimeB ndB funded by that development project, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Anticipated enhanced maintenance improvements include cleaning and lining of existing pipelines and manholes as well as requiredBeplacementafRxistinglfoipelinesBo &.ddressI dverseBlowlIonditionsBnl ;AreasBhattaveBettled.B Additionally, each development project within the Reuse Areas will replace the stormwater facilities Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 105 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN OAKLAND INNER HARBOR OUTFALL UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 PUMP (40,000 GPM) rn BASIN (2.8 AC) NOTE: SHAPE AND LOCATIONS OF BASINS ARE FLEXIBLE OUTFALL OUTFALL PUMP (20,000 GPM) SEAPLANE LAGOON LEGEND —)110— PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' ©otaon9 0 arbss9 o Mbwn9 ��oo OUTFALL FUTURE PUMP (20,000 GPM) FIGURE 39 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_39_STORM DRAIN (DEVELOPMENT).DWG Page 106 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 BASIN (2.8 AC) OAKLAND INNER HARBOR PUMP (20,000 GPM) • • 4 OUTFALL ter. BASIN (0.9 AC) PUMP (40,000 GPM) BASIN (2.8 AC) 41. OUTFALL PUMP (20,000 GPM) NOTE: SHAPE AND LOCATIONS OF BASINS ARE FLEXIBLE LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON OUTFALL z- F E PUMP (60,000 GPM) FUTURE BASIN (2.8 AC) / PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW I ` r FUTURE PUMP (20,000 GPM) OUTFALL ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' C EEBoon9 BET 8 ©9 C oboon9 B© Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 40 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ULTIMATE SYSTEM G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_40_STORM DRAIN (ULTIMATE).DWG Page 107 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 and construct water quality facilities inside each respective parcel. Until the existing system is replaced, existingBowByingll ;tructureslvvithinBheH euseBkreasBnayffieRequiredBoTbtainBloodflnsuranceBfBheB existingDtructureBsffielowBheH 00- yearBlood> klevation. B\ nyBiew1IonstructionTfBtructuresBvithinBheB ReuselikreasIduring islinterimllleriodBhallbeBequiredBo eBonstructedB- foot11bovelteB00 -year I' oodB elevation. As funds become available through a fee program, the existing backbone stormwater systems will be replaced. The installation of the new stormwater system within the Reuse Areas will be incremental. The City of Alameda will coordinate these incremental improvements to ensure they are implemented orderly. The downstream improvements, including multi - purpose basins, pump stations and outfalls shall belprioritized,BnierderBolforovideffloodiprotectionEforliheaeuseBkreaslthatUanaddressalimateRhange.B The remainder of the backbone system shall be installed from the downstream portions to the upstream portions of the system and connect to the adjacent on -site systems. See Figure 41 depicting the existing on -site stormwater collection system schematic within the Reuse Areas to initially to be installed. Ultimately, the enhanced maintenance program will lead to replacement of the entire stormwater managementBystemBndll ;aeBonstruction1fBhe I oodlprotectionllutilities ,BncludingIierimeterl eveesBndB floodwalls, Biewautfalls, Bnulti- purposelbasinsandlioumpBtations, BvithinBheiReuseBkreas .lTheltltimateB stormwater system will provide a system that full complies with the City's 25 -year stormwater design criteria as discussed below. 3. Proposed Stormwater System Design Criteria Thel$lesignBriterialisedl orBhelproposedBtormwaterIIystemBsBonsistentBvith I:? eBriteriaBpecifiedli3nitheB Cityl/ fBklameda' s1Standardl?8pecificationslandliDesignE Criteria,BiatedBkprilH 961, }ndBhelltormIDrainB Master I, lan DMP),Hatedl4ugust13008. I. pecifically,IChapter141dflifieSDMPRncludesItheldesignIdriteriaB for new stormwater systems within the City ofAlameda. The following is a summary of the design criteria for the proposed stormwater collection system within Alameda Point: rc. Design Storm Event = 25 -year design storm based on the balanced storm hydrograph developed in the SDMP Beginning Water Surface Elevation = 25 -year coincident tide based on the SDMP Freeboard = Hydraulic grade line within the system shall be no higher than 0.5 -foot above the gutter elevation at any manhole or inlet Minimum Cover to Pipelines = Minimum cover to pipelines of 2 feet with approved pipeline materials Additional design criteria will be followed to assure that the stormwater management system provides interiorBlrainage1 rotectionl orBhefl 00- yearBtorn vent1in> oncertBvithflxterior]eveesl ndBloodwalls)B consistent with FEMA requirements. This will include analyses and modeling demonstrating that runoff from the 100 -year event (including longer durations than 24- hours) can be contained and conveyed to the BayBvithout I : oodingBfBtructures.BitaetaileMperationstindBilaintenanceirlanBvilllieedBoltelpreparedB as part of the design of any downstream facilities, such as outfalls, multi - purpose basins or pump stations. This plan will describe the interior drainage system with details regarding the associated infrastructure, Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 108 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 BASIN (2.8 AC) OAKLAND INNER HARBOR OUTFALL OUTFALL PUMP (40,000 GPM) PUMP (20,000 GPM) BASIN (2.8 AC) OUTFALL OUTFALL FUTURE f PUMP , (60,000 GPM) PUMP (20,000 GPM) SEAPLANE LAGOON NOTE: SHAPE AND LOCATIONS OF BASINS ARE FLEXIBLE FUTURE BASIN (2.8 AC) / LEGEND PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW EXISTING STORM DRAIN •� / OUTFALL — FUTURL PUMP (20,000 GPM) ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' `JON OC 119 Bub ®\5g M00% h©o Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 41 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN REUSE AREAS INITIAL CONSTRUCTION G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_41_STORM DRAIN (INITIAL REUSE).DWG Page 109 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 maintenance plans and schedules, back -up facilities, and emergency protocols. Design to these criteria willBemoveBheBllamedar PointBiteEfromBheIlpeciall 'loodlfIazardlikrea14100 -yearl loodplain)BnButureB FEMAlillood I,: azardlilnappinglifforts. 4. Adaptation to Sea Level Rise As presented earlier in Section IV, adaptation strategies for potential sea level rise will be an integral part of stormwater management planning at Alameda Point. Consistent with other infrastructure improvements at the Project Site, the following governing criteria will apply: Initial Construction = 18- inches of sea level rise shall be added to the beginning water surface elevation Adaptive Measures = Shall be capable of accommodating up to 55- inches of future sea level rise Several aspects of the planning process are important to note with respect to stormwater infrastructure designBindfleaElevelEtise.EEFirstandEforemostamongBheserlsBheBinderstandingBhat,BNithaignificantB enough increases in sea level, safely and effectively discharging stormwater to the Bay will require some combination of on -site detention storage and pump capacity. Storage and pump capacity are complimentary infrastructural components. That is to say, larger on -site detention storage capacity reduces the required pumpinglilteedsBndBriceBiersaAnlllact, BvithBufficientlyBargeStorageBapacityl e.g.Bqual rllearlyBqualB to the total design storm runoff), stormwater pumping would not be required at all. Conversely, where space and land use constraints prevail, large detention storage facilities may not be practical and increased pump capacity will be required. The second aspect of note has previously been discussed; the relationship of ground elevations and tidal tailwater elevations. Where ground elevations are high enough, conventional gravity storm drain systems can be designed to meet City conveyance criteria. However, as the difference between ground and coincident tide elevations decreases, the aforementioned need for storage /pumping becomes increasingly necessary if City criteria are to be met. The direct implication for Alameda Point is that even the initial construction sea level rise criteria (18- inches above current levels) will require storage /pumping facilities for the lower -lying Reuse Areas. Finally, it is important to understand that adaptive management with respect to stormwater conveyance is not unbounded. Progressively more storage /pump capacity will be required for all the project watersheds asBeallevelsBise.Bilowever,anceBufficientlkorageBnd/orlibumpRapacityRslitilplaceBo I,: andleBhelitntireB runoffllromBhel lesignBtormBvithoutl1ravity utflow, I,; del$evelsBnEhe aylioflongerl aatterBignificantlyB and further increases in sea level (even above the maximum adaptive criteria) can be readily addressed. 5. Preliminary Stormwater Modeling InlIrderffoBbetterBiefinelItormwateril nfrastructureBleedsikslIiartEtatheiMIP AveliminaryittormwaterB modeling was completed for representative portions of the Project Site. The modeling was carried out using the MIKE -URBAN software package (DHI, Inc.), the same modeling platform that was used to develop the City's SDMP. Watershed parameterization and analysis explicitly followed the guidelines in the SDMP, including non - steady state routing of the balanced 25 -year, 24 -hour design storm against the variable 25 -year coincident tidal tailwater conditions. This approach assures that stormwater infrastructure design at Alameda Point is consistent in all respects with that being applied elsewhere in the City. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 110 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 The preliminary modeling focused on Watersheds B and E (see detailed discussions below) to bracket the range of anticipated constraints. See Figure 44 depicting the locations of Watersheds B and E. Watershed B is a prototypical Reuse Area watershed characterized by the lowest ground elevations within the Project Site, while Watershed E is representative of a Development Area watershed with markedly higher ground elevations. Model runs were carried out for a range of sea level rise conditions ranging from current levels and incrementing by 1 foot up to the higher adaptive management criterion of 55- inches above existing conditions. 11TheBnodelBunsBonfirmedBhatBheWeuseBkreasBuchasBJVatershedmBvillBieedBtoragel ndB pumping infrastructure to meet even the initial criteria. The addition of incremental sea level rise model runs] rovided& nBt. daptivelesponseBnfrastructureBnatrix, ffablef9BhatBlefinesBheWariouslItorageStndB pumpingBapacitiesTssociatedBvithlncreasing leaBevelliseTndBdentifiesBhresholdsBtBvhichBtorage/ pumping would be necessary for higher elevation areas such as Watershed E. The values presented in Table 9 are the total storage volume in acre -feet for the multi - purpose basins correlated to the pump capacity and varying amounts of sea level rise. Table 9 - Preliminary Multi- Purpose Basin & Pump Sizes with Adaptive Measures SLR (ft. above 2012) Pump Capacity (GPM) Watersheds A -C Watersheds D & E None 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 No Basin No Basin No Basin 1.0 4.0 3.5 2.2 1.2 0.3 0.3 No Basin No Basin 2.0 5.0 7.5 4.5 2.8 1.3 0.9 No Basin No Basin 3.0 8.3 4.5 2.8 1.3 1.0 No Basin No Basin 4.6 10.6 4.5 2.8 1.3 1.0 No Basin No Basin 6. Proposed Multi- Purpose Basins and Pump Stations ThelpreliminaryEnodelingBffortsBonfirmedBhatlinulti- purpose) tormwater 1, asinslindlpumpBtationsBvi11B beBntegralltomponentsliaecessaryBoltnsureBheBeliabilityafBheBystemandlichieveBheBpecifiedBlesignB criteria, BffectivelylininimizingBheBiskBfEloodingBvithinBheHeroj ect3ite. I,) The multi - purpose basins are only proposed for watersheds that include parks / open spaces uses near the downstream portion of the system. Basins will function in an "off- line" manner to enhance their multi- use functionality. Stormwater runoff will be routed to a vault structures at the downstream ends of the storm drain systems. Each vault structure will function as the wet well for the stormwater pumps in that systemlind> illBaveBnBverflow) eirltonnectingBo llheEnulti- purposeBasin.I heBaultBtructuresBvi111teB connected to the outfalls by both gravity lines and a force main from the pumps. This will allow discharge byl ravity„owBvhenBtormBventsl $ oincideBvithBower F deBonditions ll $nBhisBonfiguration,BtormwaterB runoffBvillB nlyl$ nterBheStasinsBiaBheB verflowBveirBvhenBnflowBoBheBTaultffxceedsBhel ombinedB gravityBndlpumpedBlischargeBapacity .11TheBff- lineB onfigurationBvillBnarkedlyBeduceBheffrequencyB and quantity of runoff directed to each basin. The basins will be designed to have two tiers, allowing for public use of the upper tier, potentially including activeBecreationB facilitiesBuchl isBportsBields .H'heBowerBierBvill I eBccupyBoughlyBne>uarterBfBhheB basin area and will be subject to more frequent inundation than the upper tier area, the latter can be managedB uchBhatBtBsFfloodedBnTnlyBheBargest Btorml$ vents. lfPreliminaryBlesignlBallsfforBheBloorB elevation of the lower tier in each basin to generally be set 5 feet below the adjacent grade. The upper tier will encompass the remaining 75% of the basin area and will generally be only 3 feet deep in comparison to adjacent grade elevations outside the basin. See Figure 42 depicting a schematic of the two -tier multi- Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 111 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 cp J J W W -H C; W J W r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 112 0 z CO cc w w 1= 0 1- J 1- H d W U Z 0 U NI m 0) m W C7 W 0 w CO m CO 1- CO 0 d 0 co co CD ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 purpose basin. There will need to be appropriate signage and management of these areas to prohibit public used luringBimes»ff nticipatedBargeStorm> events .HEachTasinBvillTeBlrainedlTbyl ravityBlowBnd/orB pumping via the vault structures) within 24 -hours of each storm event, limiting the periods of inundation to only a couple of days even if back to back storms occur. The multi - purpose basins are intended to be landscaped and under - drained to create a usable amenity for the community. The following design criteria will also be applied to the multi - purpose basins: Maximum Side Slopes = 4:1 Freeboard = 1 -foot to the 100 -year water surface elevation As mentioned previously, the vault structures will serve as the wet wells for required stormwater pumps. InBireasBvhereBhereBsBnsufficientBpaceBivailableFforBiBnulti- purposeBhasin ,BheBiaultsBindlimmpsBvillB beBizedBolliandleithelpeakfalesignBtormfilow,liecessitatinglinuchltargerlpumpsiffuturelibumpaapacityB needs are included in the sea level adaptation matrix. The southeast portion of the Development Areas (Watersheds D and E) will be at high enough elevations that they will only require a pump station and multi - purpose basin if sea levels rises more than approximately 3 -feet. These facilities are to be planned as future improvements and will be implemented as part of the adaptive management of the site to address more than 18- inches of sea level rise. 7. Proposed Outfall Structures The proposed outfall structures are to be located near existing stormwater outfalls. The outfalls will include provisions for both gravity pipes and the pump station force main pipe to discharge to the receiving waters. The proposed gravity pipeline outfall will be set at an elevation above the current mean low water, -5.0 feet, allowing for the conveyance pipelines to gravity drain at low tides and to facilitate inspection and maintenance activities. The force main pipe outfall will be set above the gravity pipeline at an elevation providing minimum or greater cover over the pipe. Outfall structures will be constructed onlNieBhorelineBndliicludeBockBlopelprotectionlalesignedBolriaintainBBtableBonfiguration .ThinteriorBoB theautfallBtructuresBvilllbeBeparateBnanholesBvithaThaclflowl reventionBideBralvesBmdlkateBralves .B Thisl£ onfigurationBvillljrotectBheBideBr alvesffromBvaveSt ction, BtllowBheBnanholesBoteRlosedTffB from the Bay to facilitate maintenance of the tide valves, and prevent high tides from encroaching into thel ollectionBystemsBnulti- purpose I asins.l1eeff igurel43BlepictingBheJonceptuall onfigurationBfBheB proposed outfall structures. 8. Summary of Proposed Stormwater Systems per Watershed As discussed previously, the proposed stormwater management strategy will maintain the existing drainage patterns of the Project Site. The overall proposed system will have 6 separate watersheds to encompassing the site. Some watersheds include only Development or Reuse Areas, while others include portions of both. See Figure 44 depicting the proposed watersheds established by the proposed stormwater system. The following is a description of the proposed stormwater management system anticipated for each watershed. a. Watershed A Watershed A encompasses the areas immediately to the north and west of the Seaplane Lagoon. This watershed includes approximately 148 acres and will discharge stormwater runoff through a newly refurbished outfall structure near the northwest corner of the Lagoon. The watershed Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 113 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 LL J LL CC N H 0 O -H O W o o¢ CO ¢ O = N W U Z Z ¢ 0 zz ¢ Q N 0 V XED i N I o_• 1 DETENTION BASIN o w �< o w > _� U = W `L±1 PLAN VIEW LL U O O LJ O 0 EXPANDED RIP RAP J U w N J O J • O - W 0 >I I PROFILE VIEW NOT TO SCALE Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 114 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 43 CONCEPTUAL BASIN & OUTFALL.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR fr' WATERSHED B \7\ f;. L OUTFALL WATERSHED C �s WATERSHED A iII NOTE: SHAPE AND LOCATIONS OF BASINS ARE FLEXIBLE OUTFALL LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON OUTFALL m o-� WATERSHED E PROPOSED STORM DRAIN APPROX WATERSHED BOUNDARY [3•411> APPROX DIRECTION OF STORM DRAIN FLOW OUTFALL i ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' C EEBoon9 0 arrI®©9 OBboon9 B ©o Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 44 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN WATERSHEDS G:11087- 10ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_44_STORM DRAIN WATERSHEDS.DWG Page 115 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 includes portions of Development Areas along the frontage of the Seaplane Lagoon and Reuse Areas more interior to the Project Site, with the low -lying elevations of the Reuse Areas dictating the infrastructural components that will be needed. The ultimate stormwater system will include the installation of downstream facilities including main storm drain trunk lines, a multi - purpose basin, pump station, and the aforementioned outfall. The storm drain trunk lines will connect to the existing facilities in the Reuse Areas, as well as new storm drain lines within the Development Areas. The multi - purpose basin is proposed along the western edge of the Seaplane Lagoon and will cover and rea fBpproximatelyBBcres. H' heBocation lindBhapelltfBhisBiulti- purpose I, asinlireBlexibleB and should be determined in conjunction with the planning for the Seaplane Lagoon waterfront site. A pump station with the diversion vault structure will be installed at the multi - purpose basin and is anticipated to have a capacity of 20,000 gpm. An enhanced maintenance program will be implemented to rehabilitate the existing system within the Reuse Areas prior to the ultimate replacement and installation of the new stormwater collection system. Initial construction of the proposed stormwater system will include the installation of new storm drain lines in all backbone streets. This backbone system will include pipeline stubs to future Reuse parcels and connections to intercept existing on -site pipeline systems within Reuse parcels. Proposed construction within each Reuse parcel will be required to replace the existing stormwater facilities within that parcel, such that ultimately the entire existing system is replaced with a new system that meets current standards. Providing 20,000 gpm of pumping capacity along with the 3 -acre stormwater basin will allow the system to meet City standards and accommodate 55- inches of sea level rise and beyond. Watershed ABvillibelleveeligrotectedffromlihellloodinglionditionsBlescribedlinFtheffloodITrotectionBectionB andBufficientllight- of- wayBvillEb eBnaintainedBoBncreaseBeveeteightBfBeaBevelRisel1xceedsB 18- inches. b. Watershed B Watershed B encompasses the northwestern quadrant of the Project Site. This watershed includes approximately 133 acres and the associated stormwater system will route runoff to a newly refurbished outfall on the Oakland / Alameda Estuary. The entire watershed area is comprised of Reuse Areas and includes the proposed Sports Complex site. As with Watershed A, the multi- purpose basin will have an area of approximately 3 acres and, in this case, is anticipated to be integrated into the Sports Complex site. The pump station is anticipated to have a capacity of 20,000 gpm. An enhanced maintenance program will be implemented to rehabilitate the existing system prior to the ultimate replacement and installation of the new stormwater collection system, which will be installed incrementally over time. Initial construction of the stormwater system will include the installation of downstream facilities including main storm drain trunk lines, a multi- purpose basin, pump station, and the aforementioned outfall, which is proposed for the northern shoreline of the Project Site, just west of the Main Gate. The proposed new stormwater system will include the initial installation of new storm drain lines in all backbone streets and will include pipeline stubs to intercept existing on -site drain lines within Reuse parcels. Proposed construction within each Reuse parcel will be required to replace the existing stormwater facilities within that parcel, such that the entire existing system is ultimately replaced with a new system that meets the design standards proposed herein. Providing 20,000 gpm of pumping capacity along with the 3 -acre stormwater basin will allow the system to meet City standards and accommodate 55- inches of sea level rise and beyond. Watershed BBvi11BbeBevee> rotectedffromBhef loodingltonditionsidescribedBnBhel floodiProtectionBectionB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 116 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 andI ufficientlight- of- wayBvillteBnaintainedBoBncreaseBeveeteightBfBeaBevel lliseEtxceedsB 18- inches. c. Watershed C Watershed C encompasses the northeastern quadrant of the Project Site. This watershed includes approximately 112 acres and will route stormwater runoff to a newly refurbished outfall structure on the Oakland / Alameda Estuary. The areas within this watershed include Reuse Areas, including the neighborhood of the Big Whites, as well as Development Areas, but as in the case of Watershed A, the low -lying elevations of the Reuse Areas necessitate storage and pumping from the initial project stages. The ultimate stormwater system will include the installation of downstream facilities including main storm drain trunk lines, a multi - purpose basin, pump station, and the aforementioned outfall, which is proposed for the northern shoreline of the Project Site, just west of the Main Street Dog Park. Space limitations constrain the size of the proposed multi - purpose basin to an area of approximately 1 acre, which will necessitate a somewhat larger installed stormwater pump capacity of 40,000 gpm. An enhanced maintenance program will be implemented to rehabilitate the existing system within the Reuse Areas prior to the ultimate replacement and installation of the new stormwater collection system. Initial construction of the proposed stormwater system will include the installation of new storm drain lines in all backbone streets. This backbone system will include pipeline stubs to future Reuse parcels and connections to intercept existing on -site pipeline systems within Reuse parcels. Proposed construction within each Reuse parcel will be required to replace the existing stormwater facilities within that parcel, such that ultimately the entire existing system is replaced with a new system that meets current standards. Providing 40,000 gpm of pumping capacity along with the 1 -acre stormwater basin will allow the system to meet City standards and accommodate 55- inches of sea level rise and beyond. The ReuselkreasBvithiniWatershedl ' BvillBeBeveelprotectedFisromBhe I? oodingBonditionsBlescribedBnB the Flood Protection section, with associated options for adaptively raising levee crest as needed to respond to sea level rise greater than 18- inches. The Development Areas within the watershed will beatanBlevationBboveBheBequiredIgloodlprotectionfalevationsfrorlinitialBonstructionBlescribedB in the Flood Protection section. d. Watershed D Watershed D encompasses the central and eastern areas portions of the Project Site. This watershed includes approximately 130 acres and will discharge runoff to the Seaplane Lagoon through a newly refurbished outfall near the northeast corner of the Lagoon. The majority of the development within the watershed is Development Area, with only a small component of Reuse Areas. The proposed stormwater system will include the installation of new storm drain lines in all backbone streets, as well as pipeline stubs to future Development parcels and stubs to intercept existing on- site pipeline systems within Reuse parcels. The downstream portion of this watershed is within the Waterfront Town Center Sub - District, where plans call for a higher density development. Therefore, BtBsBanticipatedBhatBhereB .villl otffieI ufficientBandB.vailableBol onstructBdinulti- purpose basin. However, elevations within the watershed are high enough to meet City design standards (with 18- inches of sea level rise) without initial construction of a fully equipped pump station. Accordingly, the initial backbone infrastructure improvements for this watershed will include construction of the pump station vault, which will function through gravity outfall until Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 117 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 such time that sea level rises more than 18- inches above current levels. At that point incremental stormwater pump capacity will be installed up a total of 60,000 gpm to pump the peak system flowsBollhellagoon.B Providing a refurbished outfall and pump station vault will allow for adaptive management of the system to continue to meet the City's 25 -year conveyance standard. The Development Areas withinBNatershedIDBwillikavenninimumfkradeslkboveBheBlequiredBioodiprotectionalevationsB for initial construction described in the Flood Protection section. However, a levee will need to be constructed if sea level rise exceeds 18- inches and stormwater pump capacity will need to be installed up to a predicted maximum of 60,000 gpm, which would provide protection up to and beyond a sea level rise of 55- inches. e. Watershed E Watershed E encompasses the southeastern quadrant of the Project Site. This watershed includes approximately 158 acres and will route stormwater runoff to a newly refurbished outfall structure San Francisco Bay. The watershed consists entirely of Development Area. The proposed stormwater system will include the installation of new storm drain lines in all backbone streets. The system will also include pipeline stubs to future Development parcels. The initial construction will only require an outfall to be constructed to the Bay. The elevations of this watershed are higher than other areas within the Project Site, and therefore, do not require a multi - purpose basin or pump station to be installed at the time of initial construction. A pump station with capacity of 20,000 gpm and a roughly 3 -acre multi - purpose basin will be required if the sea level rise exceeds approximately 3 feet. The proposed outfall for this watershed will be located along the southern shoreline of the Enterprise Park. The Development Areas within Watershed E will have minimum grades above the required floodlibrotectionBlevationsEforBnitiallionstructionBlescribeanIthefFloodifrotectionBection.ITheB stormwater system can be adapted to accommodate sea level rise over 3 -feet with the installation a pump station and multi - purpose basin. A perimeter levee will need to be constructed if sea level riseBxceedsB 8- inches1ndBufficientBight- of- wayBvill I, eBnaintainedll <orBliatBdaptiveltneasurel sB well. f. Northwest Territories / VA Developed Areas The Northwest Territories / VA Developed Areas encompass the northwestern areas of Alameda Point. This watershed includes approximately 275 acres and discharges storm runoff to the Oakland / Alameda Estuary. It is comprised of open space areas, mostly passive with some active areas, abandoned airplane runways and the VA Developed Area. The VA Developed Area will install new outfalls along the northern shoreline, which will convey runoff from the VA Developed areas, adjacent abandoned runways, and open space areas. The proposed storm drain lines and outfalls from the VA Developed Areas will intercept any existing stormwater facilities and replace existing outfalls within their vicinity. The remaining open space areas within this watershed will utilize the remainder of the existing stormwater facilities, pipelines and outfalls. TheB/ AIDevelopedlAreaBvillBiaveBninimuml radesl itboveBlood liorotectionBlevationsBncludingB 55- inches of sea level rise. The remaining Open Space areas and abandoned runways will remain Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 118 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 at similar elevations as the existing conditions and will therefore not be protected from 100 -year coastal 1.3 ooding I.: azards1 rll utureBeaBevelBise. g. Off -Site Watersheds The City's SDMP suggests a number of improvements to the Alameda Northside drainage area lying immediately to the east of Alameda Point. This drainage area is the largest in the City and has I., eenBubjectBoBocalizedF111oodingBssuesBlueBol apacityBimitationsBnliBumberafBocations .B The prioritized 10 -year improvements for the system call for disconnecting the western portions of the system at West Campus Drive and redirecting the runoff to an alternative outfall location to off- load the existing Arbor and Northside (Marina Village) Pump Stations. One proposed alternative outfall location, and the one requiring the smaller amount of new storm drain line, is the northeast corner of the Seaplane Lagoon. Modeling presented in the SDMP suggests that a new 72 -inch diameter storm drain line would be required to meet a 10 -year design storm standard to gravity outfall at this location. Construction of this alternative outfall location could be accommodated in the infrastructure planning for Alameda with adequate forethought, although the size of the line would potentially present challenges with respect to right -of -way and locating of other utilities. However, it is important to note that increasing the design standard of system for the off -site watershed to the 25 -year event would likely require an additional terminal stormwater pump station (or installation of stormwater pumps earlier than otherwise needed at the Watershed D outfall). Providing 25 -year protection including sea level rise of 55- inches would require an additional 60,000 gpm of pumping capacity above and beyond that previously cited for Watershed D. AnBlternativeBoBheBonfigurationBuggestedBnl elliDMPBsBoBpgradeBhelbxistingBumpBtationB off -site of Alameda Point at Third Street to improve this off -site watershed. A bio- retention basin could also be constructed near the existing pump station, within the old Alameda Belt Line corridor tolrovideBvaterluality I,, enefitFlorBhisBxistinglwatershed. BnBhislllternativeBIlorcelkiainlivouldB be constructed from this upgraded pump station to the west and entering Alameda Point. This wouldlfirovideldesign exibilityBvithinliklameda I. ointBorEhelfiipelinelthiatlitieBorcelihainBonnectsB toIBndBcceptsBhis'' ff -site 13 ow.B The City will determine which option is preferred prior to the beginning of the detailed storm drainage design for Alameda Point. The City's Urban Runoff Fund would be required to fund these improvements. 9. Proposed Water Quality Treatment Measures The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program oversees the implementation of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) that was issued for urban stormwater discharges from Alameda County, including the City of Alameda. The MRP outlines a number of regulatory goals and requirements for stormwater management for new development and redevelopment sites. The permit previsions require the implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) measures as outlined in Section C.3.c of the MRP. These measures include source control, site design, and treatment requirements to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and improve the quality of the stormwater runoff. TheB✓ IRPBdentifiesBlppropriateB, IDBtormwateralanagementBneasuresBuchBsBainwater I,: arvestingl ndB re- use,Bnfiltration, Evapotranspiration, BndBiotreatment, BvhileBmphasizingli iatbiotreatmentBystemsBreB only to be used where it is practically infeasible to utilize the other three cited measures. Alameda Point Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 119 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 hasbeenlitlentifiedBs >jiracticallyEnfeasiblelllbr rge- scaleBainwaterl arvestingBndl afiltration1 yHtilizingB theBklamedal1ountywideWleanlWater1P rogram' sHnfiltration /Harvesting) ndHJsel 'easibilityScreeningB Worksheet. Accordingly, biotreatment will be the primary method of accomplishing stormwater treatment within Alameda Point. The LID biotreatment measures that will be implemented throughout Alameda PointBvillBnclude I,> ioretention lilanters,Btreetlilanters, I ioswales,Bubgradelinfiltrationfireas,libermeableB paving and any other treatment measures approved by the Regional Board. Permeable surfaces (pavement and concrete) have been installed as part of the adjacent Bayport development, however, because of shallow groundwater they were ineffective and had to be removed because they did not function properly. Implementation of these types of surfaces is not allowed unless with approval from the Public Works Director and a determination that the groundwater elevation will not interfere with the functioning of these units. The following describes the water quality plan for the Development and Reuse Areas: a. Development Areas The new backbone streets will be constructed with water quality facilities that provide treatment for the runoff from the impervious areas within that street right -of -way. These streets are anticipated toBncludeBinearffiio- retentionitlanters, ffiioswalesl3andlttreetItlantersljrovidingtio- filtrationR fB stormwater within the landscape strips of the street cross section. The water quality improvements within the backbone streets will be phased to closely match the development phasing. The on -site / in -tract areas of development parcels within the Development Area will be required to be designed with LID principles and treat the runoff interior to that parcel. This treatment can be accomplished by allocating and integrating water quality treatment measures within on -site / in -tract landscape areas. Development parcels also may implement on -site / in -tract rain harvesting systems, where feasible. With implementation of the water quality measures in the backbone streets and on -site / in -tract development parcels, all runoff from impervious areas within the Development Areas will be treated in compliance with MRP. In case that it is determined by the City of Alameda that it is not feasible or practical for a development parcel to provide all of the necessary treatment for that respective parcel, then that development parcel may implement water quality improvements elsewhere, within Alameda Point, consistent with the "Alternative or In -Lieu Compliance" previsions outlined in Section C.3.e of the MRP. b. Reuse Areas Water quality improvements within the Reuse Areas will be implemented incrementally over time. Development applications or long term leases for Reuse parcels will be required to construct on- site water quality improvements to provide treatment for that Reuse parcel. At this time, the water quality treatment of these existing streets is exempt from the requirements of the MRP. However, as backbone streets are improved with the Reuse Areas, water quality improvements will be implemented, to the maximum extent feasible, to treat the runoff from that street. c. Water Quality Certification Alivaterlitualityldertification,Bection1401,BvillIteBequiredgromIthelliegionallWater uality I oardB (RWQCB)U'or1 ctivitiesBvithinBvetlandsB r elowlihellordinaryltighBvateraine.ffhislitertificationB will be required for the outfall construction at Alameda Point. The project will need to demonstrate compliance with the water quality regulations of the MRP for the storm runoff from the Project Site. As described above, the implementation of the water quality improvements will be phased in the Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 120 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Development Areas and incremental in the Reuse Areas. Accordingly, it is anticipated that a site - wideBvaterBlualityl ertificationBvill ellgursuedliortilllibutfallsandBvastelilischargeBequirementsB will be established for the site outlining how the water quality compliance will be achieved over time. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 121 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 IX. POTABLE WATER A. Existing Potable Water System 1. Existing Potable Water Supply Potable water is supplied to Alameda Point by EBMUD. EBMUD has supplied water to the Project Site since 1941. Historical records indicate that when the former NAS Alameda was in operation, the average daily demand of potable water consumed by the Project Site was approximately 2.8 million gallons per day (MGD). EBMUD supplies potable water to the Project Site through the existing potable water distribution system within the Alameda street network east of Main Street. EBMUD owns and operates a 24 -inch transmission water line that crosses the Oakland / Alameda Estuary near the Webster / Posey Tubes. This facility supplies water to the majority of the west end of the City of Alameda. EBMUD's distribution system, ranging in size from 6- inches to 16- inches in diameter, extends from this transmission main to Main Street. There is an existing 10 -inch diameter pipeline within Main Street, north of RAMP, and 12 -inch and 16- inchBliameterlilipelinesBvithin1 Main1StreetBoltheBouth I,, etweenBtAMP> ndB'acificAvenue.dlamedaB Point receives water via three large existing meters, two (2) 8 -inch and one (1) 10 -inch, which connect to these EBMUD pipelines in Main Street. 2. Existing Potable Water Distribution System The existing potable water system within Alameda Point connects to the meters described above and distributeslipotablelandBireBvaterBoBillareasBvithinBher Proj ectIite. f' hisRxistingBystemBvasBnstalledB by the Navy and the majority of the system is over 60 years old. In 1986, the existing water system in the southeast portion of the Project Site was reconstructed and new pipelines were installed. Historically, there were two distinct water systems at Alameda Point, a potable water system and a dedicated firellorotectionBystem. H' heBledicatedBirelibrotectionBystemBvasBlesignedBisBlkighBiowBl elugeBystemB tolbrovideBreryllargeBireBiowslloraBhort) eriodBABime, BuitableBolprotectllircraftBmd &ircraftBelatedB activitieslitBhellormerBlASlklameda. H' hisllireBystemBncludedBargelbipelines ,BipBoll4 -inchl iameter,B and up to approximately 1.5 million gallons of on -site storage. The storage facilities included two elevated andBwolgroundBevelBanks.H heBireBystemBilsoBncludedlinan- sitel umpinglplantBoBhoostBivailableB fireBlows. ff hereHsBioBlemandEforBhisBypeBhfBystemBincetkircraftaperationslleasedatBheH 'roj ectB Site.additionally,Bhis relprotectionBystemBvasBostlyBoBnaintainllperable ,BheBlevated k nksBequiredB seismicBetrofittinglandlthereBvasBnsufficientBvaterBirculationBBurnoverlinBhisBystemBesultinglinBvaterB qualityBoncerns.H' herefore, llhisllirelprotectionBystemIkasBince een11bandoned]E ndlfirelprotectionlhasB been converted to the existing potable water system. lip The existing potable water system of pipelines ranges in size from 6 -inch to 16 -inch in diameter. The system is currently owned by the City of Alameda, as it does not meet the standards for EBMUD to accept it into their ownership and system. The existing system remains functional and is providing water service to the existing uses within the Project Site. However, this system is deteriorated, requires frequent maintenance and is not considered reliable. The existing water pipelines are commonly not located in existing or proposed street alignments and portions of the system are located underneath existing buildings. Additionally, the existing system is commonly shallow and does not have adequate cover resulting in pipeline I,reaks> ► ndBeaks. ITBMUDBnticipatesBhatBhereBsHBignificantHmount aflipotableBvaterBhatl sB lost and wasted at the Project Site due to undocumented leakage. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 122 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Thel 'roj ectiS iteBsBvithinWBMUD' sBentrallipressure llone.1.Becentlikrel lowBestBvaslkonductedlimBheB EBMUD'sliixistingl3ystemliltilheBntersectionlilfl targellElivelindB✓Iainl treet.H'his I,: re I owEestlindicatedB that the static pressure of the system is 71 psi and the residual pressure at 2,000 gpm is 66 psi. Currently, EBMUD operates and maintains the existing water system on behalf of the City of Alameda through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). See Figure 45 depicting the existing on -site potable water system and meters that supply water to the Project Site. B. Proposed Potable Water System 1. Proposed Potable Water Demand & Supply The total estimate average daily demand of potable water at full build -out of the redevelopment of Alameda Point is approximately 2.06 MGD. The potable water demand for the various proposed land uses and each Sub - District are outlined in Table 10 and Table 11. These potable water demand factors do notldccountlTorBheBmplementationafBvaterltonservingEhturesBhroughoutBhelproposedlbuildings .H'heB estimated demand includes 0.95 MGD of irrigation demand at the Project Site. This maximum demand does not assume the use of recycled water for the irrigation demand or for other permitted uses, such as toilet ushingl ivithinBommercia1111ui1dings. H' heltiotablelvaterBemandlri11111e ldecreasedBccordinglylvithB the delivery and use of recycled water at the Project Site. Additionally, this development will commit to a range of sustainable strategies that achieve reductions in water consumption, which will further reduce the estimated water demand. Table 10 - Potable Water Flow Generation Factors Land Use Flow Factor Residential 280 GPD / Unit or 165 GPD / Unit Commercial 0.084 GPD / SF or 0.15 GPD / SF Hotel 100 GPD / Room Park 3,040 GPD / Net Acre Marina 22 GDP / Slip Table 11 - Estimated Potable Water Demand (Buildout) Land Use Units Square Footage Acres Estimated Flow (MGD) Residential 1,425 0.38 Commercial 5,500,000 0.51 Hotel 300 0.03 Park 311 0.94 Marina 530 0.01 VA Development Area 75 0.19 Total Potable Water Flow: 2.06 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 123 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR - 1• - -- ry��ry, r r MIS ■1•11.11 mEIN 0 .••• SEAPLANE LAGOON r 17. •mss- ��~iY MAPPING SOURCE: Mir Ills r , 'A{ -lr- 41511 *MiD► MR MIMI Yri"F6F ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = I,000'f bss, o Mb [fig FIGURE 45 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_45_EX WATER.DWG Page 124 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 EBMUD recently (August 2013) completed a water supply assessment (WSA) for the proposed project, including the transit oriented mixed use alternative. The WSA indicates that EBMUD has a long history of supplying water to the Project Site. The WSA concludes that EBMUD has adequate supply for the proposed project and alternative. Similarly, EBMUD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan has included the water demand projections associated with the redevelopment of the site, maintaining adequate supply allocation to the Project Site. 2. Proposed Potable Water Distribution System The proposed water distribution system will be owned and operated by EBMUD. The system shall be designedl indlitonstructedl BonsistentBvithWBMUD' sPStandardFSpecificationslfor1 Pipelinesl/0- inchesandB smaller. The pipeline material for pipelines that are smaller than 12- inches in diameter will be polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Pipelines that are 12- inches in diameter and larger will be mortar -lined and plastic coated steel.ff lexiblel BonnectionsB> rTtherBlexibleBlesignsBvillibeBmplemented &tBocationsBvhereBlifferentialB settlement is anticipated. ThelpotableBvaterBlistributionBystemBvi111d1solprovidellireBvaterBupplyFforlthe I' roject1 ite.1 hellbotableB waterBystemBvill I, eBlesignedBolprovidelteltiaximumBlailyBlemandl1luslit I, re li? ow.Wonservatively,ltheB assumedflfireglowlilesignlitriteriaBsB4O004pmEforli I.: ourslatl$► BesiduallibressurelibfaOlbsilfromlinyBhreeB adjacent rBeasonablyBiearby li re I.:ydrants I owing»t113heBame me.B ThelOroposed> aterldistributionEystemlfirovideslEhe »iaximumldailyldemand>illus re ow1vithoutBtorageB facilities or booster pumps required. AppropriatetbackflowlireventionBfacilitiesP willtbeRequiredfforBallP Ire &erviceftonnectionsflindllinyB connections (permanent or temporary) to the existing on -site distribution system. a. Development Areas A new potable water distribution system will be installed within the Development Areas at Alameda Point. The proposed distribution pipelines will connect to the existing EBMUD water facilities in Main Street. The existing water system will be replaced with the existing system in phases consistent with the development build -out. The proposed distribution system will range in size from 8 -inch to 16 -inch in diameter. The proposed water distribution facilities will be installed withinallibackboneStreetsljrovidingReliableljotable& ndBireBvaterBoa11B1evelopmentljarcelsB within the Development Areas. See Figure 46 depicting the proposed potable water system. b. Reuse Areas The Reuse Areas within Alameda Point initially will continue to utilize the existing potable water distribution system through an enhanced maintenance program. This program will incrementally replace the existing system. These incremental improvements will be coordinated through the City of Alameda and EBMUD to ensure the improvements are implemented orderly and addressing priority areas. The exterior pipeline loop within W. Redline Street, Monarch Street, W. Tower Avenue and Pan Am Street shall be prioritized. This improved loop will provide a more reliable systemBvithBdequateBvater 1pressurelfor I. relprotectionBvithinBheMeuselikreas .Additionally,BachB developmentlforojectBvithinitheSteusel ikreasBvillBeplaceBhellbotableBnd I, reBvater113ateralBervingB that site. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 125 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 TO VA DEVELOPED AREA OAKLAND INNER HARBOR s LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON PROPOSED 8" WATERLINE PROPOSED 12" WATERLINE PROPOSED 16" WATERLINE EXISTING WATERLINE tri ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' CaMoon9 0 arrI®©9 Oboon9 B ©. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 46 PROPOSED ULTIMATE WATER SYSTEM G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_46_WATER (ULTIMATE).DWG Page 126 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Ultimately, the potable water distribution system within the Reuse Areas will be replaced. The proposed distribution system will be similar to the system proposed within the Development Areas, including new pipelines and appurtenances. The replacement of the potable water system within the Reuse Areas will be completed over time as described in the Phasing and Implementation Section XIII. C. Value Engineering Opportunities ABalueBngineeringBpportunity111orThe *otableBiaterBysteml >k>$djustEhe re owldesignBriteria.Ifhel1overningB desi gala arameterl1 stab lishingBheBequiredl ipelin eft izesBvithinBhe1P rojectIhiteBsBheBireBiows .ITheBire1 owB criteriaBssumed I,'yBheB✓IIPBs 1: ighBriBdomparisonBoBurroundingB $ities.BOnceB ioreBpecificl $levelopmentBaletailsB areI vailable,BuchBsBizes flproposedBtructuresBvithinBalefinedlireasaflgheBite ,BhisBalesignlparameterBould 1, eB refined1 ndBeduced.ffheJ 1nalltire owidlesigniThall I, elkonfirmedBvithBShel ity ''fliklamedaffirelDepartmentAndB be consistent with the current version of the California Fire Code. The current code allows for 50% reductions inBheBequiredBireFli lowB vhenB> uildingsBireliprinklered, BvhichBsBntendedEforBheBbuildingsB ►tlAlamedalToint.B AssumingaeducedBiowlate sib f 31 ,5 0 01GPMEtyp i c allte s identialR onstructi onBindE2,5 OOBGPMfforftommercialB buildings, this would reduce the backbone infrastructure costs by approximately $4.2 million. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 127 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 X. RECYCLED WATER A. Existing Recycled Water System 1. Existing Recycled Water and Supply System Currently, there is not an existing source of recycled water at Alameda Point. Accordingly, there are no existing recycled water distribution facilities within the Project Site. B. Proposed Recycled Water System 1. Proposed Recycled Water Supply EBMUD is implementing the East Bayshore Recycled Water Project, which currently supplies recycled water to portions of Oakland and Emeryville. EBMUD plans to extend their recycled water service to the City of Alameda, including Alameda Point, with future phases of this project. This multi -phase project will eventually supply an annual average of approximately 2.2 MGD of recycled water to portions of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville and Oakland. EBMUD's source of recycled water for Alameda Point is generated at their Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) located at the eastern landing of the Bay Bridge. The recycled water facilities at the MWWTPBEtilizeBnicrofiltration Bnd> xtraldisinfectionlibl iiroduceBecycled lvaterBhatBneetsBrl xceedsll eB California Department of Health standards for unrestricted use. Currently, EBMUD has existing operational recycled water distribution facilities in portions of West Oakland, near 7th Street and Jefferson Street intersection. The East Bayshore Recycled Water Project will eventually construct a recycled water supply line from these facilities in West Oakland, across the Oakland - Alameda Estuary, and into the western portions of Alameda. Alameda Point will likely connect to the recycled water facilities installed with the Bayport project, in order to connect to EBMUD's reliable supply. See Figure 47 depicting the existing and planned future facilities associated with EBMUD's East Bayshore Recycled Water Project. 2. Proposed Recycled Water System and Uses As a key component of the Project's sustainable objectives to reduce potable water consumption and demand, a new recycled water distribution system will be installed at Alameda Point. A network of recycled water pipelines will be constructed within the proposed rights of ways of the backbone streets and will range in size from 6 to 12 inches. The recycled water facilities will be designed and constructed inBccordanceBvithWBMUD' sBegulations ,BtandardsBndBpecifications.B The proposed recycled water system at Alameda Point will include a backbone network of pipelines throughout all Sub - Districts. This network of facilities will allow for continued growth of recycled water uses> ndBlexibilitylTorBhelDevelopmentandBZeuseBAreasBoBrtilizeBhisBesource .Pfhel ysteml vi11BdsoB extend to all anticipate large open space or park facilities, such as the Northwest Territories, Sports Complex and Enterprise Park areas. See Figure 48 depicting the proposed recycled water system. The recycled water usage at Alameda Point will supplement and minimize the potable water usage. The anticipated uses of recycled water within the Project include landscape irrigation, wetland restoration supportl andlirrigation,l plumbinglllixtureslinldual- plumbedbuildingsBndlindustriallfirocesses .B'heBecycledB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 128 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 $i9 fil"f4 !. E®a1 Savehort Recycled Water liteject ray - . i l er.'yr.d �a rdirL. L a'F'"" ID I.? 1 . i 11 0 1.00 9,x1 licrbni" CRANED ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 NOT TO SCALE ©©E B (a rrbss, ObV© FIGURE 47 EBMUD EAST BAYSHORE RECYCLED WATER PROJECT Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 47 EAST BAYSHORE REC WATER.DWG — — Page 129 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN OAKLAND INNER HARBOR UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 SEAPLANE LAGOON LEGEND 1 rri a PROPOSED RECYCLED WATERLINE — — — — PROPOSED RECYCLED WATERLINE (EAST BAYSHORE PROJECT) ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' FIGURE 48 PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 10VkCAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_48_RECYCLED WATER.DWG Page 130 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 water demand to provide irrigation to the proposed public open space areas within the Project Site is estimated to be 0.95 MGD. This is the largest expected demand for recycled water at Alameda Point and supplyBoBheselareasBvi111bel prioritizedI kllliatherlproposedasesafliecycled> vater> villBieedBolIonfirmB available supply with EBMUD at the time of that project application. There is potential that the EBMUD East Bayshore Recycled Water Project will not have extended recycled water supply to the western portions of Alameda by the commencement of construction of the Alameda Point backbone infrastructure. The proposed recycled water system will be installed regardless so that recycled water can be distributed throughout Alameda Point once EBMUD's supply is available. Additionally, under this scenario dual water services, potable and recycled, will need to be installed to all public open spaces and other uses that anticipate utilizing the recycled water once it is available. Potable water will be utilized at these locations until the conversion to recycled water use is complete. As described above, the recycled water usage throughout the Project Site will reduce the potable water consumption. Utilizing recycled water for the irrigation demand of the large public open spaces planned within the Project Site will reduce the potable water demand by 0.95 MGD. C. Value Engineering Opportunities The largest anticipate demands for recycled water are the irrigation to landscape and wetland restoration areas and industrial processes. A value engineering opportunity is to limit the recycled water backbone system to only provide recycled water service to the areas within the Open Space and Adaptive Reuse Sub - Districts. This would reduce the backbone infrastructure costs by approximately $1.8 million. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 131 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 XI. DRY UTILITIES The dry utilities at Alameda Point include electric power, natural gas, communications and cable television. A. Electric System 1. Existing Electric System Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) owns and operates the existing electric power facilities at Alameda Point and throughout the City of Alameda. The existing electric system at Alameda Point consists of 115kV transmission, 12kV and 4kV distribution facilities. Electricity is supplied to the Project Site via thelaxisting t ,verheadB 15kVBransmissionllacilitiesil longB' acificlAvenueBoBhelitast ,BvhichBurnlitorthanB Main Street and enter Alameda Point and connect to the Cartwright Substation near the Skyhawk / 1 lth Street intersection. The overhead 115kV transmission line continues north on Main Street and connects to NCPA Combustion Turbines twin peaking generators located north of the linear park & trail along Main Street. The Cartwright Substation is a critical component ofthe existing electric system and is intended to remain in service throughout the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The substation provides local electric distribution to Alameda Point and portions of the surrounding areas to the east. Cartwright is a 115/12.47kV substation, equipped with two 33/44/55 MVA transformer banks. Nine active 12.47kV, 600 Amp underground distribution feeders (electric main lines) exit the substation to the west, providing local electric service throughout the Project Site. 600 Amp and 200 Amp looped underground distribution circuits provide feeds to local unit substations and existing customers throughout the Project Site. Unit substations located in strategic areas of the Project Site provide switching and /or protection for the various 12kV electric main lines. See Figure 49 depicting the existing electric system and associated key components 2. Existing Electric System Disposition and Capacity AMP estimates that the Cartwright Substation has an existing electric capacity for a maximum demand of approximately 50 MVA. The substation can be upgraded to increase the electric capacity, if necessary. The upgrades would most likely include a transformer and bus and breaker improvements within the substation. The electric transmission system facilities, 115kV pole lines, providing electricity to Alameda Point will support an additional electric demand of approximately 80 MVA. The existing electric system is operable and provides electricity to the existing tenants within the Project Site. The Cartwright Substation is in acceptable condition to AMP and will be preserved. The existing 115kV overhead electric transmission lines along Main Street and connecting to the Cartwright Substation will remain overhead, but may be relocated to accommodate adjacent street improvements or developments if determined necessary. The existing electric distribution facilities on the piers were recently replaced and will remain. The majority of the existing electric distribution system meets current codes and standards; however there are reliability issues within portions of the Project Site. The locations of the existing distribution facilities are commonly outside of existing streets, and are within future Development areas. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 132 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 INNER HARBOR • Ali MAIN STREET Lig SAN FRANCISCO BAY ELECTRICAL 115kV TRANSMISSION LINES = Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 133 G :11087- 101ACAD -101 EXHIBITS\ BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES\XB 49 EX ELECTRICAL.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 3. Proposed Electric Demand The estimated total coincident electric demand for the ultimate redevelopment of Alameda Point is approximately 40 — 50 MVA. See Table 12 for a summary of estimated electric demands associated with the build -out of the Community Reuse Plan. The estimated demand is based on historical electric utility load data for the various proposed land uses in the local climate zone. The existing transmission facilities and Cartwright Substation have adequate capacity for the Project's estimated ultimate electric demand. Table 12 - Estimated Electric Demand (Buildout) Land Use Units Square Footage Acres Estimated Loads (MVA) Residential 1,425 4.3 Commercial 5,300,000 36.4 Retail 200,000 2.5 VA Development Area 75 3.0 Total Electrical Load: 46.2 If additional capacity is necessary to accommodate proposed use within Alameda Point that exceeds the available capacity, equipment additions and improvements can be implemented at the Cartwright Substation to increase the available capacity. Other capacity upgrades and system protection / automation could be developed with input from AMP on an as needed basis. Large industrial or other types of uses with high electric demands may require additional electric capacity. These types of demands would be in excess of about 4 MVA, and would likely require to be served at Primary Voltage (12.47 kV). This proposed use and associated electric demand would need to be evaluated and coordinated with AMP. 4. Proposed Electric System The existing 115kV overhead transmission facilities will remain and continue to provide electric power to the Project Site. The 115kV pole lines directly east and connecting to the Cartwright Substation will be preserved. There is an existing easement, approximately 140 -feet wide, in favor of AMP for this area, which will be preserved restricting the potential land uses to landscaping or parking areas. The 115kV polel$ inesalongBheBvestBidelMB✓Iainl treetBvillBemain I'utl*iay I, eBelocatedBolitliminate> onflictsBvithB proposed street improvements or development sites. The new 115 kV transmission lines, where they are relocated to, must be constructed and energized prior to removal of the existing lines. The Cartwright Substation will be preserved and remain as a key component of the proposed electric distribution system. a. Development Areas From the Cartwright Substation, a new underground electric distribution system will be installed with the Development Areas. This new electric system will replace the existing electric system in phases consistent with the development build -out. The proposed electric distribution system will consist of new underground conduits, vaults, boxes, and pads; which will accommodate 15kV rated cables, transformers, switches and other utility distribution equipment including its SCADA communication monitoring and controls. The existing nine (9) electric main lines emanating Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 134 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 from the west side of the Cartwright Substation will be replaced with approximately six (6) new main lines. These main lines will require a utility corridor and reserved easement in aggregate, approximately 40 -feet wide, to assure utility compliance for minimizing exposure and maintaining separation of circuits to avoid mutual heating of conductors. See Figure 50 depicting a conceptual configurationBfBhel ttlectricl tilityl$ orridorsandRasementsBiearBhelCartwrightISubstation. From the main lines, the electric distribution facilities will be installed within all backbone streets within the Development Areas. The electric conduits and cables will be placed in a joint utilityBrench. H' hisBrenchBvi11B1soliccommodateBheB 'acificlUasl IElectricl PG &E)Biaturaltgas,B telephone, RableBelevision, IpossiblelincillarylliberfibpticRableBystemslindBtreetBightBacilities .B The proposed electric system and joint trench will be constructed in accordance with AMP's rules and regulations as outlined in their Material and Installation Criteria for Underground Electric Systems, latest version. See Figure 51 depicting the schematic proposed joint trench system at Alameda Point. SomeIDflaheB xistingEtmitit ubstationsfinayB- emainBfBheyBloBiotRonflictBrvithB therltroposedB utilities,BtreetsarlDevelopmentareas.11pecifically,BheaxistinganitBubstations,ISubstationBil2B andllgubstationBt14,1tearBhellaiersavillnikelyllemainlindliarovideliervicelforBhelMARADBisesB on the piers. The unit substations map also be used for underground trunk loop systems in the Development Areas. b. Reuse Areas The Reuse Areas within Alameda Point initially will continue to utilize the existing electrical distribution system through an enhanced maintenance program. This program will be administered byBheECitylbfBklamedaBMMPlindBvillBehabilitateBheRxistingBystemBoliddressideficiencies .B Each proposed development within the Reuse Areas will be responsible for investigating and documentingBheRonditionlbfBheRxistingBlistribution1TacilitiesBlirectlyBi dj acentBoBhatBpecificB site.l nyldeficienciesBdentifiedBhall1eBddressBtlie i *melilfilhattievelopment.Bidditionally,IdachB development project within the Reuse Areas will replace the transformer and electrical service to that site. Ultimately, the electrical distribution system within the Reuse Areas will be replaced. The proposed system will be similar to the system proposed within the Development Areas, constructed in a joint utility trench. Similarly, the unit substations at preserved buildings within the Reuse Areas will likely remain and be served from the proposed distribution system. The replacement of the electrical system within the Reuse Areas will be completed over time as described in the Phasing and Implementation Section XIII. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 135 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 MAIN STREET 2 - 5" CONDUITS _ 5" CONDUITS err A • 5" CONDUITS U co H 5 O 0 E0 +,06Z EXISTING SUBSTATION tl 0 w 0 0 ELECTRICAL EASEMENT PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH AND 20' EASEMENT± PROPOSED CONDUITS EXISTING 115kV TRANSMISSION LINES /6"1- Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 136 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES\XB 50 CARTWRIGHT SUBSTATION.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TO VA DEVELOPED AREA EXISTING SUBSTATION SEAPLANE LAGOON t LEGEND PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH EXISTING 115kV TRANSMISSION LINES ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1 "= 1,000' ©'©E 9 0 ar ©©9 a Goba©E he s FIGURE 51 PROPOSED ULTIMATE JOINT TRENCH Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB51_JOINT TRENCH.DWG Page 137 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 B. Natural Gas System 1. Existing Natural Gas System The existing natural gas supply facilities at Alameda Point are owned and operated by PG &E. Natural gas is supplied to Alameda Point by an existing 8 -inch steel main, at an operating pressure of approximately 50 psi. This 8 -inch main is located along W. Atlantic Ave and continues within the Project Site heading northwest along the former rail line route. The 8 -inch main terminates at an existing regulating /metering station that is located at the Ferry Point / W. Tower Ave intersection. See Figure 52 depicting the Existing Natural Gas Facilities. The existing gas distribution facilities after the regulating / metering station are owned and operated by the City of Alameda. These facilities have deteriorated and are unreliable. The gas system does not extend to all areas within Alameda Point. Additionally, the operating pressure of the existing system is so low that many existing tenants cannot utilize the natural gas service. PG &E will not accept the existing gas distribution system as it does not meet their standards. PG &E is currently evaluating a system improvements and rehabilitation prior to the redevelopment of Alameda Point. 2. Proposed Natural Gas Demand The estimated total coincident natural gas demand for the ultimate redevelopment of Alameda Point is approximately 1,160 mcfh. See Table 13 for a summary of estimated natural gas demands associated with the build -out of the Reuse Plan. The estimated demand is based on historical natural gas utility load data for the various proposed land uses in the local climate zone. Table 13 - Estimated Gas Demand (Buildout) Land Use Units Square Footage Acres Estimated Demands (Mcfh) Residential 1,425 57 Commercial 5,300,000 1,060 Retail 200,000 200,000 40 VA Development Area 75 50 Total Gas Demand: 1,207 The existing gas supply line in W. Atlantic Avenue has adequate capacity for the Project's anticipated gas demand. If a capacity upgrade to the existing gas supply line is determined to be necessary, it will be implemented by PG &E and at PG &E's expense per their tariff rules and regulations. Atypical natural gas demands may necessitate the extension of gas distribution or transmission facilities and regulating stations. These will include any use with a natural gas demand of approximately 10 psi or higher, which is above typical distribution load and or pressure requirements Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 138 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 52 EX GAS.DWG Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 139 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 3. Proposed Natural Gas System a. Development Areas A new natural gas distribution system will be installed throughout Alameda Point, within the Development areas. This system will connect to the existing 8 -inch steel main near the W. Atlantic Ave. / Main Street intersection. The proposed gas facilities will be constructed in all backbone streets, providing reliable gas service to all Sub - Districts. The new natural gas system will replace the existing natural gas system in phases consistent with the development build -out. The proposed gasBlistributionBystemBvilll cludeSteelE► ndl3arlplasticlpipe, fittings,BegulatorsandBneters,> ndB supervisory control equipment that are compliant with the latest PG &E standard requirements. PG &E will own and operate the new gas system. The proposed gas system will be installed in a joint utility trench as previously described. b. Reuse Areas The existing system within the Reuse Areas will be rehabilitated and/or replaced by PG &E. New gas distribution facilities will be extended by PG &E into backbone streets where there are not current facilities. C. Telecommunications and Cable Television 1. Existing Telephone and Cable Television System The existing communication utility systems at Alameda Point are owned and operated by AT &T, AMP and Comcast. AT &T operates the existing telephone system east of the Project Site. AT &T's system includes conduits and1JiberB>pticRab1esBhatl xtendl 1crossBhe& rojectl' bitelindlierminateBitBhelitasternliornerB >f1$uildingB 2, near the W. Midway Ave / Lexington Street intersection. The AT &T facilities terminate at this location which is AMP's "head -end" facility and the demarcation point of AMP's telephone system. This telephone system provides service to the Project Site via conduits and sub - structure facilities that emanate from the AMP "head- end ". Comcast operates the existing cable TV system within the Project Site. Comcast has extended their wires within existing available conduits within AMP's sub - structure facilities. This approach results in inadequate clearances between the electric system and the cable TV system. The existing telecommunication systems within the Project Site are not reliable and not constructed to current standards and regulations. Additionally, the existing systems are not located in the proposed backbone street corridors. Thel axistingBommunications Alephone, i berBpticBndBablef fVBystemsldperatedByRT &TBnd1 omcastB to the east of the Project Site have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 140 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 2. Proposed Telephone and Cable Television System a. Development Areas New telecommunications systems, including telephone, and cable TV will be installed within the Development Areas. Additional empty conduits shall be installed to accommodate the implementationBalberB pticsByB thers. H' heseltystemslrillBonnectBolifieBxistingBystemsBastldfB the Project Site, near Main Street. The proposed telecommunication facilities will be constructed in all backbone streets, within both the Development and Reuse areas, providing reliable service to all Sub - Districts. The new telecommunication system will replace the existing systems in phases consistent with the development build -out. The proposed system will include extensions of conduits, substructure facilities, and supervisory control equipment that are compliant with the latest AT &T and Comcast standard requirements. The proposed telecommunications systems will be installed in a joint utility trench as previously described. b. Reuse Areas The Reuse Areas within Alameda Point initially will continue to utilize the existing telecommunication system through an enhanced maintenance program. This program will rehabilitateBheBaxistingBystemBoBddressBleficiencies. IEach >roposedBlevelopmentBvithinBheB Reuse Areas will be responsible for investigated and documenting the condition of the existing facilitiesBIirectly1 djacentBoBhatBpecificBitel AnyBleficienciesldentifiedBha11Tbe1 ddress1tBheB time of that development. Ultimately, the telecommunication system within the Reuse Areas will be replaced. The proposed system will be similar to the system proposed within the Development Areas, constructed in a joint utility trench. The replacement of the telecommunication system within the Reuse Areas will be completed over time as described in the Phasing and Implementation Section XIII. D. Street Light System 1. Existing Street Light System The existing street lighting system at Alameda Point is owned and operated by AMP. The existing street lighting is operable but does not meet the current utility standards or lighting requirements. 2. Proposed Street Lighting System A new street lighting system will be installed within all backbone streets of the Development Areas. The street light system within the Reuse Areas will be replaced over time as described in the Phasing and Implementation Section XIII. Photometric requirements and placement of lighting units shall comply with AMP 's standards. The lighting criteria shall also be compliant with the latest Illuminating Engineering Society1 IES)Btandards. he 1:' ghtingBnitsBhallBtilizeBnergyBfficientBuminaires ,BuchBs 1,'ghtBmitting- diode (LED) type luminaires. 13 The proposed lighting system will be designed in accordance and adhere to the lighting mitigation measures definedBnllihe 13 iologicallepinionlitsuedlhyBhel Tnitedllitates111 'ishBndl3'Vildlifel ervicellsor»lameda I, ointB and a Memorandum of Agreement with the VA regarding lighting mitigation measures. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 141 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 XII. SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS The MIP establishes a practical yet comprehensive approach to integrating sustainable considerations with the backbone infrastructure proposed for Alameda Point. The key sustainable elements of the backbone infrastructure include creating a seismically stable site that can adapt to the potential impacts of climate change, utilize existing utility capacities available at the Project Site, harness the green infrastructure of the utility agencies serving the Project Site, conserve and restore natural resources, promote the well -being of the community through numerous active parks and open space areas and allow for future green infrastructure enhancements to be implemented within future in -tract / on -site development areas. When constructing NAS Alameda, the Navy designed the Project Site and associated infrastructure for a limited design and service time frame. Similar to many of the historic infrastructure systems in the Bay Area, the existing infrastructure, BncludingBloodBndBeismiclprotectionBneasures ,BtlklamedaB'oint I.: asBBimitedIifel1ndBequiresB eventual replacement or enhancement. The proposed site improvements presented in the MIP rehabilitate and replace the existing infrastructure to establish reliable and protected systems. The proposed improvements will provide long term protection and future adaptability from potential rising sea levels associated with climate change. lAdditionally, RorrectivelgeotechnicalBneasuresB willEbeHmplementedBoaddressEliquefiablefloilsandB shoreline instability. The proposed improvements at Alameda Point transform the Project Site into a long term, floodBndBeismicallyBafeBommunityBvithBlependableBystemsBbleBoBerveBndlprotectlany4enerations. The historic uses at NAS Alameda required large infrastructure demands. Therefore, the Project Site offers a unique setting with large existing and available utility capacities. These include wastewater treatment by EBMUD, potable water supply by EBMUD and electrical supply from AMP. Both EBMUD and AMP have exceptional sustainable and environmentally conscious systems. As examples, EBMUD uses nearly 90% less energy to de liveryBvaterBoBtslit ervicearealkanBheStverageBvaterlproviderBnEealifornia.BUsoJEBMUDThecamelkellrstB utility district in North America to operate a wastewater treatment plant that generated more renewable energy at the plant than is needed to run the facility. Similarly, AMP maintains a power portfolio that typically is comprised of 80% of renewable and clean energy sources. The backbone infrastructure at Alameda Point is proposed to continue to connect to these highly sustainable sources of infrastructure. Other sustainable components of the backbone infrastructure include: •B Demolish and abate unusable and decrepit structures. •B Rehabilitate and re -use of historic and other usable structures. •B Re -use and recycling of on -site materials. •B Implement sea level rise adaption plan that includes monitoring and methods to provide long term protectionBnd1dapt I oodlprotectionlinprovements1 olraryingBmounts fBeall;evelBise. •B Construct a new grid of "complete streets" supporting a broad range of transportation choices. •B Construct a comprehensive network of pedestrian and bicycle routes including components of the Bay Trail and the Cross Alameda Trail. •B Construct walkable streets with controlled intersections, bulb -outs and high - visible crosswalks. •B New and improved transit systems such as a shuttle/bus rapid transit, and improved ferry terminal. •B Implement Low Impact Development (LID) principles for the management and treatment of stormwaterBunoffBvith I' io- swales, I, io- filtrationBreasBndBtherBechnologiesBoBleanBtormwaterB runoff prior to outfall to the Bay or Estuary. •B InstallBBiewBvastewaterBollectionlBystemBeducingBheamountTffkroundwaterBnfiltration] ndB wetBveather lip ows. •B Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 142 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 The future on -site / in -tract developments and the associated construction of structures will build upon the foundation established by the backbone infrastructure and further improve the sustainability of Alameda Point. New construction at Alameda Point will be designed to conserve resources and minimize demands by utilizing water&educing I.: xturesl ndlinergyBfficientBppliancesBvithinlforoposedBtructures .l dditionally,BlTransportationB Demand Management Plan (TDM) being developed by the City will focus on ways to reduce single occupancy vehicles and encourage the use of other modes of transportation. Examples of other sustainability features of future development are likely to include: •B Offering of transit passes to residents and employees to promote and increase the use of transit for residents and employees living and working at Alameda Point, including shuttle services. •B Provide opportunities for car and bike sharing and other TDM programs. •B Implement rain water harvesting systems that reuse stormwater as a supplements supply of water for landscaping and other approved uses. These systems could include a rain barrel or similar type of rain water collection and storage system. •B Incorporate non - polluting renewable energy generation sources, such as solar, geothermal and / or biomass. As sustainable technologies advance and evolve, future green and sustainable enhancements within the development sites at Alameda Point will likely become more feasible. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 143 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 XIII. PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION A. Principles of Phasing and Implementation The backbone infrastructure improvements required for the redevelopment of Alameda Point will be phased to match the development phases as closely as possible. The required improvements for each phase will includeBlemolition3 loodlorotection,> ikorrectivelgeotechnicalBneasures ,> itelkrading, Iiatilities,IttreetsandfiransitB improvements. Each phase will construct the portion of infrastructure required to support the proposed uses and surrounding1 xistingBxsesBtndBoBnaintainl TinancialffeasibilityTfBhel jroject. Hnl?;omeRases,BnitialljhasesTfB developmentBvillRonstructffomponentsB> fBhefbackboneBnfrastructureBhatB &lsoffienefitffubsequentIthasesBrB converselyBaterlphasesBnayHonstructl frastructureHomponentsBhat I,' enefitl1riorl1hases. The following are principles of phasing and implementation for each component of the backbone infrastructure: 1. Demolition The demolition of existing utilities and streets will be completed in phases to match the development phases. 2. Corrective Geotechnical Measures The northern shoreline stabilization should be completed as soon as possible in order to eliminate the existing risk of losing critical infrastructure along this corridor. At minimum, the northern shoreline stabilizationBvillffiell ompletedltriorfloIDrB✓oncurrentlynvithBheHioodltrotectionBneasuresalongBhisB shoreline are constructed. The other corrective geotechnical measures, liquefaction remediation and Young Bay Mud compression, will be completed in phases to match the development phases. 3. Flood Protection and Site Grading WithinBheED evelopmentaxeas,Bhel loodlprotectionBneasures andlibroposedl itelgradingBvi11theljohasedB toBnatchRhel3levelopment lEphases.BThefflood1 irotectionBneasures, HncludingBhelnitialffeaBevelEtiseB protection strategy, required to protect each development phase will be implemented with that phase. The initialBlevelopmentlphasesBvillIlikely I., eBequiredlliolionstructBloodlibrotectionBneasuresBhatEivill I, enefitB the subsequent phases such as stormwater outfalls, basins or pump stations. WithinBheEReuseE yeas, BheBloodltrotectionBneasuresBvillffieB; onstructedBtslloonffsffdequateffundsB arefavailable,Bisilliscussedl3nllectionEKIII.B,Bolt onstructBhelequiredBmprovements .BJntilBhen,BloodB insurance policies shall be obtained by owners and tenants of existing low lying structures. 4. Street System Within the Development Areas, the construction of new on -site street improvements will be phased to match the development phases. The required timing of the off -site street improvements and implementation of the transit improvements will be outlined in the mitigation measures in the Alameda Point EIR. Within the Reuse Areas, the rehabilitation of the existing on -site street improvements will be constructed through an enhanced maintenance program as funds permit through a fee program or grants. These streets will become part of the City's citywide pavement rehabilitation program and will be improved over time on a priority basis through this program. Additional improvements will be completed as adequate funds are generated through the fee program or available grants have been obtained. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 144 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 5. Wastewater System Within the Development Areas, the construction of new on -site wastewater collection system will be phased to match the development phases. The initial development subphases will be required to construct the new wastewater facilities within that development area. These initial subphases may analyze the feasibility r, fatilizing113 helixistingBvastewaterBystemllromBhatBpecificBlevelopmentBol $umplffitationIR.B The existing system shall be inspected and televised to determine if interim rehabilitation improvements are necessary. Eventually, when there is an adequate amount of development, such that the capacity of the existing system is exceeded or as determined by the Public Works Director, the ultimate system from the development area to Pump Station R will be required to be installed. Within the Reuse Areas, the replacement of the existing wastewater system will be incrementally completed over time as funds permit through a fee program. An enhanced maintenance program will be established to implement the interim rehabilitation of the existing facilities and the eventual replacement. Interim rehabilitation improvements will be implemented by individual development projects within the Reuse Areas. These improvements will likely include cleaning and lining of existing pipelines and manholes to addresslinfiltrationBnd1nflow. The ultimate replacement of the existing facilities will be completed incrementally over time as adequate funds are available, through a fee program or grants as discussed in Section XIII.B. The incremental replacements should start at the downstream portion of the system. All new adaptive reuse projects within the Reuse Areas will replace the wastewater lateral and on -site pipelines serving that site, consistent with the City of Alameda's Private Sewer Lateral Replacement Ordinance, at the time of that project. 6. Stormwater System Within the Development Areas, the construction of new on -site stormwater collection system will be phased to match the development phases. The initial development phases will be required to construct theBiewBlownstreamBtormwaterffacilitiesl $nsuringl dequateBischargeBoBurroundingBvatersBndBBoodB protection. These downstream improvements will include pipeline extensions to the shoreline, multi- purposelliasins AlumpBtationsEtndlautlets,BvhichBvillglenefitEheBubsequentlphas esBvithinEhatBvatershed. Within the Reuse Areas, the replacement of the existing stormwater system will be incrementally completed over time as funds permit through a fee program. An enhanced maintenance program will be established to implement the interim rehabilitation of the existing facilities. The initial interim improvements to be prioritized for the Reuse Areas include replacement of tide valves at the existing stormwater outfalls. These initial improvements should be prioritized as they will eliminate the tidal waters backing up through the existing system and inundating low lying areas in a high tide event. The low lying structures will requireffloodBnsuranceBhroughoutBhisanhancedBnaintenanceliprogramEperiodllmtilBhealtimateEfloodB protection measures have been completed. Additional interim rehabilitation improvements to the existing system will be implemented with available funds through a fee program, as discussed in Section XIII.B. The additional rehabilitation improvements include cleaning, lining and replacement of existing pipelines and manholes. ThealtimateBeplacementBfltlneBxistingBacilitiesBndEheRmplementationBfltheBiltimate I oodlilrotectionB measures will be completed over time as adequate funds are available through a fee program or grants, as discussed in Section XIII.B. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 145 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 7. Potable Water System Within the Development Areas, the construction of new on -site potable water distribution system will be phased to match the development phases. The new potable water system will be required to connect to and extend from the existing reliable EBMUD pipelines in Main Street. Within the Reuse Areas, the replacement of the existing potable water system will be incrementally completed over time. The replacement of the exterior water line loop throughout the Reuse Areas shall be prioritized. This loop includes the pipelines within W. Redline Ave, Monarch Street, W. Tower Ave and Pan Am Street. The ultimate replacement of the existing facilities will be completed over time as adequate funds are available through a fee program or grants, as discussed in Section XIII.B. The system replacements shall extend east to west, from the new reliable facilities within the Development Areas to the Reuse Areas. AllBiewadaptiveReuselproj ectsBvithinBheEReuselikreasBvilllleplaceBheljotableStndffireBvater1ateralB serving that site. 8. Recycled Water System Within both the Development and Reuse Areas, the construction of new on -site recycled water distribution system will be phased to match the development phases. 9. Dry Utility System Within the Development Areas, the construction of new on -site dry utility systems will be phased to match the development phases. The new electrical system will be required to connect to and extend from the existing Cartwright Substation. The new natural gas and telecommunications systems will be required to connect to the reliable systems in Main Street. The dry utilities will be constructed in a joint utility trench. Within the Reuse Areas, the replacement of the electrical and telecommunication systems will be completed over time as funds permit through a fee program. The system replacements will be completed as adequate funds are available through a fee program or grants, as discussed in Section XIII.B. PG &E will rehabilitate and extend the existing natural gas system as necessary to serve the Reuse Areas with reliable facilities. 10. Service to Existing Lessees TemporaryBeconfigurationafl tilitieMina-Ire etsBhatBreBvithinlilalevelopmentlphaseandBerveBxistingB surrounding tenants will be required to ensure there is no disruption of service to the tenants. Temporary connections to the new systems will be required to maintain service to existing land uses. Any connection to unreliable existing infrastructure systems will need to provide the appropriate measures to protect the integrity of the new systems. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 146 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 B. Conceptual Financing Plan AsBartBfl eBlanningBfBieB✓ IIP, ffiielll~ ityHasBormulatedB ldonceptualllinancingkilan] CFP)BoBeginll elikorkHfB understanding how the necessary infrastructure will be funded and constructed concomitant with development. A keyBonceptail thel klamedaB' ointBlanningBfforts BnaheB✓IIPlis I,? exibility, Bvhichlis lllsoBnBssentialBlementBfB the CFP. The CFP is designed to be incremental, linking development to infrastructure and ensuring that the right infrastructure is built, in the right amount, as development progresses. The projects and associated infrastructure willBleveloggraduallyThverBime,BakinglintoaccountBong-termlteeds.PfheEfinancinglialanEforlidevelopmentatB Alameda Point will be reviewed, evaluated, and updated as every individual project is considered and ultimately, implemented. TheBnfrastructure llinancingBtrategyBvill I,: avelBhreeBomponents: •B Each development site pays for on -site and site - adjacent infrastructure •B Each development site contributes its fair share to a fund for backbone infrastructure and facilities (i.e.,IhireStationl ndBarks)11;hroughBl ievelopmentBnipact ifrastructurell:ee.B •B Each development submits to a Community Facilities District (CFD) assessment to pay for infrastructure. This approach ensures that development will have the immediate infrastructure needed adjacent to the site, while also contributing to long term costs that will not be incurred until further in the development process, but to which incremental development nevertheless contributes. This linkage of development to infrastructure responsibility allowsll orBlexibilityBBheBevelopment 1planBanBespondBoBnarketll orcesandBheBnfrastructure lblanBanBdapt.B Over time, the individual project sites will combine to form the overall plan, with the infrastructure and funding in place. The plan is organized into phases, which contemplates gradual, incremental development. The phases are not prescribedHnanyffixedTrder, Biowever, ffiutl treHnsteadTrganizedBiroundlteographicl roximity,BheHogicEbfB some infrastructure, and types of development. The phases are intended to provide an organizing principle for development, but individual phases can develop as market and other opportunities arise. The I, asicBourcesBfllieBlinancing flan) villBonsistBf>lihellollowing: •B Land Sale Proceeds — funds paid to the City by developers and others for site acquisition. •B Community Facilities Districts and Assessments — assessments and special taxes paid by land owners for services and facilities. •B Infrastructure Financing District — Special district that collects incremental property tax revenue forlinanceB apitalBnprovementsBfBllowed ll;orFklamedaIfoint I,'yBhangesl tateBegislation. •B Infrastructure Fee — fee paid by development at building permit to pay for infrastructure improvements and City facilities. •B Public Grants and Loans — grants and other special revenues provided by third parties, such as the federal government. •B DeveloperlEquityBBeveloperB. indingBfnfrastructureBrom> tl< ieB nticipatedlfirofits Bfklevelopment. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 147 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 This list may be supplemented by other sources as /if they become available. Assessments and special taxes are funded through property tax, and appear as part of each owner's property tax bill. It is important to note that a number of other special taxes and assessments are being contemplated for Alameda Point, including: •B CFD to fund public infrastructure improvements; •B CFD to fund certain City services as mitigation for any anticipated adverse impacts to the City's other funds; •B Transportation Management Association and parking district assessments to fund implementation and operations of the TDMP; •B Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) to ensure a long -term source of funding for the adaptive management of sea -level rise protection; and. •B CommunitylEenefits1FistrictBssessmentsBndllFlomeowner 'slAssociation1ieesBolprovide ngoingB funding for basic and /or enhanced common area maintenance, marketing and special event planning, etc Generally the sum of these taxes, plus the ad valorem tax, cannot exceed two percent of the assessed value of the property. Also, commercial uses typically maintain a lower overall tax burden than residential uses. This constraintavilltheBakenBntolIccountlitsBheWFPBsEfurtherilefinedBindthalancedagainstBheatherBieedsafftheB project and the City. AsBheBlevelopment> lansffiecomeBirmer& ndBheBirstBranchetfB. ievelopmentffiecomesB ;learerBhelCityBvillB formulateliffinancing> trategyBhat> ombinesBhelkeedsBndBequirementsl fBheBweralllplanBvithBhe l /barticularB circumstancesBflilach lilevelopment.W'he I,: nancingIplanBvillBncludeBbalanceBfBne aboveStems,BndBvill I,'kelyB shift1ver t. meBsBheBealBstatel ndl inancialBnarketsBhift. I; TheliiexibilityBndBnarketBesponsivenessBfl el ilanBneanBhatBheBvera1111blanBan I,,uildBnBuccessBverBime.B Completed projects will reduce uncertainty for subsequent projects, reducing uncertainty and thereby increasing landBaluelandBeducing I nancingliiostsIttributable lBoBisk. i:3 asedBriliharketkionditions,BomaypeskIndBocationsB of development will commence ahead of others. Although this trend has been sometimes characterized as "cherry picking ", in reality it is no different from how development occurs in the normal course of events. Absent a subsidy, either a master developer or the City would have to wait until individual development types and parcels are]Jinanciallylleasible i,eforeBheyBould I., eli;ieveloped. }JneBoncern, I.: owever, BsBhatlharlyBievelopmentlignightB occur on parcels that do not require much infrastructure or other investment to be developable. The CFP ensures that this will not happen — early development will pay not only for its immediate infrastructure but also its fair share of larger backbone items that may not need to be constructed for several years. However, there may be non- essential improvements for a major catalyst project that may be waived or deferred until State or federal funding is available, if determined by the City Council that this meets other more important policy objectives. SpecificBoBheFfeel iprogram, BtBsBnticipatedBhatBBlevelopmentBmpactBBnfrastructureffeeBvillte >IstablishedB at Alameda Point. This fee will provide a mechanism to coordinate the funding and implementation of the componentsBfBheBnfrastructureBhatBiaveljoroj ect- widelb enefit, BuchllsBransportationBmprovements .fhisffeeB will be collected from all development areas within Alameda Point, including those in the Development and Reuse Areas. For the Reuse Areas, there will be an additional component of this fee to coordinate the funding and repayments associated with implementing the incremental replacement of the existing infrastructure. As these fundsBrelkenerated, BheffollowingBmprovementsBvithinBhe1ReuselAreasBndBvithBite- widetenefitBhouldteB prioritized,BnBoBpecific rder: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 148 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 •B Northern Shoreline Stabilization •B Perimeter Flood Protection Measures •B Wastewater Pipeline Replacements •B Exterior Potable Waterline Loop Additionally, a GHAD will be established at Alameda Point to serve as the mechanism to monitor, maintain and implementBhendaptive i oodlprotectionlineasuresladdressinglrutureBeallevelBise. C. Phase 1 - Scenario 1 PhaseHl 1cenarioHIiiontemplates> lhel lnterprisellbub- Districtlikslihelfirstl ihaseatIAlamedal 'oint.11eelfigurel33B depicting this Phase 1 scenario. The following are the required backbone improvements for this scenario: 1. Demolition •B Construct temporary re- routed utility services to the active tenants and uses on the piers (MARAD) and recreation uses in Enterprise Park. • B Construct temporary access streets to the active tenants and uses on the piers (MARAD) and recreation uses in Enterprise Park. • B Demolish and recycle existing structures, utilities and streets within Phase 1 areas. 2. Flood Protection and Site Grading •B Implement the required corrective geotechnical measures, anticipated measures include: •B DDCF1or11 ;iquefiableBoils1crossWhaseBB •B Implement a surcharge operation for compressible soils within the portion of Phase 1 underlain by Young Bay Mud •B Elevate the shoreline facilities as required to achieve the minimum elevations outlined in the site grading design criteria. •B Elevate the inland areas to achieve the minimum elevations outlined in the site grading design criteria. 3. Street System •B Construct new on -site streets within Phase 1 areas •B Construct> dff- siteStreetliD mprovementslindl itansitl3ystemnmprovementsl $sBdentifiednn eB mitigation measures in the Alameda Point EIR. •B Construct temporary transitions to existing streets within surrounding areas. 4. Wastewater System •B Construct new on -site wastewater collection system of pipelines and lift stations within Phase 1 areas •B Construct new wastewater collection system through future phases to connect to Pump Station R. •B Construct temporary connections to the existing on -site wastewater collection system within surrounding areas. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 149 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN LEGEND uI ara PS -1 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 -totibbl EXISTING 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) ° LS -4 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF SURCHARGE AREA SEAPLANE LAGOON DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED POTABLE WATER PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW —0— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW • PROPOSED LIFT STATION — — EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW o CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING SUBSTATION ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' CCa1N CA Bub, M00% DEI© FIGURE 53 PHASING PLAN SCENARIO Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_53_PHASING (SCENARIO 1).DWG Page 150 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 5. Stormwater System •B Construct new on -site stormwater collection system within Phase 1 areas •B Construct new pipeline and outfall to the southern shoreline •B Construct water quality improvements within proposed streets and development blocks. •B Construct temporary connections to the existing on -site stormwater collection system within surrounding areas. 6. Potable Water System •B Construct new on -site potable water distribution system within Phase 1 areas •B Connect to the existing EBMUD pipelines within Main Street. •B ConstructBemporary lionnectionsBvith1 ppropriateTackflowBneasuresBolthe ligxistingan- site potable water system within surrounding areas. 7. Recycled Water System •B Construct new on -site recycled water distribution system within Phase 1 areas 8. Dry Utility System •B Construct new dry utility system in a joint trench within Phase 1 areas •B Construct new electrical main lines in Main Street to connect to the Cartwright Substation. •B Connect to the existing natural gas and telecommunication facilities within Main Street. •B Construct temporary connections to the existing dry utility systems within surrounding areas. 9. Fee Program •B Contribute to the fee program for this Development Area's fair share of project -wide improvementsBndltommunity I,, enefits. •B Document and seek reimbursements from future phases for any shared improvements constructed as part of Phase 1. D. Phase 1 - Scenario 2 Phase Bl cenariandontemplatesffielM ain3treetaleighborhoodaub- DistrictlitsBheltirstlphaseStEklamedaB 'oint.B This Sub - District includes areas within both the Development and Reuse Areas. See Figure 54 depicting this Phase 1 scenario. The following are the required backbone improvements for this scenario: 1. Demolition •B Assist and support the coordination of the relocation of the Alameda Point Collaborative supportive housing to a new site. •B Construct temporary re- routed utility services to the active tenants and uses within the Adaptive Reuse and Waterfront Town Center Sub - Districts. •B Construct temporary access streets to the active tenants and uses within the Adaptive Reuse and Waterfront Town Center Sub - Districts. •B Demolish and recycle existing structures, utilities and streets within Phase 1 areas. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 151 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 LEGEND OAKLAND INNER HARBOR OUTFALL PUMP�� (40,000 GPM) PS -1 d' EXISTING 20" FM 7 (TO SIPHONS) • • • X • LS -4 LS -3 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF SURCHARGE AREA ‚:1 EXISTING SUBSTATION d °° SEAPLANE LAGOON DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED POTABLE WATER PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW —0— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW • PROPOSED LIFT STATION — — EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW o CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' CCa1N CA Cobbs®, M00% DEI© FIGURE 54 PHASING PLAN SCENARIO 2 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_54_PHASING (SCENARIO 2).DWG Page 152 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 2. Flood Protection and Site Grading •B Implement the required corrective geotechnical measures, anticipated measures include: •B DDCliforBiquefiableBoilslitcrosslIPhaseB B •B Implement a surcharge operation for compressible soils across Phase 1 •B Elevate the shoreline facilities as required to achieve the minimum elevations outlined in the site grading design criteria to elevation 7.1 along the northern shoreline and 6.1 along the Seaplane Lagoon. •B Elevate the inland areas to achieve the minimum elevations outlined in the site grading design criteria, to elevation 5.1. 3. Street System •B Construct new on -site streets within Phase 1 Development areas •B ConstructBff- siteStreetEmprovementsBnOtansitBystemBmprovements l$sBdentifiedlinl heB Alameda Point EIR. •B Construct temporary transitions to existing streets within surrounding areas. 4. Wastewater System •B Construct new on -site wastewater collection system of pipelines and lift stations within Phase 1 Development areas •B Construct new wastewater collection system through future phases to connect to Pump Station R. •B Construct new wastewater laterals within Phase 1 Reuse Areas (Big Whites) •B Construct temporary connections to the existing on -site wastewater collection system within surrounding areas. 5. Stormwater System •B Construct new on -site stormwater collection system within Phase 1 Development areas •B Construct new pipelines, multi - purpose basins, pump station and outfalls to the northern and Seaplane Lagoon shorelines •B Construct water quality improvements within proposed streets and development blocks. •B Construct temporary connections to the existing on -site stormwater collection system within surrounding areas. 6. Potable Water System •B Construct new on -site potable water distribution system within Phase 1 Development and Reuse areas •B Connect to the existing EBMUD pipelines within Main Street. •B ConstructBemporaryllonnectionsBvithBippropriateIbackflowBneasuresBoBhe1lxistingBn- site potable water system within surrounding areas. 7. Recycled Water System •B Construct new on -site recycled water distribution system within Phase 1 areas Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 153 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 8. Dry Utility System •B Construct new dry utility system in a joint trench within Phase 1 Development and Reuse areas • B Construct new electrical main lines in Main Street and W. Atlantic Ave to connect to the Cartwright Substation. •B Connect to the existing natural gas and telecommunication facilities within Main Street. • B Construct temporary connections to the existing dry utility systems within surrounding areas. 9. Fee Program •B Contribute to the fee program for this Development Area's fair share of project -wide improvements>ndl $ ommunity I: enefits. •B Document and seek reimbursements from future phases for any shared improvements constructed as part of Phase 1. E. Phase 1 - Scenario 3 Phase 1 Scenario 3 contemplates the adaptive reuse of the Bachelors Enlisted Quarters in the Adaptive Reuse Sub - DistrictlitslEhelirstlphaseB►t> Alameda >$'oint.H'hisBlevelopment C lockBsBolelyBvithin1heWeusel reas.F3ee1TigureB 55 depicting this Phase 1 scenario. The following are the required backbone improvements for this scenario: 1. Flood Protection and Site Grading •B ContributeBoBheHeel programforBhisBite 's1IairBhareBmount ii f1 heBequire„oodB protection measures for the Reuse Areas. 2. Street System •B Contribute to the fee program for this site's fair share amount of the rehabilitation of the existing streets within the Reuse Areas. 3. Wastewater System •B Investigate the existing pipelines collecting and conveying the wastewater from this site. •B Construct necessary rehabilitating improvements to the existing system to address any deficiencies&lentified. •B Construct new wastewater laterals to structures within Phase 1 •B Contribute to the fee program for this site's fair share amount of the replacement of the wastewater system within the Reuse Areas. 4. Stormwater System •B Contribute to the fee program for this site's fair share amount of the new downstream stormwater facilities, pipelines, multi - purpose basin, pump station and outfall to the northern shoreline. •B Contribute to the fee program for this site's fair share amount of the replacement of the stormwater collection system within the Reuse Areas. •B Construct new stormwater and water quality facilities within the development parcel. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 154 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN r- _ UPDATED DRAFT OAKLAND INNER HARBOR October 31, 2013 1 EXISTING 2011 FM = � PS -11 r (TO SIPHONS) i I I�`\ J-� r // 1 1 1 ___ 1 / 1 I o —JILL_ _ L - -Tr A- // I- // 1 — ,.1_ll 1 1 11 1111 1 _ l II. 1\ 1 = �_ftTl I\ -_ 1 1 - - 1- �- l-r r - - - - -+ / 1 1 1 ICI 1 1 1 1 1 I I i -L I 1 Ir y-�1 I 1 1 I1JI1 II k 1 � c _1 1- � It I -i. 1 I 1 1- 1 1 1 11 J 1 / /i LEGEND REUSE AREA PROPOSED STORM DRAIN (TRUNK MAIN RETROFIT) PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER (TRUNK MAIN RETROFIT) EXISTING STORM DRAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 500' Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. 1 ' \ '4- 1 I ■ - - - -1 — ---ki = _ Ilk FIGURE 55 PHASING PLAN SCENARIO 3 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES\XB_55_PHASING (SCENARIO 3).DWG Page 155 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 5. Potable Water System •B Contribute to the fee program for this site's fair share amount of the replacement of the potable water distribution system within the Reuse Areas. •B ConstructBtewlllotableBnd „i reBvaterBervicesBoBheBlevelopmentlparcel. 6. Dry Utility System •B Contribute to the fee program for this site's fair share amount of the replacement of the electrical and telecommunication systems within the Reuse Areas. •B Construct new electrical and telecommunication services to the development parcel. 7. Fee Program •B Contribute to the fee program for this site's fair share amount of project -wide improvementsl1ndBommunity I, enefits. F. Sub - Phases The sub - phases that comprise each of the Phase 1 scenarios outlined above will implement the backbone improvements generally consistent with the principles outlined above. Each sub -phase within the Development AreasBrvilll onstructBheBiewtackboneBnfrastructureBvithin> ndl djacentBoBhatlapecificltub- phase.ffheTnlyB utility system within Development Areas that may be deferred is the installation of new wastewater facilities extending to Pump Station R. The initial phases may analyze the feasibility of utilizing the existing wastewater systemff romBhatBpecificlilevelopmentBofrumpfStation> . 1Thelitxistingl iystemBhallBheBnspectedlindBelevisedB to determine if interim rehabilitation improvements are necessary. Eventually, when there is an adequate amount of development, such that the capacity of the existing system is exceeded or as determined by the Public Works Director, the ultimate system from the development area to Pump Station R will be required to be installed. See Figure 56 through Figure 58 depicting the conceptual infrastructure to be installed with the three illustrative conceptual sub - phases (1A). The infrastructure improvements within the Reuse Areas will be implemented as funds permit through a fee program or grants. G. Permitting The following are the agencies that have oversight to the backbone infrastructure at Alameda Point and will issue permits for certain components of infrastructure: 1. City of Alameda Any proposed street, storm drainage, water quality and sanitary sewer system improvements will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Alameda. 2. Alameda Municipal Power Any proposed improvements to the electrical, telephone or joint trench system will be required to be reviewed and approved by Alameda Municipal Power. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 156 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 LEGEND • — —>~- — 0 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR EXISTING 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) ■41111 - - --- �! i SEAPLANE LAGOON DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED POTABLE WATER EX SEWER TRUNK MAIN PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED LIFT STATION EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN OUTFALL ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' Cuko9 El arrboog CubooN Ono. FIGURE 56 PHASE lA "SOUTH" Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_56_PHASE 1A (SOUTH).DWG Page 157 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT OAKLAND INNER HARBOR LEGEND • — -- — o CY 0 0 7 11 CI I LA F- `____ 1 , pi EX SEWER �', -� r, 1 TRUNK MAIN I - - _ October 31, 2013 EXISTING 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) 1, -,7 LS -3 — CONNECT TO EXISTING SEAPLANE LAGOON DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED POTABLE WATER PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED STORM DRAIN (Sc DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED LIFT STATION EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN OUTFALL EXISTING SUBSTATION ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 57 PHASE lA "NORTH" G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_57_PHASE 1A (NORTH).DWG Page 158 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 LEGEND NEM INM PS -1 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR EXISTING 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) EX SEWER TRUNK MAIN ''. CONNECT r -' TO-EXISTIN-G\1 n O�. f EXISTING SUBSTATION SEAPLANE LAGOON DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED POTABLE WATER PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW —01,— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW • PROPOSED LIFT STATION — — EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW • CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' ©8TkOn9 0 err.b8S0 Obaono Um. FIGURE 58 PHASE lA "TOWN CENTER" Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_58_PHASE 1A (TOWN CENAINEN ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 3. EBMUD Any proposed improvements to the EBMUD owned and maintained sanitary sewer transmission facilities will be required to be reviewed and approved by EBMUD. This would include any proposed improvement to the existing Pump Station R near the Main Gate and/or the 20 -inch force main. Any proposed improvements to the potable or recycled water systems will be required to be designed, reviewed and approved by EBMUD. 4. FEMA Initially, a Flood Insurance Study will be prepared and processed with FEMA to evaluate the existing conditionsBtliklamedaJRointBndldefine tiie oodBonesl ithinlllielltrojectl3ite .B'heSttudyBhalllBeBonductedB for the entire Project Site. This process is currently underway through FEMA's California Coastal Analysis and1Mapping1J roject. H' hisBtudyBvi11Enc1ude 11ZheBhorelines1fliklameda I, oint1 ndlifefinelthelJoastal I,? oodB hazards within the project site based on regional -scale storm surge and wave models of the San Francisco Bay. The FIRM maps (panels) for the City of Alameda will be revised through this process to include Alameda Point. AtBheBimeBhatBlesigabf 1oodl. rotectionBneasuresBsBheingl ompleted ,BIBfonditionalH..etterTfBvlapB Revision (CLOMR) shall be processed and approved by FEMA. The CLOMR will demonstrate FEMA's concurrenceBhatBlesignBifBhefoodirotectionBneasuresBvillBemoveBheiroposedBlevelopment HreasB fromBheBloodriones. EDnceBhel floodliprotectionBneasuresBiaveB> eenHonstructed ,HBieldBurveyHanIDeB completed to document the as -built elevations of these facilities. This information will be used to process aBinallL etterafMapWevisionsIOLOMR). I3DnceBheEL OMRBsBpprovedltylFEMA ,BhelfIRMIpanelBvillB beBevisedBoBlepictBheliconstructedBloodlrotectionBneasureslndBemoveBhelprotectedareaslfromBheB floodplain. BI' heECLOMRBtndELOMRB;anteireparedB ndirocessedBnihasesB rvithBheBaevelopmentB phasing. 5. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ABvaterBlualityRertification ,BSectionB101,BvillEbeE equiredffromEtheERegionalBWaterBQuality1BoardB ( RWQCB) llorlictivitiesBvithinBvetlands r l elowlthelardinarilyIighBvaterIli ne.Hhislitertification vill I, eB required for the outfall construction at Alameda Point. The project need to demonstrate compliance with the water quality regulations of the MRP for the storm runoff from the Project Site. As described above, the implementation of the water quality improvements will be phased in the Development Areas and incrementalBnBheBZeuseli reas. lAccordingly ,BtBsBmticipatedBhataBite -widel vaterBlualityliiertificationB will be pursued for all outfalls and waste discharge requirements will be established for the site outlining how the water quality compliance will be achieved over time. 6. Army Corp of Engineers Any improvement within the waters of the United States shall require a permit, Section 404, from Army CorpEbfEEngineers.13ThisfivillEincludellonstructionEbfEtheEttormwaterThutfallsEbranyahorelinefiloodB protection measures that require construction below the ordinary high water line. Additional consultations from other federal agencies may be determined necessary by the Army Corp of Engineers in order to issue the permit. A permit may be pursued for each separate outfall consistent with the development phasing. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 160 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 7. BCDC Any improvement or proposed structure within Bay or within 100 -feet of the Bay shoreline will require alpermitlfrom1BCDC. t ermitlforl aachBpecificBmprovementBvithinBheH 00 -foot1 ayBhorelinelitiay Ic, eB pursued from BCDC consistent with the development phasing. Alternatively, a "major permit" may be pursued that would provide for a programmatic approval of all the proposed improvements within the 100 - foot Bay shoreline. With the "major permit," future review and permits from BCDC will be required once theBpecificlaroject1 etailsl�relwailable.B 8. US Fish and Wildlife Service All proposed improvements and structures shall be compliant with the active mitigation measures outlined in the Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Declaration of Restrictions recorded on the Alameda Point property and a Memorandum of Agreement with the VA for lighting mitigation measures related to protecting the least turn colony within the VA Property. The City of Alameda will review all proposed improvements to ensure compliance and may request additional consultation from the Service, if necessary. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 161 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 XIV. MIP FLEXIBILITY The Land Use Program is expected to adjust throughout the implementation of the backbone infrastructure. Changes in economic conditions, market factors or other unanticipated changes to the development concept are likely to occur during the course of redevelopment ofAlameda Point. Accordingly, it is important to understand the potential adjustments to the backbone infrastructure associated with either increases or decreases in the intensity of land uses. This provides limits to the range of potential infrastructure demands at Alameda Point. The MIP has analyzed the Less Development and Transit Oriented Mixed Use Alternative Land Use Programs consistent with two of the alternatives in the EIR to characterize which components of the backbone infrastructure would require adjustments. The summary of the land use programs for the Less Development and Transit Oriented Mixed Use Alternatives relative to the Reuse Plan, which the MIP is based upon, are presented in Table 14. Table 14 - Low and High Density Alternatives Relative to the Reuse Plan Land Use 1996 Reuse Plan Less Development Alternative Transit Oriented Mixed Use Alternative Residential 1,354 1,000 3,400 Office 1,627,500 500,500 852,500 Manufacturing / Warehouse 3,060,500 1,224,500 2,815,500 Retail 300,000 100,000 1,000,000 Service 512,000 285,000 642,000 Agricultural 0 190,000 190,000 Subtotal Commercial 5,500,000 2,300,000 5,500,000 A. Less Development The Less Development Alternative includes decreases in quantities of both the residential and commercial land use designations. The amounts of residential units are slightly decreased, whereas the commercial square footage is decreased by over 50 %. As expected, the infrastructure demands are less for this Alternative. However, since the Alternative maintains the same development footprint, the amount of backbone infrastructure required to be constructed for this Alternative remains similar to the Reuse Plan. There are some infrastructure systems that would be reduced in size since the demand has decreased. Specifically,>l field✓ astewaterE ndlpotableBvaterldemandsB ssociatedBvith »islilternativeldecreasell om13.161 IGDB to approximately 1.6 MGD and from 2.06 MGD to approximately 1.7 MGD, respectively. Consequently, the sanitary sewer collection and potable water distribution systems can be reduced in size with this Alternative. See Figure 60 and Figure 62 depicting the adjustments to these systems that could be implemented with this Alternative. TheBrafficaolumesikeneratedBhyBhisBUternativeBlecreaseffromE2,928Bota1lAMBrip sand : ,294BotalEPMBripsB toB, 560DndB, 921Respectively .likccordingly,Bhere) reBessBrafficBnitigations> ssociatedarithBhislikIternativel sB outlined in the EIR. Whereas,BheBioodl protection, BtormBlrain, MryBttilitylindBtreetBystems$ reltxpectedBoBemainBimilarB 'orBhisB Alternative as to what is required for the Reuse Plan. This is largely due to the development footprint of this Alternative remaining consistent with the Reuse Plan. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 162 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 The131ecreasesBoBheltortionsTfBheBVvastewaterBtndl jotableBvaterRystemsBindBrafficBnitigationsBtssociatedB with this Alternative are estimated to reduce the backbone infrastructure construction cost by approximately $7.6 million. B. Transit Oriented Mixed Use The Transit Oriented Mixed Use Alternative includes an increase to the quantity of the residential land use designation. The amounts of residential units are increased to 3,400, whereas the overall commercial square footage is maintained the same as Reuse Plan. However, the retail square footage is increased. The infrastructure demands do increase for this Alternative. There are some components of the infrastructure systems that would be increased in size since the demand has increased. Specifically,I ieB vastewaterBndlptableBvaterBlemandsBssociatedBvithll hisBilternative Bncreasel>sroml3.16IMGDB to approximately 2.8 MGD and from 2.06 MGD to approximately 3.4 MGD, respectively. Only portions of the sanitary sewer collection and potable water distribution systems will need to be increased in size with this Alternative. See Figure 59 and Figure 61 depicting the adjustments to these systems that could be implemented with this Alternative. TheBrafficRolumes4enerated I, }yl hisBllternativellncreasellromp,928BotalBlMl ipsBndB,294Bota1IPMl ipsBoB 3, 5218nd14 ,255Bespectively.12kccordingly,Il ereBreBdditional I.: afficlilnitigationsBssociatedBvithIthisEklternativeB as outlined in the EIR. Whereas,BheB1ood] rotection, Btorml3lrain, BlryltxtilityBindBtreetBystemsBre& xpectedBoBemainBimilar1TorBhisB Alternative as to what is required for the Reuse Plan. TheB ncreasesBolportions& fBheBvastewaterBndlpotableBvaterBystemslind „; afficliitigationslitssociatedBvithB this Alternative are estimated to increase the backbone infrastructure construction costs by approximately $1.2 million. C. Implementation In rderBoliktaintain I exibilityll; ortfuturelland &seltihanges,BheWity fl klameda1 villBletermineBvith&achBub- phase if any of the backbone infrastructure adjustments described above shall be implemented. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 163 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31 2013 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) (FROM VA PROPERTY) z LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON t 1- w LS -1 —O.— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW • PROPOSED LIFT STATION — — SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' C sdacm9 o a_.J15 ®9 eMbeon9 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 59 PROPOSED ULTIMATE SEWER SYSTEM HIGH DENSITY ALTERNATIVE G :11 0 8 7- 1 01ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_59_SEWER (ULTIMATE)_HIGH DENSITY ALT.DWG Page 164 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 —»- — (FROM VA PROPERTY) PS -1 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) LS -6 LS -5 DOWNSIZE 24" TO 18" LS -3 LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON LS -2 t DOWNSIZE 12" TO 8" LS -1 4 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW • PROPOSED LIFT STATION — —*' — SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' Carla ©m9 113arrbss9 O e L oo o Om. FIGURE 60 PROPOSED ULTIMATE SEWER SYSTEM LOW DENSITY ALTERNATIVE Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB60_SEWER (ULTIMATE)_LOW DENSITY ALT.DWG Page 165 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31. 2013 TO VA DEVELOPED AREA OAKLAND INNER HARBOR B o® 0 a, LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON PROPOSED 8" WATERLINE PROPOSED 12" WATERLINE PROPOSED 16" WATERLINE EXISTING WATERLINE m ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 61 PROPOSED ULTIMATE WATER SYSTEM HIGH DENSITY ALTERNATIVE G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_61_WATER (ULTIMATE)_HIGH DENSITY ALT.DWG Page 166 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 TO VA DEVELOPED AREA OAKLAND INNER HARBOR b pm m v eb d 4 ! 0S 0 LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON PROPOSED 8" WATERLINE PROPOSED 10" WATERLINE (DOWN SIZED FROM 12" WATERLINE) PROPOSED 12" WATERLINE PROPOSED 12" WATERLINE (DOWN SIZED FROM 16" WATERLINE) EXISTING WATERLINE 2 rri r1 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER, 2013 SCALE: I" = 1,000' Cukor% 0 arrb®o9 Goboon9 Mc. FIGURE 62 PROPOSED ULTIMATE WATER SYSTEM LOW DENSITY ALTERNATIVE Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_62_WATER (ULTIMATE)_LOW DENSITY ALT.DWG Page 167 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 XV. CONSTRUCTION COSTS A. Backbone Infrastructure Costs The Alameda Point backbone infrastructure described in the MIP is estimated to cost approximately $550 to 575 million.H'heseBostsBre asedBn11013Blo11arsHndBloBiotlitncludeBostHscalations verBime.B;inanciall ashBlowB models for the Project will need to account for cost (and revenue) escalations over the life of each of the proposed development projects. The Project Site is assumed to be constructed in three large phases for cost estimating purposes. See Figure 63 depicting the assumed three phases for the cost estimate. The gross areas within each phase are as follows: Phase 1 = 192 acres, Phase 2 = 139 acres and Phase 3 = 266 acres. Table 14 outlines the various categories of costs for each phase and provides an overall total estimated cost. These construction costs represent the backbone infrastructure only. There are other costs associated with the on -site / in -tract improvements that will be constructed within the development blocks that are not included in this cost estimate. As discussed in the Phasing and Implementation Section XIII, it is likely that the three larger phases will be sub - phased into smaller development areas. The Sub -Phase l A "North ", "South" and "Town Center" scenarios depicted in]Jigure136BhroughHigurel3 8BepresentfilotentialBocationsHndBonfigurationsHfBnBnitiallithaseHalevelopmentB at Alameda Point. The backbone infrastructure construction costs associated with the Sub -Phase 1A "North" scenario are estimated to be approximately $40 million. Sub -Phase 1A "North" includes 23.5 acres of developable area, net of the backbone street rights -of -ways. The backbone infrastructure construction costs associated with the Sub -Phase 1A "South" scenario are estimated to be approximately $67.5 million. Sub -Phase 1A "South" includes 55 acres of developable area, net of the backbone street rights -of -ways. The backbone infrastructure construction costs associated with the Sub -Phase 1A "Town Center" scenario are estimated to be approximately $57 million. Sub -Phase lA "Town Center" includes 34.5 acres of developable area, net of the backbone street rights -of -ways. These estimated costs includes those associated with the improvements necessary to support this initial phase as well as the proportionate contribution from this sub -phase to other site -wide improvements that will be constructed with later phases. Table 15 - Backbone Infrastructure Construction Costs Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 168 Description PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 TOTAL BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DEMOLITION / SITE PREPARATION $33,919,000 $42,064,000 $1,946,000 $77,929,000 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION BY OTHERS BY OTHERS BY OTHERS BY OTHERS 3 FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING $41,483,000 $40,343,000 $23,573,000 $105,399,000 4 DEWATERING $3,740,000 $2,955,000 $2,680,000 $9,375,000 5 SANITARY SEWER $12,657,000 $3,255,000 $4,497,000 $20,409,000 6 STORM DRAIN $13,325,000 $8,408,000 $10,250,000 $31,983,000 7 POTABLE WATER $5,314,000 $4,405,000 $6,110,000 $15,829,000 8 RECYCLED WATER $1,470,000 $506,250 $876,000 $2,852,250 9 DRY UTILITIES $7,201,000 $6,149,000 $6,491,000 $19,841,000 10 ON -SITE STREET WORK $23,455,000 $19,904,000 $13,411,000 $56,770,000 11 TRANSPORTATION $10,400,000 $34,206,000 $- $44,606,000 12 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE $28,990,000 $15,898,000 $20,030,000 $64,918,000 13 PUBLIC BENEFITS $1,250,000 $16,038,000 $- $17,288,000 SUBTOTAL (to the nearest $10,000) $183,200,000 $194,130,000 $89,860,000 $467,200,000 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 168 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT • MAIN STREET i L 41-1; N N LAND USE LEGEND EMPLOYMENT (AP -E) EMPLOYMENT - ADAPTIVE REUSE (AP -AR) TOWN CENTER (AP -TC) RESIDENTIAL (AP -R) V) O CL w U V) V) d 0 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. October 31, 2013 0 0 z a w 1- wi w D J CU U w CO CO 1- m_ 0 3 co 0 Page 169 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 ThethackboneBnfrastructureRonstructionRostsEincludeB demolition, moodEprotectionBLndaiteIrading ,BJtilityB systems, on -site street improvements, street improvements off -site as required in the mitigation measures outlined inllllie IR,l�arks> nd r penBpacelindlibublic I,, enefits.H'he cost estimate in the MIP includes items, such as parks, that could be subject to future policy decisions by the City Council. These may also be considered during the preparation and adoption of an infrastructure /impact fee program for Alameda Point. These construction costs also include a 25% contingency applied to all costs to account for items that are not fully characterized at this time. Other budgets that are associated with design and construction of the backbone infrastructure are included, such as construction administration, professional services, plan review and inspection, and improvement acceptance. The following is a list of the general categories of improvements included in the cost estimate. Also, see the Appendix for the detailed cost estimate summary which includes the estimated costs associated with each individual improvement. •B Demolition / Site Preparation •B Demolition and abatement of existing structures •B RemovalBnd/ orBlurrylillinglbflitxistingBitilitiesBo elbandoned •B Flood Protection & Site Grading • B Corrective Geotechnical Measures — shoreline stabilization and liquefaction remediation • B Construction flperimeter„ oodlprotectionBtieasures • B ImportBofBmaterialBtoBraiseBelevationsBforBperimeterBfloodBprotectionBmeasuresBandB Development Areas •B Mass grading of development blocks •B Utility Systems • B Sanitary sewer system — pipelines, manholes and lift stations • B Stormwater system — pipelines, manholes, inlets, pump stations, multi - purpose basins and outfalls • B PotableBvaterBystemB- Ipipelines,> ppurtenancesBndlire I,: ydrants • B Recycled water system — pipelines and appurtenances • B Dry utility system — joint trench, conduits, wires, substructure and street lights •B On -Site Street System •B New on -site street construction — pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping and striping •B Reconstruction of existing on -site streets — pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping and striping •B TrafficlaalmingB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 170 SOFT COSTS 14 CONSTRUCTION ADMIN $5,862,000 $6,212,000 $2,876,000 $14,950,000 15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $21,984,000 $23,296,000 $10,783,000 $56,063,000 16 FEES $7,720,000 $7,784,000 $4,694,000 $20,198,000 17 IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE $733,000 $777,000 $359,000 $1,869,000 SUBTOTAL (to nearest $10,000) $36,300,000 $38,070,000 $18,710,000 $93,080,000 TOTAL (to the nearest $10,000) $219,500,000 $232,200,000 $108,570,000 $560,280,000 ThethackboneBnfrastructureRonstructionRostsEincludeB demolition, moodEprotectionBLndaiteIrading ,BJtilityB systems, on -site street improvements, street improvements off -site as required in the mitigation measures outlined inllllie IR,l�arks> nd r penBpacelindlibublic I,, enefits.H'he cost estimate in the MIP includes items, such as parks, that could be subject to future policy decisions by the City Council. These may also be considered during the preparation and adoption of an infrastructure /impact fee program for Alameda Point. These construction costs also include a 25% contingency applied to all costs to account for items that are not fully characterized at this time. Other budgets that are associated with design and construction of the backbone infrastructure are included, such as construction administration, professional services, plan review and inspection, and improvement acceptance. The following is a list of the general categories of improvements included in the cost estimate. Also, see the Appendix for the detailed cost estimate summary which includes the estimated costs associated with each individual improvement. •B Demolition / Site Preparation •B Demolition and abatement of existing structures •B RemovalBnd/ orBlurrylillinglbflitxistingBitilitiesBo elbandoned •B Flood Protection & Site Grading • B Corrective Geotechnical Measures — shoreline stabilization and liquefaction remediation • B Construction flperimeter„ oodlprotectionBtieasures • B ImportBofBmaterialBtoBraiseBelevationsBforBperimeterBfloodBprotectionBmeasuresBandB Development Areas •B Mass grading of development blocks •B Utility Systems • B Sanitary sewer system — pipelines, manholes and lift stations • B Stormwater system — pipelines, manholes, inlets, pump stations, multi - purpose basins and outfalls • B PotableBvaterBystemB- Ipipelines,> ppurtenancesBndlire I,: ydrants • B Recycled water system — pipelines and appurtenances • B Dry utility system — joint trench, conduits, wires, substructure and street lights •B On -Site Street System •B New on -site street construction — pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping and striping •B Reconstruction of existing on -site streets — pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping and striping •B TrafficlaalmingB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 170 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 •B Transportation Improvements •B Off -site improvements as outlined in the mitigation measures of the EIR •B Participation to BRT System •B Parking lot expansion at the existing ferry terminal •B New ferry terminal in Seaplane Lagoon •B Transit center •B Shuttle system •B TDM •B Parks and Open Space •B Seaplane Lagoon frontage •B Regional Sports Complex •B Enterprise Park •B Bay Trail •B Other parks and open space areas •B OtherB'ublic •B •B •B 1) enefits Fire station Pro -Rata Share of Public Works satellite corporation yard Bay Trail extension (Northwest Territories & VA Property) B. Value Engineering and Potential Cost Reductions The value engineering options that are described throughout the MIP could result in the backbone infrastructure construction costs being reduced by $11.5 million. The feasibility of implementing these value engineering opportunitiesBvilltheavaluatedIthroughBhafinalBlesigniforocessEforBhelbackbonel3nfrastructureffhelbackboneB infrastructure will evolve with the planning of Alameda Point and additional value engineering opportunities are expectedBollleB dentifiedBndBonsideredEnBffortBoBninimizeBonstructionBosts ,BvherelpossibleBndBppropriate. As previously described, the Dept. of Veteran Affairs is planning a project in the VA Property, west of the Development and Reuse Areas within Alameda Point. This project includes a VA Outpatient Clinic and a Columbarium Cemetery that will require extension of infrastructure systems to this project location. If the VA projectlitBonstructedlOrior183BedevelopmentBommencinglifitheBorthwestlOortionstMlameda oint,BpecificallyB within West Redline Avenue and Lexington Street, then the VA will install infrastructure components outside of the VA Property. This infrastructure will provide access and utility service to the Reuse Areas, the Regional Sports Complex and the Northwest Territories. The City of Alameda and the VA have entered into a non - binding term sheet that contains provisions for the scenario that the VA installs infrastructure outside the VA Property. In this scenario, the infrastructure shall be designed to support the future development demand anticipated within Alameda Point. This scenario would result in the VA installing infrastructure improvements that would otherwise need to be installed to support the redevelopment of Alameda Point and therefore reducing the construction costs for Alameda Point by approximately $12.5 million. C. Public Services Willdan has prepared an analysis of the cost of providing municipal services to the project, as well as revenues for the City expected to be generated there. The analysis includes services costs and the cost of maintaining the infrastructurelteededI orlBhelillanl wherellhelf ityBsBheIpartyBesponsiblegarIprovidingl aintenance).BFhelffiscalB Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 171 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 analysis includes the regular (weekly, monthly, annual, etc.) maintenance costs, such as chip seal of road surfaces, but not the cost of replacement of infrastructure that is being newly constructed as part of the development of Alamedal$' oint. MATilldanBtaslitreparedlinlitstimatelifBheStetliscallinpact f1 hel1roj ect,BvhichBvill l,, el1resentedB to the City Council at the November 19, 2013 public hearing. InBdditionBoBapitalBmprovements ,Bhe li: nancinglillanBor»lameda I. ointBvillliiclude I.: scalBnitigationBneasures,B suchBsBBervicesBssessmentBrBpecial is; xffRecessary, [s B nsureTatthel 1rojectldoes ldotEaveBBetBegative i sca1B impactlionBhereity. EBasedlionBheaurrenttfiscalBmpactlestimateBheBfinancingifolanBvillf iberibleBoliccommodateB mitigation of the impact on the City. For example, a CFD could mitigate the estimated projected impact with a special tax of less than 0.25 percent of assessed value. The exact method and amount of mitigation has not yet beenBletermined utligiitigation', fBheB1scalBmpact'' fB,lamedaB'ointBvill I, e}feasible. I, Not included in the analysis, however, is the cost of replacement at the end of the expected lifespan of the infrastructure. As with any other infrastructure in the City, most infrastructure replacement costs are built into the rates and fees associated with services, such as water, wastewater, and electricity. This approach, in which the userslpayl iorBheBventualBeplacementBost» fBhelfacilitiesBheyBreStsing ,Bsllppropriate> ndlffinanciallyBound.B Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 172 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 XVI. NEXT STEPS The MIP shall be used as a reference and guide continually through the evaluation and implementation of Development and Reuse projects within Alameda Point. Once the MIP is adopted by the City of Alameda, the main next steps will include the completion of detailed designs of the backbone infrastructure and the completion of a Financing Plan. A. Infrastructure Design The City of Alameda Public Works Department, EBMUD and Alameda Municipal Power will be responsible for reviewing and approving each of their respective components of the proposed infrastructure improvements with each development. The MIP outlines the necessary backbone infrastructure improvements for each development throughout the site. Additionally, the MIP provides phasing principles for each infrastructure system that will guide the planning for each development proposal and ensure that future phases are not compromised by initial phases. In the planning stage of various development projects at Alameda Point, each applicant shall review the MIP to understand the required infrastructure for that subject area of the site. The applicant shall prepare preliminary engineering plans consistent with the current City ofAlameda submittal requirements for entitlement applications. Theselireliminaryl plansBhallBemonstratetelfiroposed oodllirotection, Drainage ,RtilityBndBtreet>iinprovementsB proposed with each subject project. These will be reviewed by the City and utility agencies to ensure consistency with the MIP and their current regulations. Additional materials, such as supplemental engineering reports and studies, BnayBheStequestedBhyBhelrityTrBheBitilityB genciesBollonfirmBheB equiredEinfrastructureEforl3tachB development. If the proposed development project is not consistent with the land uses assumed with the Reuse Plan and the MIP, thetipplic antBhalliiivaluateEhelitec es s aryBriodificationsBoBheRnfrastructureBystemsatiklamedagointBoBupportB the proposed project. This information shall be provided to the City and utility agencies for review and approval. Inl3hel31esign1 tageBhfRlevelopmentirojects, RonstructionBlocumentsBindlTinalReportslthallffieI reparedBndB processed>t rought hegity' sl$ ermitl fenterA BMUD, B.Mai ndB nyBtherB pproving BgencylThese nalBocumentsB shall be substantially consistent with the preliminary plans approved with the project's entitlements. The costs associated with Public Works Department, EBMUD and AMP's reviews of plans, reports and details are included in the cost estimate included in Appendix G. B. Financing Plan A Financing Plan will be developed for each individual project at Alameda Point. The Financing Plan will further evaluate the feasibility of available funding sources for the backbone infrastructure. Additionally, the Alameda Point development infrastructure /impact fee will be established as a mechanism to collect funds from both DevelopmentlindBteuselkreasB oBnsureBheliSmplementationli9fliifrastructure l lementsBvithBite -wide I,, enefit. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 173 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 REFERENCES Alameda Point Focus Environmental Newsletter, Spring 2013, prepared by the Department of Navy Base Realignment and Closure Alameda Point General Plan Amendment EIR, June 2001, City of Alameda Alameda Point Golf Course Environmental Impact Report, July 2004, prepared by EDWA, Inc. Alameda Municipal Power Material and Installation Criteria for Underground Electrical Systems, January 12, 2010 Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept, February 1, 2006, prepared by Roma Design Group Alameda Point Project - Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by ESA, dated September 2013 Alameda Point Water System Engineering Study, March 1998, prepared by East Bay Municipal Utility District Biological Opinion, August 29, 2012, prepared by NS Fish and Wildlife Service City of Alameda Bike Master Plan, updated 2010, prepared by the City of Alameda City of Alameda Municipal Code City falamedaStandardlltubdivisionBmprovemendipecificationslindliDesigniCriteria,BwrilB 965 City of Alameda Storm Drain Master Plan, August 2008, prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers CommunitylExposure111olT sunamiBlazardsffilfalifornia ,IScientificBnvestigations I. eportB012- 5222,1preparedl1yB U.S. Geologic Survey, dated 2013 C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, Alameda County Cleanwater Program, May 14, 2013 Department of Veteran Affairs, Draft Environmental Assessment, January 2013 East Bay Municipal Utility District Regulations Governing Water Service East I t ay1MunicipalBJtility1Fistrictl tandard pecificationsl$ ndItandardlFrawings ,Bnstallations '' fB'VaterB✓IainsB 20- inches and Smaller, July 2008 East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Fact Sheet, December 2011, prepared by East Bay Municipal Utility District Fifth Assessment Report, prepared by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued September 2013 Flood Insurance Study: Tsunami Predictions for Monterey and San Francisco Bays and Puget Sound, November 1974, prepared by US Army Corp of Engineers Geotechnical Investigation, Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement ( -50 foot) Project, Port of Oakland, February 12, 1999, prepared by Subsurface consultants Inc. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 174 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 Memorandum regarding geotechnical constraints affecting infrastructure planning, January 30, 2013, prepared by ENGEO, Inc. NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, January 1996, prepared by EDAW, Inc. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map Numbers 06001 C0062G, 06001 C0064G, 06001C0066G and 06001C0068G, August 3, 2009, prepared by Federal Emergency Management Agency Numerical Modeling of Tsunami Effects at Marine Oil Terminals in San Francisco Bay, June 2006, prepared by Borreno, Et Al (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California), prepared for Marine Facilities Division of the California State Lands Commission Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Alameda Point Development, April 8, 2003, prepared by ENGEO, Inc. Regional Transit Access Study: Volume 1, Overview of Study Corridors, Transit Demand & Service Examples — DRAFT, July 2012, prepared by Nelson Nygaard Regional Transit Access Study: Volume 2 — DRAFT, September 2012, prepared by Nelson Nygaard San Francisco Bay Plan, as amended on October 6, 2011, prepared by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission San Francisco Bay Tidal Stage vs. Frequency Study, October 1984, prepared by US Army Corp of Engineers, San Francisco District Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past, Present and Future, prepared by National Research Council, dated 2012 State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance Document, prepared by Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO -CAT), dated March 2013 Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief, East Bay Municipal Utility District, January 2009 Town Center Core Progress Update, prepared by SDM, dated October 14, 2013 Transportation Element of the City of Alameda General Plan, January 2009, prepared by the City of Alameda Urban Greening Plan Parks Improvement Assessment, June 2012, prepared by Gates & Associates Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 175 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES A) GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS MEMORANDUM (ENGEO, INC.) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. ENGEO Expect Excellence GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Project No. 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Mr. Angelo Obertello Carlson Barbee & Gibson 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 150 San Ramon, CA 94583 Subject: Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning Alameda, California GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS References: 1. A3GEO, Inc. and Alan Kropp & Associates, Inc.; Data Report, Preliminary Geotechnical and Geologic Studies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Future Scientific Facility, Alameda Point, Alameda, California; October 28, 2011. 2. ENGEO; Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Alameda Point Development, Alameda, California; April 8, 2003; Project No. 5497.100.102. 3. Subsurface Consultants Inc.; Geotechnical Investigation, Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement ( -50 foot) Project, Port of Oakland, Oakland and Alameda, California; February 12, 1999. 4. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Inc.; Alameda Point, Master Infrastructure Plan, Base Case — Reuse Plan, Land Use and Zoning Districts; October 11, 2012. Dear Mr. Obertello: At your request, we prepared the following discussion of the geotechnical constraints that will impact redevelopment of Alameda Point in Alameda, California. We understand that the City of Alameda (City) is advancing site development planning The purpose of this study is to assist in infrastructure planning at the site. The referenced documents were utilized for this study: SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Alameda Point is an area located on the westerly portion of Alameda Island in the City of Alameda, California. Alameda Island lies along the eastern side of the San Francisco Bay, adjacent to the City of Oakland. The site is a portion of the former Naval Air Station Alameda that ceased operations as a military base in 1997. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is approximately 2 miles long and 1 mile wide. Based on a planning document by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Inc., (Reference 4), the City is currently interested in developing an infrastructure plan 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250 • San Ramon, CA 94583 • (925) 866 -9000 • Fax (888) 279 -2698 www.engeo.com Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 2 in order to facilitate redevelopment of the site with a mixture of housing, commercial, retail, marine - related facilities, and open spaces. PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL DOCUMENTS Numerous previous geotechnical explorations have been performed at the site during history. Reports by Subsurface Consultants Incorporated in 1999, ENGEO in 2003, and A3GEO, Inc. and Alan Kropp & Associates, Inc. in 2011, References 1, 2, and 3, are highly relevant to the current study. Numerous borings, Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) and lab tests were included in these studies. We have compiled and selectively used, as deemed appropriate, the previous field and laboratory data in this current study. The approximate locations of the previous explorations are illustrated on Figure 1 (Site Plan). SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our review of the subsurface information in References 1 through 3, artificial fill of varying thickness was encountered in historic explorations throughout the site. Young Bay Mud was encountered beneath the fill in the portions of the site to the north of the seaplane lagoon with the greatest thickness approximately 130 feet. Merritt Sand and the San Antonio formation sand were found directly beneath the fill in the southeastern portion of the site (approximately 60 to 70 feet in thickness) and dipping beneath the Young Bay Mud to the north and the west. Yerba Buena Mud (also commonly called Old Bay Mud) lies beneath the San Antonio formation. Due to site elevations and proximity to the San Francisco Bay, the site has relatively shallow groundwater. Based on historic groundwater measurements, we have assumed the groundwater is approximately 4 feet below existing grade in the analyses performed for the site. Much of the existing fill and some of the Merritt Sand deposits are potentially liquefiable. The Young Bay Mud deposits are highly compressible under loads associated with fill and buildings. The Young Bay Mud is also soft, typically leading to relatively low stability of cuts and slopes as well as low bearing capacity. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Based on the references provided, the main geotechnical concerns for the proposed site development include: (1) stability of the north shoreline, (2) liquefaction, (3) compressible soils and (4) underground utility construction. These concerns are discussed below and should be considered in the initial planning for the project site. A design -level geotechnical analysis should be performed as part of the design process. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS North Shoreline Slope Stability 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 3 The geotechnical investigation report prepared by Subsurface Consultants Incorporated (SCI) for the Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement Project at the Port of Oakland (Reference 3) analyzed the proposed deepening and widening of the Inner and Outer Harbor shipping channels and included an evaluation and discussion of that project's impact on adjacent land. The Port's shipping channel deepening project was completed in 2009. A portion of the deepened channel is adjacent to the north shore of the Alameda Point project site. Reference 3 presents static slope stability analyses performed using limit equilibrium theory to locate the minimum factor of safety and critical slip surface. These analyses were performed using Bishop's Simplified Method and the Spencer Method. Liquefaction analyses were performed using the procedures outlined by Seed, et al. (1984). Lateral spreading was investigated using the Bartlett and Youd method (1995) and seismic slope stability due to inertial forces was analyzed using the method outlined by Makdisi and Seed (1978). Three levels of seismic design criteria were used in this investigation. Levels 1, 2, and 3 correspond to ground shaking with a 50 -, 20 -, and 10- percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, and correspond to peak ground accelerations (PGA) of 0.29g, 0.45g, and 0.57g, respectively. A Magnitude 71/4 to 71/2 earthquake was assumed for these analyses. Two cross sections, I -I' and J -J', were analyzed which encroach into a portion of the north shoreline of the proposed Alameda Point project, and the results are presented in Reference 3. The report concluded that the static stability of cross section I -I' was marginal and the seismic performance was poor with very large deformations at all seismic levels. Mitigation in the form of shoreline excavation, ground improvement, rock dikes, and/or bulkheads was recommended. Alternatively, the report suggests moving the channel 25 feet north. The seismic performance of cross section J -J' was concluded to be good at the channel limit but poor at the shoreline. Since the dredging of the channel had a limited effect on the stability of cross section J -J', no mitigation was recommended. Reference 3 also includes analyses of the northern shoreline stability to the west of the mapped development area. Three additional cross sections, F -F', G -G', and H -H' were evaluated using the methodologies discussed above. The stability was evaluated for both deep failures that would propagate (global failure) on to land as well as localized failures of the cut slope. The previous study indicates that, under static loading, the stability for global failures is relatively high with calculated factors of safety between 1.7 and 2.1, but localized stability of the dredged cut would be slightly above marginal with an approximate factor of safety of 1.3 for all three cross - sections. Under seismic loading, the previous study predicted displacement of the slope (both global and local) for all three cross sections under all three seismic levels. The predicted displacements range from as little as 1 foot to greater than 10 feet of displacement. In all three cross sections, the predicted seismic slope displacements are greater for the localized failure surfaces yet still relatively large for the global failure surfaces. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 4 Based on our understanding of the channel deepening project, no mitigation was performed along the north shore of Alameda Point to improve slope stability. Limited Slope Stability Analysis Utilizing information from Reference 3, we analyzed the slope stability of cross sections I -I' and J -J' to verify SCI's results. The locations of these cross sections are shown on Figure 1. We performed the analyses using the computer program SLIDE° (Version 6). SLIDE° is a limit equilibrium program that allows the user various search routines to locate the minimum factor of safety and critical slip surface. We choose the Spencer Method and circular and non - circular searching algorithms for our analysis. We performed seismic deformation analysis on these cross sections, based on the method of Bray and Travasarou (2007) in keeping with the guidelines of the California Geological Survey presented in Special Publication 117A (SP117A). In our analysis, we used the shear strength parameters specified in Reference 3. Our slope stability calculations indicate that these slopes within the study area are probably marginally stable under current conditions. Any new loads from fill placement or buildings within 50 feet of the northern shoreline would likely have an impact on static slope stability. The calculated seismic slope deformations are in the range (15cm to 100cm) that would be considered potentially seismically "unstable" under SP117A. According to the guidelines, such deformation "may be sufficient to cause serious ground cracking or enough strength loss to result in continuing (post- seismic) failure." Deformations could extend more than 1,000 feet from the shore. To the west of the study area, the existing slopes appear to be stable under the current conditions but could experience significant deformations (up to 7 feet) under seismic shaking similar to the design earthquake for the site. The distance the deformation could extend is likely smaller than near the development area. The slope stability results from this study and Reference 3 are included in the Appendix. Liquefaction Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded fine sands below the groundwater table. Empirical evidence indicates that loose fine- grained soil including low plasticity silt and clay is also potentially liquefiable. When seismic ground shaking occurs, the soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses that can cause excess hydrostatic pressures to develop and liquefaction of susceptible soil to occur. If liquefaction occurs, and if the soil consolidates following liquefaction, then ground settlement and surface deformation may occur. The previous explorations at the site encountered sand and silty sand deposits that could potentially liquefy under seismic loading. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 5 Shallow liquefiable soil is most likely to vent to the surface in the form of sand boils. Sand boils, if they occur, can result in localized voids in the subsurface and bearing failure of shallow foundations and utilities. Sand boils were observed in portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. We performed an evaluation of liquefaction potential on selected existing CPT data with the software program Cliq (version 1.7.1.6) applying the methodologies published by NCEER in 1998 and by Moss in 2006. We also analyzed selected existing boring data with the methodologies published by Youd et al. in 2001, Seed et al. in 2003 and Idriss and Boulanger in 2008. We assumed a groundwater level of 4 feet below existing ground surface, a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4g, and a moment magnitude (MW) of 7.3. The PGA value corresponds to the 2010 California Building Code seismic design parameters. We evaluated the liquefaction potential for the soil encountered below the assumed water table. The results indicate that sand and silty sand fill material and native deposits are potentially liquefiable down to 40 feet below existing grades. Our analyses also indicate that the potentially liquefiable soil could settle as much 11 inches. Lateral spreading along the northern shoreline is likely following a design level earthquake. A plan showing the depth of liquefiable soil material is provided as Figure 2. Liquefaction Mitigation The amount of potential liquefaction settlement and lateral spreading are greater than typical structures and infrastructure can tolerate without mitigation. Ground improvement techniques will likely be necessary to reduce the liquefaction potential of the sandy deposits at the project site to levels that improvements can be designed to tolerate. Liquefiable soil can be mitigated by either dynamic impact /vibration to densify the soil or mixing with cement to create zones of non - liquefiable soil. The success of dynamic impact methods depends on the fines content of the sand and the depth of the liquefiable material. • Deep Dynamic Compaction Deep dynamic compaction (DDC) tends to be the most cost - effective method of liquefaction mitigation, where appropriate. DDC imparts impact energy to the soil by dropping a 10- to 15 -ton weight from a height of 16 to 50 feet. Since interlayered clay deposits within the liquefiable soil can absorb the dynamic energy and reduce the effectiveness of the ground improvement, DDC is most effective only to depths as much as 35 feet below grade in sandy soil. Because the method consists of dropping a significant weight from a significant height, DDC results in significant noise and vibration. Since, the vibration impacts typical of DDC will likely cause damage to adjacent structures and improvements, an appropriate setback should be established. DDC should begin in a portion of the site away from existing structures and improvements and vibrations should be monitored to establish a safe setback. Pre- and post - construction surveys of adjacent improvements conditions should be performed to establish Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 6 if any damage was caused by DDC. A second ground improvement method may be necessary within any setback area. DDC should not be used over any existing utilities. • Rapid Impact Compaction An alternative to DDC is rapid impact compaction (RIC), which is a proprietary densification method where a 7- to 8 -ton weight is dropped from 3 to 4 feet high on an approximately 5- foot - diameter hammer head. Because the energy imparted in RIC is significantly less than DDC, it can be used in closer proximity to existing structures and improvements. RIC is most effective in areas were the depth of the liquefiable material is 15 feet or less below the ground surface. Because the treated area is less than with DDC, RIC typically takes longer to treat an area and typically has a higher cost per square foot of area treated. • Vibratory Replacement Vibratory replacement methods densify the potentially liquefiable soil by inserting a vibrating probe into the ground and backfilling the shaft created with gravel. This method creates stone columns with densified soil between. The amount of vibration from this method is significantly less than with DDC and the depth of possible treatment is typically at least 35 feet. Unlike DDC and RIC, this method is not performed across the entire project footprint but on a grid of columns with equal spacing across the site. The spacing of the grid would be determined as part of a design -build process. • Soil /cement Mixing Soil /cement mixing includes numerous proprietary methods including grouting, grout- mixing, and deep soil mixing. Each of these methods involves mixing the subsurface soil with cement and water to create columns of stiffened soil. The columns can be oriented as individual columns or overlapped to create walls around unimproved soil. The untreated soil is not densified by this technique. This ground improvement method relies on the improved stiffness of the columns to raise the composite stiffness of the site and reduce liquefaction by concentrating the cyclic stresses imparted by the seismic event on the columns and reducing the increase in pore pressure in the soil. This method of ground improvement results in significantly reduced construction vibrations versus the other alternatives. This method does result in spoils that will be rich in cement; because import is expected at this site, spoils could be mixed with onsite soil to reduce the cement content and used as structural fill once the cement has cured; using spoils as engineered fill will potentially improve performance as a stiffened cap can be constructed to assist in transferring loads to the individual columns. Depending on cement concentration and hydration time, the reaction of cement in the spoils could make conventional soil compaction techniques difficult. If spoils are used as structural fill, we recommend using a method specification to check that appropriate degrees of compaction are achieved. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS Compressible Soil 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 7 Soft, highly compressible Yong Bay Mud deposits were encountered in the previous explorations at the project site. A plan showing the depth of the base of the Young Bay Mud is provided as Figure 3. The locations and thicknesses of these deposits are variable, ranging from nil to over 130 feet in thickness. The Yong Bay Mud can settle due to loading from any new fill or from new structures constructed at the site. The amount of settlement is a factor of load and thickness of Young Bay Mud. Assuming the Young Bay Mud is normally consolidated, settlement can be as great a 1/2 foot for each foot of fill placed over the thickest areas of Young Bay Mud. While the majority of settlement from new loads will happen in the first 1 to 2 years after construction, in the areas of the thickest Young Bay Mud, settlement can continue for a period of 50 years or more. Compressible Soil Mitigation Depending on the type of buildings planned at the project site, mitigation of the compressible Young Bay Bud deposits may be feasible. One measure that can be used to mitigate the loading from small, relatively lightweight structures is pre - consolidation of compressible material through a surcharge program. Surcharge fill is placed above design grade elevations in areas of the site where pre - consolidation measures are necessary to reduce settlement. The surcharge fill remains in place for a period sufficient to allow the desired degree of consolidation to be achieved, such that the risk of settlement is sufficiently reduced for the planned structure. Surcharging will induce some settlement in adjacent areas; therefore, it may not be feasible to use surcharge as a compressible soil mitigation method in areas near existing structures and utilities. Likewise, surcharging of initial phases of construction should be placed wider than the footprint of the construction area so that subsequent phases of surcharge do not cause settlement of already constructed areas. For planning purposes, we recommend assuming that surcharge areas of initial phases should be overbuilt by at least 20 feet laterally from the improvement area. The amount of time necessary to effectively mitigate compressible soil through surcharge is directly related to the thickness of the compressible soil deposit. Where the Young Bay Mud is thicker than about 20 feet, it is likely that wick drains may be desired to shorten the drainage path of the compressible deposits and accelerate the surcharge program. A surcharge program is generally not efficient for structures with bearing pressures over 750 to 1,000 pounds per square foot. In these cases deep foundation systems deriving support from below the Young Bay Mud could be suitable at the project site. Where deep foundations are used, utilities should incorporate flexible connections as the building will not settle with the surrounding soil. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS Underground Utilities Utility Trench Shoring 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 8 Due to the soft nature of the Young Bay Mud, excavations that extend into Young Bay Mud deposits may become unstable. Installation of temporary sheetpiles or the use of a shield or continuous hydraulic skeleton shoring should be anticipated for excavations that extend below a depth of about 3 to 5 feet. Trench Dewatering Shallow groundwater is expected at the site and trench excavations may encounter perched groundwater. Therefore, utility trench excavations may require temporary dewatering during construction to keep the excavation and working areas reasonably dry. In general, excavations should be dewatered such that water levels are maintained at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation prior to and continuously during shoring installation and the backfill process to control the tendency for the bottom of the excavation to heave under hydrostatic pressures and to reduce inflow of soil or water from beneath temporary shoring. We anticipate that dewatering for underground utility construction will be accomplished by pumping from sumps. Utility trenches adjacent to existing improvements should include a low permeability cutoff to reduce the risk of inadvertent groundwater flow along permeable bedding or backfill. In these areas dewatering may not be an option; therefore, a relatively impervious shoring system of tight interlocking sheet piles, or other impervious wall type, can be utilized to reduce infiltration during construction. In addition, possibility of encountering contaminated soil and groundwater should be considered during underground construction. LAND PLANNING ZONES The limits of the land planning zones discussed below are presented on Figure 4. North Shore Line We understand that a significant setback from the north shore is not feasible; therefore, strengthening of the shoreline will be needed to reduce potential lateral displacement. The most cost effective shoreline stabilization measure would likely be performing ground improvement such as soil /cement mixing. Because both the liquefiable fill and Young Bay Mud impact the seismic slope stability, the soil /cement mixing will need to extend about 40 feet below the ground surface to the bottom of the Young Bay Mud layer. Based on similar projects, we estimate that to appropriately improve shoreline stability the soil treatment may need to be performed on 15 to 30 percent of the soil volume over an area between 20 to 30 feet wide. Other shoreline improvement measures, such as a levee and flood protection system could be Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 9 constructed in conjunction with the improvement area. An alternative to soil /cement mixing would be construction of a structure, such as a bulkhead wall. We understand that a levee has been proposed as part of the flood protection system on the northern shoreline. The levee embankment should have a crest 12 feet wide with side slopes of approximately 3:1 (horizontal:vertical). We recommend that the material used for embankment construction consist of soil with at least 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Adaptive Reuse Area We understand that some portions of the site are planned for adaptive reuse. In these areas, liquefaction mitigation measures will be constrained by existing structures and utilities. Ground improvement techniques will not be available for existing buildings; therefore, potential liquefaction induced settlement must be mitigated structurally. Where new utilities are to be installed, RIC could be used to densify the top 15 feet of liquefiable material, and the utilities could be designed to withstand settlement up to 8 inches and differential settlement up to 4 inches. Alternatively, vibratory replacement or soil /cement mixing could be used in these areas to reduce settlement of utilities and other improvements; total and differential settlement using these approaches would be less than using RIC. Based on typical construction costs, ground improvement using RIC will likely be the most cost efficient solution though other ground improvement methods would be more effective in decreasing potential settlement where liquefiable soil is deeper than 15 feet. Existing utilities that will remain in place can be supported by grouting underneath the utility. Liquefaction Hazard Area This area is not planned for adaptive reuse, so DDC will be the most applicable and cost effective liquefaction mitigation method. DDC results in relatively large noise and vibration impacts, so a buffer zone of up to 100 feet may be necessary from any existing structures to minimize impacts. Inside this buffer zone, other ground improvement methods may be necessary. Liquefaction and Compressible Soil Hazard Area DDC will also be the most applicable and cost effective liquefaction mitigation method in this area. DDC results in relatively large noise and vibration impacts, so a buffer zone of up to 100 feet may be necessary from any existing structures to minimize impacts. Inside this buffer zone, other ground improvement methods may be necessary. Structures constructed in this area that have bearing pressures greater than 750 to 1,000 pounds per square foot will likely need to be supported on deep foundations. A surcharge program could be used to mitigate the consolidation settlement caused by the construction of light buildings. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Alameda Point — Infrastructure Planning GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 Page 10 Outside of the building areas, additional fill from grading to raise the site out of the flood plain will also induce consolidation settlement of the Young Bay Mud, and we anticipate that other measures may be necessary to mitigate potential settlement that could adversely affect site improvements (i.e., streets, parking areas, drainage, underground utilities, concrete flatwork, etc.). The selected mitigation will partly depend on what level of risk is acceptable, and could range from: (1) acceptance of settlement risk and periodic maintenance, (2) implementation of a surcharge program to pre - consolidate the soil and reduce long term settlements, (3) use of lightweight fill as compensation load to reduce settlement or (4) critical utilities could be supported on cement /soil mixed columns. The comments provided in this letter are professional opinions developed in accordance with current standards of geotechnical engineering practice; no warranty is expressed or implied. If you have any questions regarding our letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated Siobhan O'Reill -Shah Danie, S. Haynosch, GE sors /' dsh/jf Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Plan Figure 2 - Depth of Potentially Liquefiable Soil Figure 3 - Thickness of Young Bay Mud Figure 4 — Preliminary Constraints Mapping Based on Land Planning Zones Appendix — Limited Slope Stability Calculations WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. COPYRIGHT 0 2012 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY EXPLANATION CPT -8O CPT -20 B GB -15 i J' OAKLAND INNER HARBOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY - CPT -20 ,BQ (Gse,NoaATILt_ WHOLE , APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CONE PENETRATION TEST (AKA/A3GEO, 2011) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CONE PENETRATION TEST (ENGEO, 2002) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING (ENGEO, 2002) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING (SUBSURFACE CONSULTANTS, 1999) • APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PREVIOUS BORING 1 AE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING NAVY GEX REPORT LJ� APPROXTMATP T fN'ATWIN OF ('R(ICC CPCTTON PV AT TTATFT) RV CTTRCTTRFACP CONCTTT TANTC G:\ Drafting \DRAFTING2\ Dwg\ 5687\ 100\ 2013\56871001 0 4- 1— SitePlon- 012913.dwg Plot Dote:1 -30 -13 spatters BASE MAP SOURCE: CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON 0 FEET 1400 0 ENGEO — Expect Excellence- 51'11 -1 PLAN ALAMEDA POINT - INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA METERS 700 PROJECTNO.: Sb2S 1.100.104 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: S R P I CHECKED BY: J IFTCITTRF NI 1 ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. COPYRIGHT 0 2012 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY Asphalt J�HBR, HARBOR - Asphalt Asphalt GB -15 Asphal 0 °)00 e CPT -1 aw Std CR- 6.24') 3n) I BQ 1$D �- p,;p- -pnail Paraap_ SAN FRANCISCO BAY CPT -20 _ C 1K R 1 EQ (GROUNDWATER - WHOLE SITE) If q CPT -19 1 1 } * 1 DF CPT -6 (*) 4 FT EXPLANATION C P T —8 - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CONE PENETRATION TEST (AKA /A3GEO, 2011) CPT -20 � 4CJ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CONE PENETRATION TEST (ENGEO, 2002) B —8 ▪ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING (ENGEO, 2002) G B -1 5 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING (SUBSURFACE CONSULTANTS, 1999) ♦ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PREVIOUS BORING 1 AE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING NAVY GEX REPORT APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF LIQUEFIABLE LAYER >15 FEET J J' APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION 1 CO 1 DL * ♦1 CE * I AR 1 CL (PIER ASSESSMENT) 1DA IBV • r THICKNESS OF POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SAND LAYER TYPICAL SAND LAYER SCHEMATIC NO SCALE BASE MAP SOURCE: CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON 0 FEET 1000 0 METERS 500 ENGEO — Expect Excellence- DEPTH OF POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SOIL ALAMEDA POINT - INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 5687.100.104 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: 5 R P CHECKED BY: J F FIGURE N( 2 3:\ Drafting \DRAFTING2\ Dwg\ 5687\ 100\ 2013\5€871001 04- 2— ThianessOfLFguifiadleSand- 0113.dwg Plat Date :1 -15 -13 SPATTERS ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. COPYRIGHT 0 2012 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY OAKLAND /NNER HARBOR - �\ °AspFalt F I4� ICwill rim :'T a -- s� e 40 -rte (News's 5 din) SAN FRANCISCO BAY EXPLANATION – – - 70 - – – – – - CONTOURS OF EQUAL THICKNESS OF YOUNG BAY MUD DEPOSIT (FEET) L (INFORMATION SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT WITH FURTHER EXPLORATION) BASE MAP SOURCE: CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON 0 FEET 1000 0 METERS 500 ENGEO — Expect Excellence- THICKNESS OF YOUNG BAY MUD ALAMEDA POINT - INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 5687.100.104 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: S R P I CHECKED BY: JF FIGURE N( 3 G:\ Drafting \DRAFTING2 \_Dwg \5687 \100 \2013 \5687100104-3 —Young BayMud— O1113.dwg Plot Dote: —15-13 SPATTERS ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. �I . 0 B O A liffilar � r° 4tvwf 4.4, :icon 1■1 COPYRIGHT 0 2013 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY LIQUEFACTION AND COMPRESSIBLE SOIL HAZARD AREA NOTE: SEE LAND PLANNING ZONES SECTION OF THE REPORT FOR MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EACH AREA BASE MAP SOURCE: CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON PRELIMINARY CONSTRAINTS MAPPING BASED ON LAND PLANNING ZONES ALAMEDA POINT - INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA G:\ Drafting \DRAFTING2 \_Dwg \5687 \100 \2013 \5687100104 -4 —Lan dPlanningZones- 0113.dwg Plot Dote — 1.5 -13 SPATTERS ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR ENGEO Expect Excellence APPENDIX Limited Slope Stability Calculations 5687.100.104 January 16, 2013 Revised January 30, 2013 00 200 300 400 500 600 Material Name Color Unit Weight (Ibs /ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (Ib /ft2) Phi Cohesion Type Water Surface Hu Type Ru Fill 115 Mohr - Coulomb 0 34 Water Surface Constant Rockfill ■ 145 Mohr - Coulomb 0 50 Water Surface Constant Recent Bay Deposits ■ 115 Mohr - Coulomb 0 24 Water Surface Constant YBM (soft) 90 Undrained 200 FDepth None 0 YBM (stiff) ■ 120 Undrained 450 FDepth None 0 San Antonio 130 Mohr - Coulomb 0 40 Water Surface Constant Old Bay Clay ■ 120 Undrained 2000 FDepth None 0 83 1.0 W W _ _ • 4. 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 ENGEO ` °'' 3 °`` ^orawney Project Alameda Point Analysis Description Spencer Siobhan O'Reilly Shah Scale 1:1000 Company ENGEO SLIDEINTERPRET 6.014 Date 12/12/2012 10:36:05 AM File Name Static Slope Stability - xsec I- I'.slim 0 200 400 600 800 1000 I I "I ►0.13 Material Name Color Unit Weight (Ibs /ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (Ib /ft2) Phi Cohesion Type Water Surface Hu Type Ru Fill 115 Mohr - Coulomb 0 34 Water Surface Constant Rockfill ■ 145 Mohr - Coulomb 0 50 Water Surface Constant Recent Bay Deposits ■ 115 Mohr - Coulomb 0 24 Water Surface Constant YBM (soft) 90 Undrained 200 FDepth None 0 YBM (stiff) ■ 120 Undrained 450 FDepth None 0 San Antonio 130 Mohr - Coulomb 0 40 Water Surface Constant Old Bay Clay ■ 120 Undrained 2000 FDepth None 0 W W 1187 >� 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2001 SLIDEINTERPRET years Project Alameda Point Evert 6.014 +I= a— Analysis Description Spencer "> O'Reilly -Shah sale 1:2500 company ENGEO Date 12/12/2012, 10:36:05 AM File Name Pseudo- Static Slope Stability - xsec I- I'.slim 0 100 200 300 Material Name Color Unit Weight (Ibs /ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (Ib /ft2) Phi Cohesion Type Water Surface Hu Type Ru Fill 115 Mohr - Coulomb 0 34 Water Surface Constant Rockfill ■ 145 Mohr - Coulomb 0 50 Water Surface Constant YBM (soft) 90 Undrained 200 FDepth None 0 YBM (stiff) ■ 120 Undrained 450 FDepth None 0 San Antonio 130 Mohr - Coulomb 0 40 Water Surface Constant Old Bay Clay ■ 120 Undrained 2000 FDepth None 0 W 1.3 ♦ • • • ■ ♦•* �'♦ ....! a* w�i�i* i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i* i�i�ii�i�i�i�i�i7i�i�ii�i�ii�i�ii� 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Project Alameda Point Analysis Description Spencer aped i -: cei' 0 yew SLIDEINTERPRET 6.014 Drawn By , Siobhan O'Reilly-Shah Scale 1:750 Company ENGEO Date 12/12/2012, 10:36:05 AM File Name Static Slope Stability - xsec 3 -3 .slim 0 0 M 0 O- N Material Name Color Unit Weight (Ibs /ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (Ib /ft2) Phi Cohesion Type Water Surface Hu Type Ru Fill I I 115 Mohr - Coulomb 0 34 Water Surface Constant Rockfill ■ 145 Mohr - Coulomb 0 50 Water Surface Constant YBM (soft) 90 Undrained 200 FDepth None 0 YBM (stiff) ■ 120 Undrained 450 FDepth None 0 San Antonio I I 130 Mohr - Coulomb 0 40 Water Surface Constant Old Bay Clay ■ 120 Undrained 2000 FDepth None 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Project Analysis Description LIDEINTERPRET 6.014 Date Alameda Point Spencer Siobhan O'Reilly -Shah 12/12/2012, 10:36:05 AM Scale 1:750 Company File Name ENGEO Pseudo - Static Slope Stability - xsecJ -J ".slim Elevation, Port of Oakland Datum (feet) 100 80 60 40 20 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 Layer No. Soil Classification Litholo • is Unit Unit Weight (pc) Effective Friction Angle (degrees) Effective Cohesion Intercept (psf) Undrained Shear Strength (psf) 1 Loose Sand Fill 115 30 0 - 2 Soft to Medium Stiff Clay (Fill) 100 - - 400 at top of layer, increasing 9 psf/ft. 3 Rockfill (Old Training Wall) 145 50 0 - 4 Soft Cla oun' Ba Mud 95 - - 250 at El. -12 ft . increasin_ 11 .sf/ft 5 Medium Stiff Clay (Young Bay Mud) 100 - - 500 at top of layer, increasing 11 psf/ft. 6 Very Dense Sand (San Antonio Formation) 130 40 7 Ve Stiff Cla Old Ba Mud 120 - - 2000 at to. of la er increasin: 30 16f/ft Elev. +12 ft. Elev. +6 ft. Global Case Factor of Safety= 2.0 Before Dredgin_ GB . 3B • Local Case Factor of Safety =1.4 Before Dredging Factor of Safety = 1.3 After Dredging Yield Acceleration = 0.09g After Dredging v 2 6 .A1 Global Case Factor of Safety= 1.8 After Dredging Yield Acceleration = 0.16g After Dredging —2.5:1 Slope 3:1 Slope GB 12 Elev. 0 ft. Elev. -44 ft. Elev. -52 ft. Material to be Dredged 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 7 Notes: 1. Yield Acceleration was determined using a post - liquefaction residual strength of 300 psf for the submerged part of layer #1 2. If the new channel limit is moved 25 feet north, the -42 foot channel slope can be extended at a 3:1 slope so that the local stability case is not impacted by the proposed dredging. Elev. -253.5 ft. Approximate Scale 1" = 50' 50 100 -80 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS CROSS - SECTION F - F' Subsurface consultants, Inc. ►J U Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION -50 FOOT NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PORT OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER 133.007 DATE 12/97 APPROVED PLATE 37 Elevation, Port of Oakland Datum (feet) 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 Layer No. Soil Classification (Lithologic Unit) Unit Weight (pcf) Effective Friction Angle (degrees) Effective Cohesion Intercept (psf) Undrained Shear Strength (psf) 1 Loose Sand (Fill) 115 30 0 - 2 Loose Sand (Fill) 115 30 0 - 3 Rockfill (Old Training Wall) 145 50 0 - 4 Interbedded Loose Sand and Soft Clay (Recent Bay Deposits) 115 30 0 - 5 Soft Cla oun_ Ba Mud 95 - - 250 at El. -14 ft. increasin_ 11 •sf/ft 6 Medium Stiff Cla oun:. Ba Mud 100 - - 500 at to. of la er increasin: 11 .sf/ft. 7 Ve Dense Sand San Antonio Formation 130 40 0 - 8 Ve Stiff Cla Old Ba Mud 120 - - 2000 at to. of layer, increasing 30 psf/ft Local Case Factor of Safety = 1.3 After Dredging Yield Acceleration = 0.06g After Dredging Elev. +4 ft. Global Case Factor of Safety = 2.5 Before Dredging Local Case Factor of Safety = 1.5 Before Dredging '4444:31111116 -ma _ litihNoss 6 Global Case Factor of Safety = 2.1 After Dredging Yield Acceleration = 0.18g After Dredging Elev.0 ft. 7 3:1 Slope Elev. -52 ft. Elev. -44 ft. Material tobe -Drell 8 Approximate Scale 1" = 50' 0 50 100 ed 100 80 60 40 20 -20 -40 -60 -80 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS CROSS - SECTION G - G' Subsurface Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION -50 FOOT NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PORT OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER 133.007 DATE 12/97 APPROVED PLATE 38 Elevation, Port of Oakland Datum (feet) 100 80 60 40 20 -20 -40 -60 -80 Layer No. Soil Classification (Lithologic Unit) Unit Weight (pcf) 115 Effective Friction Angle (degrees) 30 - Effective Cohesion Intercept (degrees) 0 - Undrained Shear Strength (psf) - 1 Loose Sand (Fill) 2 Rockfill (Old Training Wall) 145 50 0 - 3 Interbedded Loose Sand and Soft Clay (Recent Bay Deposits) 115 100 30 - 0 - - 300 at El. -27 ft., increasing 11 psf/ft. 4 Soft Clay (Young Bay Mud) 5 Interbedded Medium Stiff Clay and Medium Dense Clayey Sand (Young Bay Mud and San Antonio Formations) 105 130 - 40 - 0 500 at El. -27 ft., increasing 11 psf/ft. 6 Very Dense Sand (San Antonio Formation) 7 Very Stiff Clay (Old Bay Clay) 120 - - 2000 at top of layer, increasing 30 psf/ft. Elev. +11 ft. Elev. +6 ft. 1 MW 7C 3 5 Global Case Factor of Safety = 1.7 Before and After Dredging Yield Acceleration = 0.10g After Dredging Local Case Factor of Safety = 1.4 : e ore Dredging Factor of Safety = 1.3 A r Dredging Yield Acceleration < 0.0 After Dredging 3:1 Slope 6 -100 7 _ Elev. -230.7 ft. � hil.ii!Ii!1 14 'i�'n6ll Elev. 0 ft. Elev. -44 ft. Elev. -52 ft. Material Approximate Scale 1" = 50' 0 50 100 to be Dredged. 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS CROSS - SECTION H - H' Subsurface Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION -50 FOOT NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PORT OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER 133.007 DATE APPROVED 12/97 PLATE 39 100 a 80 60 cd 40 Q b 20 O • 0 0 • -20 0 -40 0 • cd - • -60 -80 -100 Elev. +10 ft. Elev. +6 ft. GB 16 Projected 320 feet Layer No. Soil Classification (Lithologic Unit) Unit Weight (pcf) 115 145 Effective Friction Angle (degrees) 34 50 Effective Cohesion Intercept (degrees) 0 0 Undrained Shear Strength (psf) - - 1 Medium Dense to Dense Sand (Fill) Rockfill (Old Training Wall) 2 3 Medium Dense to Dense Sand (Recent Bay Deposits) 115 34 0 - 4 Soft Clay (Young Bay Mud) 90 - 200 at El. -27 ft., increasing 11 psf /ft. 5 Medium Stiff Clay (Young Bay Mud) 95 - - 450 at El. -27 ft., increasing 11 psf /ft. 6 Very Dense Sand (San Antonio Formation) 130 40 0 - 7 Very Stiff Clay (Old Bay Clay) 120 - - 2000 at top of layer, increasing 30 psf/ft. Global Case Factor of Safety = 1.2 Before Dredging Factor of Safety = 1.1 After Dredging Yield Acceleration = 0.03g After Dredging v 5 6 2 •� `.,KGB 15 Pr .'e ted 310 feet IiiihW. —1.7:1 Slope 2:1 Slope Elev. 0 ft. Elev. -44 ft. Elev. -52 ft. Material to be Dredged 7 Approximate Scale 1" = 50' 0 50 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 - 40 - 60 -80 -100 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS CROSS - SECTION I -1' Subsurface Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION -50 FOOT NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PORT OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER 133.007 DATE 12/97 APPROVED -mil �l7 PLATE 40 Elevation, Port of Oakland Datum (feet) 100 — 80 60 40 20 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 Elev. +10 ft. Elev. +5 ft. Layer No. Soil Classification (Lithologic Unit) Unit Weight (pef) Effective Friction Angle (degrees) Effective Cohesion Intercept (degrees) U ndrained Shear Strength (psf) 1 Loose to Medium Dense Sand (Fill) Rockfill (Old Training Wall) 115 145 30 50 0 0 - - 2 3 Soft Clay (Young Bay Mud) 90 - 170 at El. -7 ft., increasing 11 psf /ft. 350 at El. -7 ft., increasing 11 psf/ft. - 2000 at top of layer, increasing 30 psf/ft. 4 Medium Stiff Clay (Young Bay Mud) 95 - - 0 - 5 Very Dense Sand (San Antonio Formation Very Stiff Clay (Old Bay Clay) 130 120 40 - 6 Global (Block Failure) Case Factor of Safety = 2.0 Before Dredging Factor of Safety = 1.8 After Dredging Yield Acceleration = 0.17g After Dredging Local Case Factor of Safety = 3.4 After Dredging Yield Acceleration = 0.29g After Dredging Elev. 0 ft. 1 4 Elev. -44 ft. Elev. -52 ft. - 100 5 3:1 Slope aterial fo 6 Approximate Scale 1" = 50' 0 50 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS CROSS - SECTION J - J' Subsurface Consultants, Inc. Geotechnicai & Environmental Engineers GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION -50 FOOT NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PORT OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER 133.007 DATE 12/97 APPROVED PLATE 41 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES B) DETAILED UTILITY SCHEMATIC PLAN Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. INV 12" OUT -4.60 (6' COVER±) C± INV OUT -4.00 15.4 AC± (T) 108.1 10 2 10.3 110 FG 2.5 E -2 55.5 AC± FG 2.0 INV 12" THRU -5.80 - -- 8. (FROM VA) INV THRU -1.95 EXGR 2.5 110.3 110 110.6 110.6 108.1 108.5 20"FM A -1 7.3 AC± 0.2 INV OUT -0.80 EXGR 2.80 FG 2.0 INV 12" OUT -6.25 (E) INV 12" IN -6.15 (N) INV 8" IN -6.15 (S) 109.2 0 09 113.3 110.6 108.9 U) D -2 23.1 AC± U) INV THRU -1.30 EXGR 2.7 110 N 400 111.6 C 1 1r INV THRU -3.50 I_I EXGR 0.90 110.8 INV THRU -2.15 EXGR 2.1 INV THRU -2.55 EXGR 2.4 12 SS S= 0.0020 11 EX SS JI III r D -3 21.8 AC± 111.8 110.4 110.4 110 109.3 111.0 112.9 113.0 112.5 1 FG 3.5 INV 8" OUT -3.60 (6.5' COVER±) 11 FG 7.0 INV 8" IN -2.30 (E) INV 8" THRU -2.40 EX SS 114.6 112.9 U) 1 LO 0 115P I INV OUT -1.85 EXGR 5.0 FG 5.0 / 110.5 INV 8" OUT -0.30 (4.5' COVER - MIN) D -10 7.1 AC± 110.4 INV THRU -2.65 EXGR 4.0 110.4 0L C D -14 7.0 AC± L, FG 3.7 INV 8" OUT -4.60 109.1 110 111.9 112.8 113.2 114.4 107.9 EX SS cn u) CO U) I* 11 11 11 11 11 �1 T� J L_ L� INV THRU I- 0.70��- EXGR 7.0 SD S =0 0020 I I JL EXSSI ❑ ❑❑ n 112.7 • S= 0.0010 MEW * INV THRU -3.25 EX SS > 1 EXGR 1.5 -j II FG 1.7 INV 30" OUT -9.10 (N) INV 24" IN -9.00 (S) INV 12" IN -9.00 (W) INV 8" IN -9.00 (E) (8' COVER±) 11 L_ 112.7 S- 0.0020 112.7 113.0 113.1 4112.6 112.6 112.4 112.7 112.3 S= 0.0035 8 SS S-0.0035- S=0.0010 FG 2.3 SD 0 O U) FG 2.1 INV 8 "" THRU -7.55 INV 8" IN -7.45 D -5, 1.8 AC± INV 8 THRU -6.15 8 SS S= 0.0035 INV OUT -2.25 EXGR 2.3 0 FG 1.8 INV 24"" THRU -8.3 (8' COVER±) 11 11 * SD 11 �J I -110 D -6, 3.6 AC± INV THRU -1.40 J EXGR 2.4 11 FG 2.5 INV 8" THRU THRU -5.40 /\ 110.8 -8 110.8 110.8 ci 11.2 AC± FG 2.6 I-INV 8" OUT -2.80 INV OUT -1.60 EXGR 2.2 -' LS -6 IA �8 SS S= 0.0010 S- 0.0035 LIFT STA, FG 2.0 %E 1 8 NV 8" THRU -6.45 (We`� SS INV 8" IN -6.35 (S) ./ �S\` INV THRU - 3.35;x. �� 1 EXGR 1.5 // C± INV THRU -1.85 EXGR 2.2 INV 8" IN -6.60 (E) INV 8" OUT -3.40 NO °o 111.0 cn 5 INV THRU -1.30 8 SS 111.2 I 1 1 S= 0.0035 INV OUT -0.80 1 1 o Is D -7 I II 1 0 1.8 AE± l I * ° o INV THRU -0.40 II EXGR 6.3 INV THRU -2.10 cn EXGR 6.3 10..,IJ\7 S= 0.0020 INV OUT -0.60 EXGR 6.2 D -11 27.1 AC± Oo n INV OUT -1.25 EXGR 4.7 < SD FG 3.2 INV 8" IN -5.15 110.3 INV 8" OUT -5.25 (1' CLEAR TO STORM) D -17 10.5 AC± n j EX SS FG 3.0 INV 8" OUT -1.80 L 110.2 108.2 109.3 +I CD O < Q M Ln FG 6.1 INV 8" OUT 0.05 (5' COVER±) S= 0.0020 112.3 0 14■111110■1 14161W-7 FG 6.0 INV 8" IN 7.80 (W) INV 12" IN -6.25 (S) INV 24" IN 7.80 (E) INV 24" OUT -7.90 (N) EX SS s -® 8 SS * INV THRU -3.25 EXGR 3.2 S- 0.0035 \ FG 5.0 INV 8" OUT -1.00 D -15 16.5 AC± < SD S= 0.0015 INV THRU -3.50 1.24 SS S 0.0108 FG 6.5 112.5 N O 112. 114.8 JI EX SS 1 = 112.8 112.5 * * l o INV 24" THRU 3.25 CD INV 8" IN -3.15 0 115.2 I 115.0 • � O N O 0 I I cn O N O 0 II cn - 1 INV THRU -1.30 EXGR 5.2 ■ ==,1 V) co INV OUT -0.20 EXGR 6.0 D -12 L 7.3 AC± INV OUT -0.75 EXGR 4.4 11 112.6 J 113.8 8 SS S= 0.0020 SD INV THRU -2.80 112.5 ■�rtTW ■ E SS SD I I- 113.0 II IL IF II 113.3 115= 0.0010 S- 0.0020 LIFT STA, FG 5.0 LS -4 INV 18" IN -4.40 (S) INV 8" IN -8.90 (E) INV 24" OUT -2.00 (w) (5' COVER) +o. INV OUT 0.25 EXGR 6.0 INV 8" IN -0.80 (5.5' COVER±) S= 0.0020 FG 5.2 INV 12" OUT -4.30 (N) INV 8" IN -4.20 (S &W) (1.5' CLEAR TO STORM) EX SS > 1 INV OUT -2.20 EXGR 3 8 S= 0.0035 D -18, 5.8 AC± P_ -I SD S= 0.0015 LIFT STA, FG 4.0 INV 8" OUT -2.00 (N) INV 8" IN -10.00 (S) < EX SS O Cr) EX SS 114.8 23 113.2 113 8 SS S- 0.0035 S= 0.0020 FG 5.0 / INV 8" IN -2.60 INV 8" OUT -2.70 (1' CLEAR TO SD±) D -16 4.5 AC± EX SS v) CO I ro O O Cr) 0 N 112:/ SD 8 SS S= 0.0035 FG 4.0 INV 8" IN -4.90 INV 8" OUT -5.00 D -19, 1.6 AC± INV THRU -0.90 EXGR 5.0 SD 113.5 113.3 FG 7.0 INV 18" OUT -3.45 (N) INV 12" IN -3.35 (E) INV 12" IN -2.85 (S) INV OUT 0.30 EXGR 4.7 FG 5.4 EX SS INV 8" OUT -1.30 (6' COVER±) B -1 15.5 AC± < EX SS CU SD S- 0.0035 I Ia CD CD A-4 18.6 AC± INV THRU -2.30 oo CD CD S=0.0035 INV OUT -0.30 FG 6.1 INV 12" OUT -6.60 INV OUT 2.05 INV OUT -0.50 S=0.0020 INV THRU -1.95 INV 8" IN -1.35 S= 0.0035 S= 0.0020 B -2, 6.5 AC± 8 SS =stay S=0.0035 S=0.0020 SD S= 0.0010 S= 0.0010 S=0.0020 1 D-21, 13 7 AC+ INV THRU -2.15 V) 0 11 c) v) INV OUT -2.15 \ INV OUT -4.0 [DRI.'"] 116 0 1165 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CONCEPTUAL UTILITY STUDY BASE CASE - REUSE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUI\ .■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■i ..■■..■ ■r_ :I_..�_.■ ■.'III J.' °' • :iiiiiiiiii• Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 6111 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD, SUITE 150 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 SAN RAMON • LATHROP (925) 866-0322 FAX (925) 866-8575 TY CALIFORNIA 600' 800' 0' 200' SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: JULY, 2013 1.14, c i 1 -110 EX SS INV 12" THRU -0.80 (1' ABOVE 18" SD) LIFT STA, FG 6.1 INV 12" THRU -8.00 INV 12" OUT 0.00 INV OUT -4.0 INV OUT -0.80 SD 8 SS FG 5.9 INV 8" IN -3.40 (E) A-6 LIFT STA, FG 5.9 INV 12" IN -6.50 INV 12" OUT -1.00 (6' COVER±) cn CD CO II FG 6.9 INV THRU -3.00 12 SS 0.0020 A-8 12.7 AC± CD CO 0 INV 8" OUT 0.30 (5' COVER±) \\04110\8 14.9 113.3 113.5 o 112.1 1 FG 6.5 INV 8" IN -2.45 INV 8" OUT -2.55 B-4 FG 6.0 INV 8" THRU -4.25 (N) INV 8" IN -4.15 (1' CLEAR TO STORM) 111 INV 12" THRU -7.70 (1.75' CLEAR TO SD) FG 6.1 INV 12" IN -5.90 INV 8" IN -5.90 INV 12" OUT -6.00 CONNECTION TO PIER FG 8.0 INV 8" OUT 1.75 (5.5' COVER±) • • CONNECTION TO PIER S=0.0035 FG 6.7 INV 8" THRU -3.90 8" SS > S=0.0035 S=0.0020 CONNECTION TO PIER r CD B-6 FG 6.7 FG 6.3 INV 8" OUT -2.75 (1' CLEAR TO STORM) INV 8" OUT -0.35 (6.5' COVER±) Fri 7> S=0.0035 CNI < 8" SS S=0.0035 INV THRU -1.10 8 SS S=0.0035 INV OUT -0.50 A-7 13.0 AC± FG 5.9 10.6 INV 12" IN -6.15 INV 8" OUT -4.70 INV THRU -1.60 A-9 1 CD Cr) CD CO 0 (st S=0.0015 FG 5.5 FG 6.2 INV 8" OUT -0.80 (6' COVER±) INV OUT -0.55 FG 5.5 INV 8" IN -3.15 INV 8" OUT -3.25 FG 6.2 INV 8" OUT -1.50 (7' COVER±) 9.1 11.2 113.1 Ng* 112.3 B-5 INV OUT -1.40 S-0.0035 8 11 cn < 8 SS S=0.0035 \ INV OUT 0.30 CD FG 6.6 INV 12" THRU -4.95 °t'irel-t) INV THRU -0.40 11 11 SD FG 7.21 INV 8" THRU -2.10 FG 7.7 INV 8" IN -0.30 INV 8" OUT -0.40 S=0.0035 INV THRU -2.10 SD FG 7.6 INV 8" OUT -2.30 CD CD CD 1 CD CD 11.1 AC± FG 7.0 8 SS S=0.0035 DIVE UNDER SD SD CD CD ®■1111," SD FG 5.6 B-7 INV OUT -0.75 LIFT STA, FG 8.0 INV 8" IN -5.40 (S) INV 8" OUT 1.30 (N) (6' COVER) LS-1 INV THRU -1.50 INV IN 0.00 10.1 AC± FG 8.4 INV 8" OUT -1.60 cn cn co II S-0.0035 FG 8.6 SD INV 8" OUT -5.00 FG 8.6 INV 8" OUT -2.82 S=0.0020 FG 7.7 INV 8" OUT -0.15 S-0.0035 CD CD INV OUT -0.55 CD 12.5 AC± FG 6.6 INV 8" IN -1.45 INV 8" OUT -1.55 < 8" SS S=0.0035 INV THRU -1.30 INV 8" IN -2.60 FG 6.3 INV 8" OUT 0.05 (5.5' COVER±) cn co CO FG 6.8 IN 1 Is 112.6 0 110.4 INV 8" OUT 0.00 (6' COVER±) INV OUT -0.95 SD CD CD FG 7.5 FG 7.5 / INV 8" OUT -0.90 (7.5' COVER±) INV OUT -1.65 SD cD CD CD 8 SS S=0.0015 CO CS 113.3 110.7 MAC Tarril 011 sit loss yo FG 7.4 INV 8 IN 2.77 INV 8" OUT -2.67 14.6 AC± FG 8.0 INV 8" IN -0.40 INV 8" OUT -0.50 SD INV THRU -3.00 rn ) ci cn \ INV OUT -1.00 INV THRU -2.65 S-0.0035 23.6 AC± SD cn S-0.0035 FG 7.5 INV 8" OUT 1.40 NENE INV OUT -4.0 109.8 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES C) WASTEWATER FLOW CALCULATIONS Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. DRAFT ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS SEWAGE FLOW BASE CASE - REUSE PLAN ALAMEDA POINT ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA From Node Rim Invert Out Cover (Ft) To Node Rim Invert In 1 7.7 -0.15 7.2 4 8.0 -4.90 gpd /unit 0.0007 cfs /unit < 8.7 8 inch 1,740 0.0035 2 7.5 1.40 5.4 4 8.0 -4.90 0 0.1 2.0 0.20 gpd /sf 0.00000031 cfs /sf - Manufacturing /WH M 0.02 2.0 0.04 gpd /sf 0.00000006 cfs /sf - Retail R 0.1 2.0 0.20 gpd /sf 0.00000031 cfs /sf - 8 inch 915 0.0035 0.07 1.3 fps 21% 0.00000155 cfs /sf - 3 8.0 -1.60 8.9 4 8.0 -4.90 cfs /net acre - Park P - - 3,231 gpd /net acre 8 inch 80 0.0035 0.35 2.0 fps 49% - 20,000 gpd 0.0310 cfs - GWI & I/I 4 8.0 -5.00 12.3 LS 1 8.0 -5.40 0.02 0.07 8 inch 1,055 0.0035 0.35 2.0 fps 49% Node 1 - - 8 inch 505 0.0035 0.10 1.4 fps 25% LS 1 8.0 1.30 6.0 6 7.0 -2.50 - 0.24 Node 3 - - - - 5 6.6 -2.10 8.0 6 7.0 -3.85 0.35 8 inch 435 0.0035 0.45 2.2 fps 57% LS 1 - - - - - - - 0.35 12 inch 465 6 7.0 -3.30 9.6 7 6.6 -4.85 C -2 Retail - - 100,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.03 C -4 ( -50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 11.9 205,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 7 6.6 -4.95 10.6 9 6.1 -5.90 0.10 LS 1 - - - - - - - 0.35 Node 5 - - - - - - - 0.10 July 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Total Unit Count: 1,425 Total Acres: 766.1 Total SF: 5,500,000 Pipe Diameter (Inches) Pipe Length (Feet) Pipe Slope (Ft / Ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Velocity (fps) Percent Capacity 8 inch 1,355 0.0035 0.03 1.0 fps 14% 2.0 480 gpd /unit 0.0007 cfs /unit < 8.7 8 inch 1,740 0.0035 0.24 1.8 fps 40% 0.0007 cfs /unit 8.7 - 21.8 Office 0 0.1 2.0 0.20 gpd /sf 0.00000031 cfs /sf - Manufacturing /WH M 0.02 2.0 0.04 gpd /sf 0.00000006 cfs /sf - Retail R 0.1 2.0 0.20 gpd /sf 0.00000031 cfs /sf - 8 inch 915 0.0035 0.07 1.3 fps 21% 0.00000155 cfs /sf - GWI and I/I 1 - - 1,300 gpd /net acre 0.0020 cfs /net acre - Park P - - 3,231 gpd /net acre 8 inch 80 0.0035 0.35 2.0 fps 49% - 20,000 gpd 0.0310 cfs - GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 10.1 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.07 8 inch 1,055 0.0035 0.35 2.0 fps 49% Node 1 - - 8 inch 505 0.0035 0.10 1.4 fps 25% Node 2 - - - - - - - 0.24 Node 3 - - - - - - - 0.07 0.35 8 inch 435 0.0035 0.45 2.2 fps 57% LS 1 - - - - - - - 0.35 12 inch 465 0.0020 0.67 1.9 fps 45% 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 C -2 Retail - - 100,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.03 C -4 ( -50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 11.9 205,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 24.4 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.05 P: \1000 - 1099 \1087 -10 \Sewer \AP - Backbone Sewer System_07- 31- 13.xls Sanitary Sewage Design Quantities based on New City of Alameda Standards: Type of Zoning Base Usage PF Peak Usage Usage DU /acre Range Residential Reuse RE 240 2.0 480 gpd /unit 0.0007 cfs /unit - Very Low Density R1 240 2.0 480 gpd /unit 0.0007 cfs /unit < 8.7 Single Family R2 240 2.0 480 gpd /unit 0.0007 cfs /unit 8.7 - 21.8 Office 0 0.1 2.0 0.20 gpd /sf 0.00000031 cfs /sf - Manufacturing /WH M 0.02 2.0 0.04 gpd /sf 0.00000006 cfs /sf - Retail R 0.1 2.0 0.20 gpd /sf 0.00000031 cfs /sf - Service S 0.5 2.0 1.00 gpd /sf 0.00000155 cfs /sf - GWI and I/I 1 - - 1,300 gpd /net acre 0.0020 cfs /net acre - Park P - - 3,231 gpd /net acre 0.0050 cfs /net acre - VA - - - 20,000 gpd 0.0310 cfs - Area Number Product Type Unit Count Acreage SF Zoning Usage based on Zoning Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) C -8 Park - 6.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.03 C -4 (-50%) Manufacturing /WH - 11.9 205,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 0-7 Office - 14.6 300,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.09 C -8 Park - 17.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.09 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 26.5 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.05 0.24 0-6 Office - 10.1 175,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.05 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 10.1 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.07 Node 1 - - - - - - - 0.03 Node 2 - - - - - - - 0.24 Node 3 - - - - - - - 0.07 0.35 LS 1 - - - - - - - 0.35 C -2 Manufacturing /WH - 12.5 50,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 C -2 Retail - - 100,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.03 C -4 ( -50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 11.9 205,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 24.4 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.05 0.10 LS 1 - - - - - - - 0.35 Node 5 - - - - - - - 0.10 0.45 0-1 Office - 11.1 250,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.08 0-3 Office - 19.1 250,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.08 C -3 Manufacturing /WH - - 100,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 Node 6 - - - - - - - 0.45 GWI &I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 30.2 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.06 0.67 From Node Rim Invert Out Cover (Ft) To Node Rim Invert In 8 6.7 -3.90 9.9 9 6.1 -5.90 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.03 C -5 Park - 15.7 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.08 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 10.0 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.02 12 inch 935 0.0020 0.81 2.0 fps 50% 9 6.1 -6.00 11.1 LS 2 6.1 -5.90 B -3 ( -50 %) Retail - 0.3 12,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 B -3 (-50%) Park - 2.8 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.01 Node 7 - - - - - 12 inch 665 0.0020 0.81 2.0 fps 50% - - - - - 0.13 GWI & I/I LS 2 6.1 0.00 5.1 10 6.1 -1.45 0.0020 0.92 2.1 fps 54% 0.81 10 6.1 -1.45 6.6 18 7.0 -2.85 - - - - - - 0.81 8 inch 450 0.0035 0.09 1.4 fps 24% B -2 ( --50 %) Retail - 1.625 37,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 B -2 (-50 %) 11 6.5 -2.55 8.4 14 6.0 -4.15 0.09 8 inch 430 0.0035 0.41 2.1 fps 54% - - 0.81 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 3.25 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.92 12 6.3 -2.75 8.4 14 6.0 -4.25 B -4 Single Family 100 5.6 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 B -4 Retail - - 25,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 5.6 - 1 8 inch 405 0.0035 0.09 1.4 fps 24% 0.09 B -6 Single Family 100 11.2 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 12 inch 935 0.0020 0.60 1.9 fps 42% 0.20 13 5.6 -2.70 7.6 14 6.0 -4.15 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 B -6 Service - - 90,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.14 B -7 Single Family 100 11.2 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 B -7 Office - - 100,000 0 14 6.0 -4.25 9.3 16 6.0 -6.15 25,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 22.4 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.05 0.41 Pipe Diameter (Inches) Pipe Length (Feet) Pipe Slope (Ft / Ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Velocity (fps) Percent Capacity 8 inch 575 0.0035 0.13 1.6 fps 29% 10.0 435,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.03 C -5 Park - 15.7 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.08 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 10.0 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.02 12 inch 935 0.0020 0.81 2.0 fps 50% 0.13 B -3 ( -50 %) Retail - 0.3 12,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 B -3 (-50%) Park - 2.8 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.01 Node 7 - - - - - 12 inch 665 0.0020 0.81 2.0 fps 50% - - - - - 0.13 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 0.3 - 1 12 inch 690 0.0020 0.92 2.1 fps 54% 0.81 Node 9 - - - - - - - 0.81 8 inch 450 0.0035 0.09 1.4 fps 24% B -2 ( --50 %) Retail - 1.625 37,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 B -2 (-50 %) Service - 1.625 60,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.09 8 inch 430 0.0035 0.41 2.1 fps 54% - - 0.81 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 3.25 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.92 B -4 Single Family 100 5.6 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 B -4 Retail - - 25,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 5.6 - 1 8 inch 405 0.0035 0.09 1.4 fps 24% 0.09 B -6 Single Family 100 11.2 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 12 inch 935 0.0020 0.60 1.9 fps 42% 0.20 0.00000031 0.03 B -6 Retail - - 25,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 B -6 Service - - 90,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.14 B -7 Single Family 100 P: \1000 - 1099 \1087 -10 \Sewer \AP - Backbone Sewer System_07- 31- 13.xls Area Number Product Type Unit Count Acreage SF Zoning Usage based on Zoning Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) C -5 Manufacturing /WH - 10.0 435,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.03 C -5 Park - 15.7 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.08 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 10.0 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.13 B -3 ( -50 %) Retail - 0.3 12,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 B -3 (-50%) Park - 2.8 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.01 Node 7 - - - - - - - 0.67 Node 8 - - - - - - - 0.13 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 0.3 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.00 0.81 Node 9 - - - - - - - 0.81 0.81 B -2 ( --50 %) Retail - 1.625 37,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 B -2 (-50 %) Service - 1.625 60,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.09 Node 10 - - - - - - - 0.81 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 3.25 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.92 B -4 Single Family 100 5.6 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 B -4 Retail - - 25,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 5.6 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.09 B -6 Single Family 100 11.2 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 B -6 Office - - 100,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.03 B -6 Retail - - 25,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 B -6 Service - - 90,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.14 B -7 Single Family 100 11.2 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 B -7 Office - - 100,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.03 B -7 Retail - - 25,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 22.4 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.05 0.41 B -5 Single Family 100 5.6 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 B -5 Retail - - 25,000 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & 1/1 GWI and I/I - 5.6 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.09 Node 11 - - - - - - - 0.09 Node 12 - - - - - - - 0.41 Node 13 - - - - - - - 0.09 0.60 From Node Rim Invert Out Cover (Ft) To Node Rim Invert In 15 5.5 -3.25 8.1 16 6.0 -4.70 R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.04 A -9 Very Low Density 75 10.5 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.06 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 17.0 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 12 inch 80 0.0020 0.72 2.0 fps 47% 16 6.0 -6.25 11.3 LS 3 6.0 -6.50 Node 14 - - - - - 12 inch 560 0.0020 0.72 2.0 fps 47% - - - - LS 3 6.0 -1.00 6.0 17 6.5 -2.25 53% 0.72 17 6.5 -2.25 7.8 18 7.0 -3.35 - - - - - - - 0.72 18 inch 950 0.0010 1.80 1.9 fps 53% - - 0.72 A -6 ( -50 %) Very Low Density 55 10.1 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.04 18 7.0 -3.45 9.0 LS 4 5.6 -4.50 0.0007 /Unit 0.06 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 22.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.05 8 inch 400 0.0035 0.05 1.2 fps 18% 0.87 Node 10 - - - - - 19 5.5 -2.00 6.8 20 5.9 -3.40 - - - - 0.87 D -13 Manufacturing /WH - 2.3 21,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 2.3 - 1 1,300 20 5.9 -4.50 9.7 21 6.1 -6.50 8 inch 660 0.0035 0.44 2.2 fps 56% A -7 (-50%) Very Low Density 47 6.5 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 6.5 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 21 6.1 -6.60 12.0 LS 4 5.0 -8.90 39% Node 19 - - - - - - - 0.05 A -5 Single Family 200 13.8 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.15 A -5 Park - 3.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.02 GWI & I/I LS 4 5.0 -2.00 5.0 23 6.5 -3.25 0.03 8 inch 665 0.0035 0.04 1.1 fps 16% Node 20 - - - - - - - 0.24 A -4 Very Low Density 135 18.8 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.10 A -6 (-50%) Very Low Density 55 10.1 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.04 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 28.9 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.06 22 5.5 -0.80 5.6 23 6.5 -3.15 0.44 Node 18 - - - - - - - 1.80 Node 21 - Pipe Diameter (Inches) Pipe Length (Feet) Pipe Slope (Ft / Ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Velocity (fps) Percent Capacity 8 inch 405 0.0035 0.13 1.6 fps 29% 6.5 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.04 A -9 Very Low Density 75 10.5 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.06 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 17.0 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 12 inch 80 0.0020 0.72 2.0 fps 47% 0.13 Node 14 - - - - - 12 inch 560 0.0020 0.72 2.0 fps 47% - - - - - 0.13 12 inch 555 0.0020 0.87 2.1 fps 53% 0.72 Node 16 - - - - - - - 0.72 18 inch 950 0.0010 1.80 1.9 fps 53% - - 0.72 A -6 ( -50 %) Very Low Density 55 10.1 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.04 A -8 Very Low Density 80 12.7 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.06 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 22.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.05 8 inch 400 0.0035 0.05 1.2 fps 18% 0.87 Node 10 - - - - - 8 inch 600 0.0035 0.24 1.8 fps 40% - - - - - 0.87 D -13 Manufacturing /WH - 2.3 21,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 2.3 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.00 8 inch 660 0.0035 0.44 2.2 fps 56% A -7 (-50%) Very Low Density 47 6.5 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 6.5 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 24 inch 1150 0.0010 2.32 2.0 fps 39% Node 19 - - - - - - - 0.05 A -5 Single Family 200 13.8 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.15 A -5 Park - 3.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.02 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I 13.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 8 inch 665 0.0035 0.04 1.1 fps 16% Node 20 - - - - - - - 0.24 A -4 Very Low Density 135 P: \1000 - 1099 \1087 -10 \Sewer \AP - Backbone Sewer System_07- 31- 13.xls Area Number Product Type Unit Count Acreage SF Zoning Usage based on Zoning Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) A -7 ( -50 %) Very Low Density 48 6.5 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.04 A -9 Very Low Density 75 10.5 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.06 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 17.0 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.13 Node 14 - - - - - - - 0.60 Node 15 - - - - - - - 0.13 0.72 Node 16 - - - - - - - 0.72 LS 3 - - - - - - - 0.72 A -6 ( -50 %) Very Low Density 55 10.1 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.04 A -8 Very Low Density 80 12.7 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.06 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 22.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.05 0.87 Node 10 - - - - - - 0.92 Node 17 - - - - - - - 0.87 D -13 Manufacturing /WH - 2.3 21,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 2.3 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.00 1.80 A -7 (-50%) Very Low Density 47 6.5 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 6.5 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.05 Node 19 - - - - - - - 0.05 A -5 Single Family 200 13.8 - R2 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.15 A -5 Park - 3.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.02 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I 13.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.24 Node 20 - - - - - - - 0.24 A -4 Very Low Density 135 18.8 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.10 A -6 (-50%) Very Low Density 55 10.1 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.04 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 28.9 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.06 0.44 Node 18 - - - - - - - 1.80 Node 21 - - - - - - - 0.44 D -9 (-50%) Residential Reuse 38 5.7 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -9 ( -50 %) Office - 15,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -9 ( -50 %) Service - - 17,500 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.03 D -13 Manufacturing /WH - 3.7 36,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 9.4 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.02 2.32 D -12 (-25 %) Manufacturing /WH - 1.8 10,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -13 Manufacturing /WH - 13.0 173,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 14.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.04 From Node Rim Invert Out Cover (Ft) To Node Rim Invert In Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) 24 inch 420 23 6.5 -3.25 7.8 35 6.5 -7.80 - - - - - 2.32 Node 22 - - - - - - - 0.04 D -7 Office - 1.8 49,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 D -12 ( -25 %) Manufacturing /WH - 1.8 10,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 8 inch 1480 0.0035 0.13 1.6 fps 29% 1,300 0.0020 0.01 24 6.1 0.05 5.4 26 3.2 -5.15 2.38 D -17 Manufacturing /WH - 10.5 100,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -20 Park - 4.2 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.02 D -20 Office 8 inch 150 0.0035 0.02 0.9 fps 12% D -21 Park - 8.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.04 D -21 Office 25 3.7 -4.60 7.6 26 3.2 -5.15 8 inch 1305 0.0035 0.20 1.8 fps 36% 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.13 26 3.2 -5.25 7.8 29 4.0 -9.80 Office - 7.0 18,500 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & 1/1 GWI and 1/1 - 7.0 - 1 8 inch 1000 0.0035 0.11 1.5 fps 26% 0.02 Node 24 - - - - - - 27 5.4 -1.30 6.0 28 4.0 -4.90 43% - - 0.02 D -15 (-50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 8.25 112,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -18 Office - 5.8 58,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 GWI &I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 14.1 - 1 28 4.0 -5.00 8.3 29 4.0 -6.75 0.20 B -1 Residential Reuse 90 15.5 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 D -13 Manufacturing /WH - 8 inch 30 0.0035 0.47 2.2 fps 59% GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 19.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.04 0.11 8 inch 605 0.0035 0.48 2.2 fps 60% Node 27 - - - - - - - 0.11 B -2 (-50 %) Retail 29 4.0 -9.80 13.1 LS 5 4.0 -10.00 B -2 ( -50 %) Service - 1.625 60,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.09 B -3 ( -50 %) Retail - 0.3 12,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 B -3 (- -50 %) Park - LS 5 4.0 -2.00 5.3 31 5.2 -4.20 Manufacturing /WH - 2.25 53,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -19 Park - 1.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.01 D -21 Park - 4.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.02 GWI &I/1 GWI and I/I Pipe Diameter (Inches) Pipe Length (Feet) Pipe Slope (Ft / Ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Velocity (fps) Percent Capacity Usage based on Zoning Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) 24 inch 420 0.0108 2.38 4.8 fps 22% LS 4 - - - - - - - 2.32 Node 22 - - - - - - - 0.04 D -7 Office - 1.8 49,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 D -12 ( -25 %) Manufacturing /WH - 1.8 10,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 8 inch 1480 0.0035 0.13 1.6 fps 29% 1,300 0.0020 0.01 2.38 D -17 Manufacturing /WH - 10.5 100,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -20 Park - 4.2 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.02 D -20 Office 8 inch 150 0.0035 0.02 0.9 fps 12% D -21 Park - 8.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.04 D -21 Office - 1.1 50,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 8 inch 1305 0.0035 0.20 1.8 fps 36% 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.13 D -14 Office - 7.0 18,500 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & 1/1 GWI and 1/1 - 7.0 - 1 8 inch 1000 0.0035 0.11 1.5 fps 26% 0.02 Node 24 - - - - - - - 0.13 8 inch 490 0.0035 0.27 1.9 fps 43% - - 0.02 D -15 (-50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 8.25 112,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -18 Office - 5.8 58,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 GWI &I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 14.1 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.20 B -1 Residential Reuse 90 15.5 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 D -13 Manufacturing /WH - 8 inch 30 0.0035 0.47 2.2 fps 59% GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 19.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.04 0.11 8 inch 605 0.0035 0.48 2.2 fps 60% Node 27 - - - - - - - 0.11 B -2 (-50 %) Retail - 1.625 37,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 B -2 ( -50 %) Service - P: \1000 - 1099 \1087 -10 \Sewer \AP - Backbone Sewer System_07- 31- 13.xls Area Number Product Type Unit Count Acreage SF Zoning Usage based on Zoning Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) LS 4 - - - - - - - 2.32 Node 22 - - - - - - - 0.04 D -7 Office - 1.8 49,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 D -12 ( -25 %) Manufacturing /WH - 1.8 10,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI &I/1 GWI and I/1 - 3.6 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.01 2.38 D -17 Manufacturing /WH - 10.5 100,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -20 Park - 4.2 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.02 D -20 Office 1.1 50,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 D -21 Park - 8.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.04 D -21 Office - 1.1 50,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 12.7 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.13 D -14 Office - 7.0 18,500 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 GWI & 1/1 GWI and 1/1 - 7.0 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.02 Node 24 - - - - - - - 0.13 Node 25 - - - - - - - 0.02 D -15 (-50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 8.25 112,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -18 Office - 5.8 58,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.02 GWI &I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 14.1 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.20 B -1 Residential Reuse 90 15.5 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.07 D -13 Manufacturing /WH - 4.3 39,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI & I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 19.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.04 0.11 Node 27 - - - - - - - 0.11 B -2 (-50 %) Retail - 1.625 37,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 B -2 ( -50 %) Service - 1.625 60,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.09 B -3 ( -50 %) Retail - 0.3 12,500 R 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 B -3 (- -50 %) Park - 2.8 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.01 D -16 ( --50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 2.25 53,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -19 Park - 1.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.01 D -21 Park - 4.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.02 GWI &I/1 GWI and I/I - 5.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.27 Node 26 - - - - - - - 0.20 Node 28 - - - - - - - 0.27 0.47 Node 29 - - - - - - - 0.47 D -16 ( -50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 2.25 53,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI &I/1 GWI and 1/1 - 2.25 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.00 0.48 From Node Rim Invert Out Cover (Ft) To Node Rim Invert In 30 5.0 -1.00 5.3 31 5.2 -4.20 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -15 ( -50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 8.25 112,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 13.65 - I 12 inch 980 0.0020 0.56 1.8 fps 41% 31 5.2 -4.30 8.5 35 6.3 -6.25 LS 5 - - - - - - - 0.48 Node 30 - - - - - - - 0.05 D -11 (-20 %) Office 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 8 inch 600 0.0035 0.10 1.4 fps 25% 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -12 (-50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 3.7 19,500 M 32 5.0 -0.30 4.6 33 7.0 -2.40 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.56 8 inch 1065 0.0035 0.19 1.7 fps 35% 23.1 260,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.02 D -10 Manufacturing /WH - 7.1 70,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) 33 7.0 -2.40 8.7 36 6.0 -6.15 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 35.6 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.07 0.10 12 inch 600 0.0020 0.03 0.8 fps 10% Node 32 - - - - - - - 0.10 D -3 (-20 %) Residential Reuse 20 4.4 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.01 12 inch 170 0.0020 0.31 1.6 fps 30% 0.20 0.00000031 34 2.5 -4.60 6.1 35 2.0 -5.80 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -3 ( -20 %) Service - - 18,400 S 12 inch 1380 0.0020 0.61 1.9 fps 43% 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 35 2.0 -5.80 6.8 36 2.5 -6.15 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & 1/1 GWI and I/I - 9.8 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.19 36 2.5 -6.25 7.8 44 1.7 -9.00 VA - - - - - - - 0.03 E -1 Park - 158.5 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included 0.03 Node 34 - - - - - - - 0.03 E -2 Park - 55.5 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.28 Pipe Diameter (Inches) Pipe Length (Feet) Pipe Slope (Ft / Ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Velocity (fps) Percent Capacity 8 inch 910 0.0035 0.05 1.2 fps 18% 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -15 ( -50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 8.25 112,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 13.65 - I 12 inch 980 0.0020 0.56 1.8 fps 41% 0.05 LS 5 - - - - - - - 0.48 Node 30 - - - - - - - 0.05 D -11 (-20 %) Office 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 8 inch 600 0.0035 0.10 1.4 fps 25% 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -12 (-50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 3.7 19,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 9.10 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.56 8 inch 1065 0.0035 0.19 1.7 fps 35% 23.1 260,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.02 D -10 Manufacturing /WH - 7.1 70,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) Office - 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 35.6 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.07 0.10 12 inch 600 0.0020 0.03 0.8 fps 10% Node 32 - - - - - - - 0.10 D -3 (-20 %) Residential Reuse 20 4.4 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.01 12 inch 170 0.0020 0.31 1.6 fps 30% 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -3 ( -20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 25,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -3 ( -20 %) Service - - 18,400 S 12 inch 1380 0.0020 0.61 1.9 fps 43% 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 (-20%) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & 1/1 GWI and I/I - 9.8 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.19 VA - - - - - P: \1000 - 1099 \1087 -10 \Sewer \AP - Backbone Sewer System_07- 31- 13.xls Area Number Product Type Unit Count Acreage SF Zoning Usage based on Zoning Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) D -11 ( -20 %) Office - 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -15 ( -50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 8.25 112,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 13.65 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.05 LS 5 - - - - - - - 0.48 Node 30 - - - - - - - 0.05 D -11 (-20 %) Office 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 (-20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 D -12 (-50 %) Manufacturing /WH - 3.7 19,500 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 9.10 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.56 D -2 Manufacturing /WH - 23.1 260,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.02 D -10 Manufacturing /WH - 7.1 70,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) Office - 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 ( -20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 35.6 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.07 0.10 Node 32 - - - - - - - 0.10 D -3 (-20 %) Residential Reuse 20 4.4 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.01 D -3 ( -20 %) Office - - 18,400 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -3 ( -20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 25,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -3 ( -20 %) Service - - 18,400 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.03 D -11 (-20%) Office - 5.4 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 (-20%) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & 1/1 GWI and I/I - 9.8 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.19 VA - - - - - - - 0.03 E -1 Park - 158.5 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included 0.03 Node 34 - - - - - - - 0.03 E -2 Park - 55.5 - P 3,231 0.0050 0.28 0.31 Node 33 - - - - - - - 0.19 Node 35 - - - - - - - 0.31 D -3 (-40%) Residential Reuse 40 8.7 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -3 ( -40 %) Office - - 36,800 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -3 (-40%) Manufacturing /WH - - 50,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -3 ( -40 %) Service - - 36,800 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.06 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 8.7 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.61 From Node Rim Invert Out Cover (Ft) To Node Rim Invert In 35 6.0 -7.90 11.9 44 1.7 -9.00 - - - 2.38 Node 31 - - - - - - - 0.56 D -4 Park - 8.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -5 Park - 1.8 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -6 Park - 3.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -3 (-40%) Residential Reuse 40 8.7 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -3 ( -40 %) Office - - 36,800 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -3 (-40%) Manufacturing /WH - - 50,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -3 ( -40 %) Service - - 36,800 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.06 8 inch 1345 0.0035 0.04 1.1 fps 16% 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 (--20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 38 3.5 -1.65 4.5 40 1.0 -6.45 - I 8 inch 985 0.0035 0.04 1.1 fps 16% 3.09 39 2.6 -2.80 4.7 40 1.0 -6.35 RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 14.2 - I 8 inch 35 0.0035 0.08 1.4 fps 22% 0.04 A -3 Residential Reuse 11 8 inch 40 1.0 -6.45 6.8 LS 6 2.0 -6.60 - 3.8 7,500 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -8 ( -10 %) Service - - 7,500 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 9.8 - LS 6 2.0 -3.40 4.7 41 2.3 -6.15 0.04 Node 38 - - - - - - - 0.04 Node 39 - - - 41 2.3 -6.15 7.8 43 2.1 -7.55 0.08 Node 40 - - - - - - - 0.08 A -2 Service - 3.1 100,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.15 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 3.1 - I 1,300 0.0020 Pipe Diameter (Inches) Pipe Length (Feet) Pipe Slope (Ft / Ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Velocity (fps) Percent Capacity 24 inch 1065 0.0010 3.09 2.2 fps 46% - - - - - 2.38 Node 31 - - - - - - - 0.56 D -4 Park - 8.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -5 Park - 1.8 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -6 Park - 3.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -3 (-40%) Residential Reuse 40 8.7 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -3 ( -40 %) Office - - 36,800 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -3 (-40%) Manufacturing /WH - - 50,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -3 ( -40 %) Service - - 36,800 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.06 8 inch 1345 0.0035 0.04 1.1 fps 16% 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 (--20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 14.2 - I 8 inch 985 0.0035 0.04 1.1 fps 16% 3.09 A -3 Residential Reuse 12 14.2 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 14.2 - I 8 inch 35 0.0035 0.08 1.4 fps 22% 0.04 A -3 Residential Reuse 11 8 inch 760 0.0035 0.24 1.8 fps 40% D -8 ( -10 %) Office - 3.8 7,500 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -8 ( -10 %) Service - - 7,500 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 9.8 - 1 8 inch 400 0.0035 0.36 2.1 fps 50% 0.04 Node 38 - - - - - - - 0.04 Node 39 - - - - - - - 0.04 P: \1000 - 1099 \1087 -10 \Sewer \AP - Backbone Sewer System_07- 31- 13.xls Area Number Product Type Unit Count Acreage SF Zoning Usage based on Zoning Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) Node 23 - - - - - - - 2.38 Node 31 - - - - - - - 0.56 D -4 Park - 8.0 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -5 Park - 1.8 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -6 Park - 3.6 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included D -3 (-40%) Residential Reuse 40 8.7 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -3 ( -40 %) Office - - 36,800 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -3 (-40%) Manufacturing /WH - - 50,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.00 D -3 ( -40 %) Service - - 36,800 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.06 D -11 (-20 %) Office - 5.5 6,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -11 (--20 %) Manufacturing /WH - - 174,000 M 0.04 0.00000006 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 14.2 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.03 3.09 A -3 Residential Reuse 12 14.2 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 14.2 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.03 0.04 A -3 Residential Reuse 11 6.0 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.01 D -8 ( -10 %) Office - 3.8 7,500 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -8 ( -10 %) Service - - 7,500 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.01 GWI & I/I GWI and 1/1 - 9.8 - 1 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.04 Node 38 - - - - - - - 0.04 Node 39 - - - - - - - 0.04 0.08 Node 40 - - - - - - - 0.08 A -2 Service - 3.1 100,000 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.15 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 3.1 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.01 0.24 LS 6 - - - - - - - 0.24 A -1 Very Low Density 42 7.3 - R1 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -8 (-45%) Office - 3.7 33,750 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -8 ( -45 %) Service - - 33,750 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.05 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 11.0 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.36 From Node Rim Invert Out Cover (Ft) To Node Rim Invert In 42 2.5 -5.40 7.2 43 2.1 -7.45 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -8 (-45%) Service - - 33,750 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.05 D -9 ( -50 %) Residential Reuse 37 5.6 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -9 (-50%) Office - - 15,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -9 ( -50 %) Service - - 17,500 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.03 8 inch 415 0.0035 0.50 2.2 fps 62% 1,300 0.0020 0.02 43 2.1 -7.45 8.9 44 1.7 -9.00 0.14 Node 41 - - 24 inch 365 0.0010 4.20 2.4 fps 55% Node 42 - - - - - 44 1.7 -9.10 8.8 PS 1 3.6 -9.50 3,231 0.0050 Not Included 0.50 Pipe Diameter (Inches) Pipe Length (Feet) Pipe Slope (Ft / Ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Velocity (fps) Percent Capacity 8 inch 580 0.0035 0.14 1.6 fps 30% 3.7 33,750 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -8 (-45%) Service - - 33,750 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.05 D -9 ( -50 %) Residential Reuse 37 5.6 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -9 (-50%) Office - - 15,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -9 ( -50 %) Service - - 17,500 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.03 8 inch 415 0.0035 0.50 2.2 fps 62% 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.14 Node 41 - - 24 inch 365 0.0010 4.20 2.4 fps 55% Node 42 - - - - - 0.14 D -1 Park - 14.9 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included P: \1000 - 1099 \1087 -10 \Sewer \AP - Backbone Sewer System_07- 31- 13.xls Area Number Product Type Unit Count Acreage SF Zoning Usage based on Zoning Peak Sewage Flow by Peak Sewage Flow by area(cfs) D -8 (-45%) Office 3.7 33,750 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.01 D -8 (-45%) Service - - 33,750 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.05 D -9 ( -50 %) Residential Reuse 37 5.6 - RE 480 0.0007 /Unit 0.03 D -9 (-50%) Office - - 15,000 0 0.20 0.00000031 0.00 D -9 ( -50 %) Service - - 17,500 S 1.00 0.00000155 0.03 GWI & I/I GWI and I/I - 9.3 - I 1,300 0.0020 0.02 0.14 Node 41 - - - - - - - 0.36 Node 42 - - - - - 0.14 D -1 Park - 14.9 - P 3,231 0.0050 Not Included 0.50 Node 35 - - - - - - - 3.09 Node 36 - - - - - - - 0.61 Node 43 - - - - - - - 0.50 4.20 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES D) SANITARY SEWER FLOW ESTIMATES AND MODELING (RMC) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Technical Memorandum - DRAFT RMC Water ano6rvirvnmert Subject: Alameda Point Sanitary Sewer Flow Estimates and Modeling Prepared for: Barbara Hawkins and Jennifer Ott, City of Alameda Prepared by: Gisa Ju Date: June 28, 2013 This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the results of hydraulic modeling of the proposed Alameda Point sewer system as developed for the Draft Alameda Pont Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson (CBG) for the City of Alameda. The modeling was conducted pursuant to an agreement between RMC and the City of Alameda dated April 3, 2013. The purpose of the modeling work is to confirm the design wastewater flow projections for the proposed Alameda Point redevelopment and estimate the flows at interim stages of development. The information in this TM will also provide information for the assessment of downstream flow impacts to be addressed in the Alameda Point Draft Environmental Impact Report. 1 Model Network The model of the proposed Alameda Point sewer system was developed in InfoWorksTM CS, the same hydraulic modeling software used for the City's system -wide Sanitary Sewer System Hydraulic Analysis (May 2010) previously prepared by RMC. The configuration and alignment of the proposed Alameda Point sewer system and the proposed land uses and their associated "load points" to the sewer network were provided by CBG in the form of an AutoCAD map showing the proposed sewer network, and an Excel spreadsheet listing the sewer network data (pipe diameters, lengths, slopes, rim and invert elevations) and associated loading (land uses) to each manhole in the network. The model only includes the "trunk system" network, i.e., smaller diameter pipes and manholes that were not indicated as loading nodes on the CBG map were not included in the model. CBG also provided information (approximate pumping capacities and wet well dimensions) as needed for modeling of the six proposed lift stations in the system. The CBG map divides the system into "blocks" with associated land uses and acreages. Since some of these blocks load to more than one model node, those blocks were further subdivided as necessary to create individual "subcatchments" for model loading. Figure 1 depicts the modeled sewer network. Note that all flow in both the existing and proposed Alameda Point sewer system is conveyed to the pump station owned and operated by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EMBUD) on the north side of the site, from where the flow is pumped through a 20 -inch force main to the inlet structure of EBMUD's Alameda siphons. The siphons, which convey all flow from the City of Alameda, cross the Oakland Estuary and connect to EBMUD's South Interceptor, which conveys flow to EBMUD's Main Wastewater Treatment Plant located near the eastern terminus of the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge. Note that EBMUD's Alameda Point pump station, known as Pump Station R, is called Pump Station 1 in the MIP. See Figure 30 of the Draft MIP for a depiction of the off -site EBMUD wastewater conveyance facilities. June 24, 2013 1 Alameda Pont Sanitary Sewer Flow Estimates and Modeling DRAFT Figure 1: Alameda Point Proposed Sewer System - Modeled Network Oakland Inner Harbor Sea Plane Lagoon Legend Pump Station 1 Lift Station •• Modeled Sewer - Scenarios A & B • Additional Modeled Sewer - Scenario C Development Area Reuse Area J:iProjects 0232 -009 Alameda Point Sewer Evaluation1G. GIST _MXDIAIamedaPointOverview.mxd June 28, 2013 2 Alameda Pont Sanitary Sewer Flow Estimates and Modeling DRAFT 2 Model Scenarios The development of Alameda Point is expected to take place in stages, with the portion identified as the "Development Area ", largely located on the eastern side of the site, being developed first with all new sewer infrastructure (see Draft MIP Figure 31). Development of the remainder of the site, called the "Reuse Area," would proceed incrementally over time, initially making use of the existing infrastructure with some rehabilitation to address existing deficiencies and reduce infiltration/inflow (I /I) (see Draft MIP Figure 32). Ultimately, new sewer infrastructure would also be constructed in the Reuse Areas as well (Draft MIP Figure 33). Accordingly, three modeling scenarios were analyzed for this TM: • Scenario A — Full development in the Development Area with new sewer infrastructure conveying flow to Pump Station 1; existing uses in the Reuse Area utilizing existing sewer infrastructure but tying into major trunks constructed as part of the Development Area to convey flow to Pump Station 1. • Scenario B — Scenario A plus additional development in the Reuse Area, but still utilizing existing sewer infrastructure with some rehabilitation to address deficiencies and reduce I /I. • Scenario C - Full development and all new sewer infrastructure in both the Development and Reuse Areas. Note that although there is existing mapping for the existing Alameda Point sewer system, there is not sufficient sewer attribute information (e.g., rim and invert elevations, etc.) to hydraulically model the system. Therefore, for Scenarios A and B, the Reuse Area model subcatchments were loaded at the nodes on the Scenario A new trunk system to which the flows from those subcatchments would ultimately be conveyed. This was considered a reasonable approximation for purposes of estimating the total flow in the system conveyed to Pump Station 1 under each scenario. 3 Model Loads Flow inputs to the model are represented in terms of average base wastewater flow (BWF) for residential and non - residential land uses, groundwater infiltration rates, and rainfall- dependent I/I hydrograph parameters for each loading area, called " subcatchments" in the model. 3.1 Base Wastewater Flow Using the spreadsheet provided by CBG, the land uses loading to each subcatchment were quantified and converted to average BWF for residential and non - residential land uses. The unit flow rates as applied to the land use information were the same as those used for the City's 2010 Hydraulic Analysis, except some flow was also allocated to parks. The average BWF unit factors are shown in Table 1. In addition to the land use -based loads, the model also includes the proposed load from the proposed Veterans Affairs (VA) facility on the western end of the site (flows from the VA facility would be pumped east to the Alameda Point sewer system). CBG estimated the peak flow for the VA facility at 20,000 gallons per day (gpd). For purposes of the model, this was converted to an average BWF non- residential load of 12,000 gpd and was included in all three model scenarios. June 28, 2013 3 Alameda Pont Sanitary Sewer Flow Estimates and Modeling DRAFT Table 1: Average Base Wastewater Flow Unit Factors Il Im Land Use Zoning Designation Unit Average BWF Factor (gpd /unit) _ Residential Reuse Very Low Density RE R2 Dwelling unit Dwelling unit 240 240 Single Family R2 Dwelling unit 240 Office 0 Building square feet 0.1 Manufacturing/Warehouse M Building square feet 0.02 Retail R Building square feet 0.1 Service S Building square feet 0.5 Park P Each 3,000 Park w /Sports Complex P Each 45,000 VA Facility VA Each 12,000 The model computes the diurnal BWF for each subcatchment by applying diurnal profiles for residential and non residential uses, as shown in Figure 2. The non - residential diurnal profile was applied for parks and for the VA facility 3.2 Infiltration /Inflow I/I flows include groundwater infiltration (GWI) and rainfall- dependent I/I (RDI /I). GWI is groundwater that enters the system from the ground through defects in sewer pipelines, manholes, and building laterals. GWI is typically greatest during the winter and early spring, and is represented as a constant flow during both non - rainfall and rainfall periods. RDI/I is stormwater that enters the sewer system through direct inflow connections (e.g., roof downspouts or area drains directly connected to the sanitary sewer system) or through infiltration through the soil to pipe and manhole defects. RDI /I is represented as a hydrograph that follows the pattern of rainfall, typically producing a peak flow response directly related to the rainfall intensity. For purposes of the analysis in this TM, I/I was quantified for a "design" condition assumed to represent maximum GWI and RDI /I for a 5 -year design storm event falling under saturated soil conditions. The 5 -year event is the specific storm event developed for EBMUD and its Satellite systems as part of studies conducted during the 1980s and known as the " EBMUD Design Storm" event. Assumed I/I rates were based on the factors used for the City's Hydraulic Analysis as well as existing flows developed by EBMUD as part of its Flow Modeling and Limits Report (FMLR) prepared in compliance with its Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief with the U.S. EPA. The FMLR analyses were based on flow monitoring conducted by EBMUD during the 2009/10 and 2010/11 wet weather seasons in order to quantify flows from each area discharging to its interceptor system (called Interceptor Tributary Areas, or ITAs). The monitoring included a meter located on the influent pipe to Pump Station R (Pump Station 1), representing the existing flow from the Alameda Point area (identified by EBMUD as ITA 90 -2). EBMUD also utilized winter water use data to help quantify base wastewater flows for the ITAs. Based on the FMLR analyses, the existing flows from ITA 90 -2 were quantified as follows: • Average BWF 0.20 mgd ( -500 gpd/acre) • Maximum GWI 0.27 mgd (-600 gpd/acre) • Peak RDI /I (5 -year design event) 1.32 mgd (3,000 gpd/acre) For purposes of modeling the flow contribution from the Reuse Area prior to redevelopment and construction of new sewer infrastructure, the existing BWF, GWI, and peak RDI /I flows were converted to unit flow rates ( gpd/acre) based on the total Alameda Point non -park development acreage estimated by CBG (approximately 450 acres). The calculated unit flow rates (rounded up) are also shown above. June 28, 2013 4 Alameda Pont Sanitary Sewer Flow Estimates and Modeling DRAFT 2.5 Figure 2: Base Wastewater Flow Diurnal Profiles ilk AIL- iir'i . 0 2.5 —e—Weekday —0—Weekend 00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0 �. (o. 4i. �0. N. y0. N. yQi. LO. LV Hour Residential BWF Profile —0—Weekend and Weekday 00 .00 00 00 00 00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 .. y. �. (o. q,. N. N. N. �(o. �cb. �O. �,ti. Hour Non - Residential BWF Profile June 28, 2013 5 Alameda Pont Sanitary Sewer Flow Estimates and Modeling DRAFT Construction of new sewer infrastructure is expected to reduce I/I flows in the future. Under Scenario C, an assumed GWI rate of 300 pgd/acre was used, based on the value assumed for new development for the City's 2010 Hydraulic Analysis. For RDI/I, the rate documented in EBMUD's FMLR for a nearby, relatively newer area of the Alameda (ITA 90 -3, which comprises the Marina Village area), was used. The 5 -year design event peak RDI/I for this area was calculated to be approximately 1,000 gpd/acre. For the Reuse Area under Scenario B, the following assumptions were made to reflect interim development and partial rehabilitation of the existing sewer infrastructure: • BWF equivalent to 50 percent of buildout development • GWI of 450 gpd/acre • Peak RDI /I of approximately 2,000 gpd/acre Note that for all scenarios, hydrograph parameters to represent the volume and rate of flow response to rainfall were developed for the model based roughly on those developed for the EBMUD FMLR. The parameters were set so as to generate the expected peak RDI /I rates noted above. Furthermore, as in the City's Hydraulic Analysis, the timing of the design storm was set to produce a peak RDI /I flow roughly coincident with the peak diurnal BWF. 4 Model Results Table 2 summarizes the resultant flows to Pump Station 1 for each of the scenarios and for existing conditions. As indicated in the table, redevelopment of Alameda Point and construction of new sewer infrastructure is projected to result in a net 12 percent (0.23 mgd) increase in the design storm PWWF. Table 2: Summary of Alameda Point Flows Scenario Alameda Point Flow to PS 1 (mgd) Avg. BWF Max. GWI PDWF Peak RDI /I PWWF Existing* 0.20 0.27 0.61 1.32 1.93 Scenario A 0.60 0.21 1.20 0.91 2.10 Scenario B 0.76 0.17 1.42 0.68 2.11 Scenario C 0.95 0.14 1.71 0.46 2.16 Overall change (mgd) 0.75 -0.13 1.10 -0.86 0.23 Overall change ( %) 373% -49% 180% -65% 12% * ABWF, Max. GWI, and Peak RDI /I from EBMUD FMLR for ITA 90 -2 PDWF = Peak BWF + Max. GWI PWWF = PDWF + Peak RDI /I June 28, 2013 6 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES E) STORMWATER PROTOTYPICAL WATERSHED MODEL Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. BALANCE HYDROLOGICS, Inc. Memo To: Angeleo Obertello, P.E. (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson) From: Edward Ballman, P.E. CFM Date: June 13, 2013 Subject: Mike URBAN Modeling Output for the Northwest Drainage Area, Alameda Point, City of Alameda Attached are output summaries from the Mike URBAN modeling of a prototypical storm drain, basin, and pump configuration for the low -lying northwest portion of the Alameda Point site. All modeling was done using protocols established in the City's storm drain master planning project. Attachment A presents output for the present case (e.g. no sea level rise). Attachment B presents output for future conditions with 4.6 feet (55 inches) of sea level rise. Both output files include references to the southeast basin as well, which were originally included in the model domain, but were not optimized when it became clear that higher elevations in that drainage area were far less constraining and that the prototypical approaches framed in the northwest area could readily be adapted to other locations at the site. The catchments include small storage elements that represent the stormwater detention volume that will be provided by LID infrastructure in the final configuration of the drainage network. The modeling domain is illustrated below: Attachment A MOUSE HD Computation Engine x64 v2012 Release Version (13.0.0.6270) MOUSE Pipe Flow Simulation - -- Status Report - -- Dynamic Wave Index of summary File Overview Input Summary Time Step Parameters Continuity Balance Boundary Connections Nodes - Water level Nodes - Volume spilled Weir /Orifice- Gate/Valve Discharge Pumps - Discharge Links - Result summary Links - Data File Overview Working dir : Sewer network data (UND) : Hydrological data (HGF) : Additional parameters file (ADP) : Dry weather flow data (DWF) : Repetitive profile data (RPF) : Runoff Hydrographs (CRF) : Hotstart file (PRF) : Result File (PRF) : Reduced result file (PRF) : P: \2012 \212082 CBG Alameda Point \212082 Modeling \URBAN Modeling Current\ - 25 -yr Design StormBase.mex 25 -yr Design StormBase.mex 25 -yr Design StormBase.mex 25 -yr Design StormBase.CRF 25 -yr Design StormBase.PRF 1/2/2013 8:20:56 AM 1/2/2013 8:20:56 AM 1/2/2013 8:20:56 AM 1/1/2013 12:47:12 PM 1/2/2013 8:21:04 AM Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 1 Time Overview Simulation start date : Simulation end date : Save time step [hh:mm:ss] : Maximum time step [sec] : Minimum time step [sec] : 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 Calculation started : 2013 -01 -02 08:20:59 2050 -01 -01 23:50:00 Calculation ended : 2013 -01 -02 08:21:30 0:02:00 Calculation time [ hh:mm:ss] : 0:00:31 1 Hotstart start date : 1 Input Summary Number of Manholes: Number of Basins: Number of Outlets: Number of Storage Nodes: Number of Circular Pipes: Number of Rectangular pipes: Number of CRS defined pipes: Number of Pumps: Number of Controlled Pumps: Number of Weirs /Orifices: Number of Controlled Weirs /Gates: Number of Valves: Number of Controlled Valves: Nodes Min Invert Level Max Invert Level Min Ground Level Max Ground Level Min X Coordinate Max X Coordinate Min Y Coordinate 27 17 2 0 48 5 0 1 0 15 0 0 0 NW -O -2 SE -1 -A Bioret NW -3 -1 SE -2 -2 NW -1 -C Bioret SE -1 -6 SE -1 -2 -8.00 ft 2.50 ft 1.90 ft 7.80 ft 6.039E06 ft 6.0441E06 ft 2.1081E06 ft Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 2 Max Y Coordinate NW -1 -1 2.1156E06 ft Total Manhole Volume 9541.2 ft3 Total Basin Volume 1557066.6 ft3 Links Total Circular Volume 174941.2 ft3 Total CRS Volume 30045.0 ft3 Total Length 18529.00 ft Simulation Result Summary Continuity Balance 1 : Start volume in Pipes, Manholes and Structures 98538.4 ft3 2 : End volume in Pipes, Manholes and Structures 422305.5 ft3 3 : Total inflow volume Specified inflows Runoff : 3084599.2 ft3 Non - specified inflows Outlets (inflow) : 13566.4 ft3 3098165.6 ft3 - -> 3098165.6 ft3 4 : Total diverted volume Operational, non - specified outflows Outlets : 2263159.6 ft3 Pumps : 489385.9 ft3 2752545.5 ft3 - -> 2752545.5 ft3 5 : Water generated in empty parts of the system : 2122.8 ft3 6 : Continuity Balance = (2 -1) - (3 -4 +5) : - 23975.7 ft3 Continuity Balance max value : 0.0 ft3 Continuity Balance min value : - 25077.4 ft3 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 3 Boundary Connections Outlet levels Boundary Condition ID Location Temporal variation Value /TS name Validity Minimum Value Maximum Value Note [ft] [ft] [ft] ft ft NW 25 -vr Tide NW- OUTFALL Time Series \\ 192.168.1.152 \pacific \2012 \212082 CBG Alameda Point \212082 Modeling \URBAN Modeling Current \25 -yr Coincident Tide.dfs0 Unlimited -3.84 1.71 Nodes - Water level G : Max level exceeds ground level W : Max level exceeds weir crest level C : Max level exceeds critical level Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 4 Minimum Maximum Ground Level Ground Level - Maximum Time - Minimum Time - Maximum Note [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] NW- OUTFALL -8.00 1.71 2.40 0.69 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 NW -O -2 -8.00 0.50 2.40 1.90 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:10:00 NW VAULT -6.00 1.64 3.00 1.36 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 W NW -2 -1 -8.00 1.75 2.00 0.25 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:00:00 NW -1 -1 -6.00 1.93 2.40 0.47 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:02:00 NW BASIN -2.00 1.62 3.00 1.38 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 NW -2 -2 -6.00 1.77 2.00 0.23 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:00:00 NW -3 -1 -6.00 1.76 1.90 0.14 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 NW -1 -2 -5.00 2.31 2.50 0.19 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:04:00 NW -2 -3 -6.00 2.03 2.20 0.17 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:38:00 NW -2 -A Bioret -1.50 2.14 2.50 0.36 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 W Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 4 NW -3 -2 -6.00 1.88 2.50 0.62 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 12:38:00 [cfs] NW -1 -3 -5.00 2.39 2.50 0.11 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:06:00 - 43.306 NW -1 -A Bioret -1.50 2.36 2.50 0.14 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:04:00 W NW -2 -B Bioret -1.50 2.12 2.50 0.38 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:38:00 W NW -3 -3 -6.00 2.30 2.70 0.40 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 12:42:00 0.000 NW -3 -A Bioret -0.50 3.10 3.50 0.40 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 W NW -1 -B Bioret -1.50 2.41 2.50 0.09 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:06:00 W NW -1 -4 -4.00 2.40 4.20 1.80 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:06:00 NW -3 -B Bioret -0.50 2.32 3.50 1.18 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:42:00 W NW -1 -5 -4.00 2.52 7.00 4.48 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:08:00 NW -1 -C Bioret -1.50 2.54 2.50 -0.04 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:08:00 G W Number of Critical level exceedings : 0 Number of Ground level exceedings : 1 Number of Weir Crest level exceedings : 8 Nodes - Volume spilled No Spilling Nodes were found in the network Weir /Orifice- Gate /Valve Discharge Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 5 Minimum Maximum Flow - Accumulated Time - Minimum Time - Maximum [cfs] Ids] [ft3] NW VAULT +BASIN - 43.306 47.295 7237.0 2050 -01 -01 13:04:00 2050 -01 -01 13:02:00 NW -1 -A Overflow 0.000 52.657 308463.3 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:06:00 NW -1 -B Overflow 0.000 27.374 61820.3 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:08:00 NW -1 -C Overflow 0.000 26.231 66073.9 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:26:00 NW -2 -A Overflow 0.000 28.739 102237.9 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 5 NW -2 -B Overflow 0.000 19.570 80375.9 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -3 -A Overflow 0.000 17.322 44889.9 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -3 -B Overflow 0.000 21.531 I 71842.3 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:52:00 Pumps - Discharge (1) : Pump stops due to dry pump well. Links - Result summary LinkID Minimum Maximum Flow - Accumulated Time - Minimum Time - Maximum Pump starts Dry stops (1) Speed Operation total Time - Qmax Icfsl Icfsl [ft3] [cfs] [ft] (Count] [Count] [Hr:Min:Sec] NW PUMP 0.000 44.595 489385.9 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:08:00 2 0 Constant 3:02:54 (1) : Pump stops due to dry pump well. Links - Result summary LinkID From Node To Node Qf Hmax Qmax Hmax /D Qmax/ Qf Flow - Accumulated Time - Hmax Time - Qmax [cfs] [ft] [cfs] [ft3] NW -1 -1 +V NW -1 -1 NW 50.225 1.79 38.891 1.909 0.774 362221.6 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 (1) VAULT � 13:02:00 13:08:00 NW -1 -1 +V NW -1 -1 NW 50.225 1.79 38.891 1.909 0.774 362221.6 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 (2) VAULT 13:02:00 13:08:00 NW -1 -2 +1 NW -1 -2 NW -1 -1 50.002 2.20 38.868 1.829 0.777 370094.3 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 (1) 13:02:00 13:08:00 NW -1 -2 +1 NW -1 -2 NW -1 -1 50.002 2.20 38.868 1.829 0.777 370094.3 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 (2) 13:02:00 13:08:00 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 NW -1 -3 +2 NW -1 -3 NW -1 -2 50.071 2.34 40.251 1.703 0.804 415719.3 13:04:00 13:14:00 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 NW -1 -4 +3 NW -1 -4 NW -1 -3 50.082 2.39 26.438 1.638 0.528 223640.6 13:06:00 13:26:00 NW -1 -5 +4 NW -1 -5 NW -1 -4 23.395 2.45 26.565 2.054 1.136 226418.1 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 13:08:00 13:26:00 NW -1 -A 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 NW -1 -A +2 Bioret NW -1 -2 0.692 2.36 0.850 14.194 1.228 34124.7 13:04:00 22:46:00 NW -1 -B 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 NW -1 -B +3 Bioret NW -1 -3 2.391 2.40 2.881 8.736 1.205 133550.0 13:06:00 14:46:00 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 6 NW -1 -C +5 NW -1 -C gioret NW -1 -5 66 2.53 3.555 7.376 1.334 161729.7 2050 -01 -01 13:08:00 2050 -01 -01 14:48:00 NW -2 -1 +V (1) NW -2 -1 VAULT 50.210 1.68 42.094 1.909 0.838 236461.0 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -2 -1 +V (2) NW -2 -1 NW VAULT 50.210 1.68 42.094 1.909 0.838 236461.0 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -2 -2 +1 (1) NW -2 -2 NW -2 -1 I 1.75 24.432 1.746 0.487 120268.0 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -2 -2 +1 (2) NW -2 -2 NW -2 -1 50.144 ® 24.432 1.746 0.487 120268.0 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -2 -3 +2 NW -2 -3 NW -2 -2 23.343 1.80 19.653 2.153 0.842 99955.4 2050 -01 -01 12:38:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -2 -A +2 NW -2 -A Bioret NW -2 -2 0.992 I 1.152 49339.6 2050 -01 -01 12:38:00 2050 -01 -01 14:46:00 NW -2 -B +3 NW -2 -B gioret NW -2 -3 0.388 0.504 1.300 21608.5 2050 -01 -01 12:38:00 2050 -01 -01 14:46:00 NW- 3 -1 +2 -1 (1) NW -3 -1 NW -2 -1 49.834 0.360 127132.3 2050 -01 -01 13 :00 :00 2050 -01 -01 12 :30 :00 (2W- 3 -1 +2 -1 NW -3 -1 NW -2 -1 ® ®� 1.746 0.360 127132.3 2050-01-01 1:00:00 2012:30:00 NW -3 -2 +1 NW -3 -2 NW -3 -1 50.397 1.79 35.897 1.629 0.712 263581.9 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:30:00 NW -3 -3 +2 NW -3 -3 NW -3 -2 23.147 2.13 21.752 2.080 0.940 163562.1 2050 -01 -01 12:40:00 2050 -01 -01 12:52:00 NW -3 -A +2 NW -3 -A Bioret NW -3 -2 1.091 2.91 1.241 12.998 1.138 58896.7 2050 -01 -01 12:38:00 2050 -01 -01 14:46:00 NW -3 -B +3 NW -3 -B Bioret NW -3 -3 1.948 2.31 2.078 10.206 1.067 93840.6 2050 -01 -01 12:42:00 2050 -01 -01 14:48:00 NW -B -V NW BASIN NW VAULT 158.570 1.64 11.851 1.034 0.075 7542.0 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:34:00 NW -O- 2 +OUT NW -O -2 NW OUTFALL 261.394 1.71 103.068 1.382 0.394 680727.7 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:40:00 NW -O -V +2 (1) NW VAULT NW -O -2 111.465 1.40 51.544 1.475 0.462 348366.4 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:40:00 NW -O -V +2 (2) NW VAULT NW -O -2 1 111.465 1.40) 51.544 1.475 0.462 348366.4 2050 -01 -01 13:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:40:00 Links - Data LinkID From Node To Node Up - Invert Level Down - Invert Level Length Dimension (Max Height) Slope Qf Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 7 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 8 Ift1 Ift1 Ift1 Iftl 1%01 11 NW -1 -1 +V (1) NW -1 -1 NW VAULT -5.38 -6.00 618.00 4.00 1.003 50.225 NW -1 -1 +V (2) NW -1 -1 NW VAULT -5.38 -6.00 618.00 4.00 1.003 50.225 NW -1 -2 +1 (1) NW -1 -2 NW -1 -1 -4.50 -5.38 885.00 4.00 0.994 50.002 NW -1 -2 +1 (2) NW -1 -2 NW -1 -1 -4.50 -5.38 885.00 4.00 0.994 50.002 NW -1 -3 +2 NW -1 -3 NW -1 -2 -4.16 -4.50 341.00 4.00 0.997 50.071 NW -1 -4 +3 NW -1 -4 NW -1 -3 -3.76 -4.16 401.00 4.00 0.998 50.082 NW -1 -5 +4 NW -1 -5 NW -1 -4 -3.45 -3.76 307.00 3.00 1.010 23.395 NW -1 -A +2 NW -1 -A Bioret NW -1 -2 -1.50 -4.50 193.00 0.48 15.544 0.692 NW -1 -B +3 NW -1 -B Bioret NW -1 -3 -1.50 -4.16 155.00 0.75 17.161 2.391 NW -1 -C +5 NW -1 -C Bioret NW -1 -5 -1.50 -3.45 138.00 0.81 14.130 2.664 NW -2 -1 +V (1) NW -2 -1 NW VAULT -5.24 -6.00 758.00 4.00 1.003 50.210 NW -2 -1 +V (2) NW -2 -1 NW VAULT -5.24 -6.00 758.00 4.00 1.003 50.210 NW -2 -2 +1 (1) NW -2 -2 NW -2 -1 -4.69 -5.24 550.00 4.00 1.000 50.144 NW -2 -2 +1 (2) NW -2 -2 NW -2 -1 -4.69 -5.24 550.00 4.00 1.000 50.144 NW -2 -3 +2 NW -2 -3 NW -2 -2 -4.31 -4.69 378.00 3.00 1.005 23.343 NW -2 -A +2 NW -2 -A Bioret NW -2 -2 -1.50 -4.69 100.00 0.48 31.900 0.992 NW -2 -B +3 NW -2 -B Bioret NW -2 -3 -1.50 -4.13 100.00 0.35 26.300 0.388 NW- 3 -1 +2 -1 (1) NW -3 -1 NW -2 -1 -4.76 -5.24 486.00 4.00 0.988 49.834 NW- 3 -1 +2 -1 (2) NW -3 -1 NW -2 -1 -4.76 -5.24 486.00 4.00 0.988 49.834 NW -3 -2 +1 NW -3 -2 NW -3 -1 -4.36 -4.76 396.00 4.00 1.010 50.397 NW -3 -3 +2 NW -3 -3 NW -3 -21 -3.93 -4.36 435.00 3.00 0.989 23.147 NW -3 -A +2 NW -3 -A Bioret NW -3 -2 -0.50 -4.36 100.00 0.48 38.600 1.091 NW -3 -B +3 NW -3 -B Bioret NW -3 -3 -0.50 -3.93 100.00 0.61 34.300 1.948 NW -B -V NW BASIN NW VAULT -2.00 -2.50 50.00 1 4.00 10.000 158.570 NW -O -2 +OUT NW -O -2 NW- OUTFALL -4.92 -5.20 55.00 5.00 5.091 261.394 NW -O -V +2 (1) NW VAULT NW -O -2 -4.50 -4.92 85.00 4.00 4.941 111.465 NW -O -V +2 (2) NW VAULT NW -O -2 -4.50 -4.92 85.00 4.00 4.941 111.465 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, No Sea Level Rise Page 8 Attachment B MOUSE HD Computation Engine x64 v2012 Release Version (13.0.0.6270) MOUSE Pipe Flow Simulation - -- Status Report - -- Dynamic Wave Index of summary File Overview Input Summary Time Step Parameters Continuity Balance Boundary Connections Nodes - Water level Nodes - Volume spilled Weir /Orifice - Gate/Valve Discharge Pumps - Discharge Links - Result summary Links - Data File Overview Working dir : Sewer network data (UND) : Hydrological data (HGF) : Additional parameters file (ADP) : Dry weather flow data (DWF) : Repetitive profile data (RPF) : Runoff Hydrographs (CRF) : Hotstart file (PRF) : Result File (PRF) : Reduced result file (PRF) : P: \2012 \212082 CBG Alameda Point \212082 Modeling \URBAN Modeling Current\ - 25 -yr Design StormBase.mex 25 -yr Design StormBase.mex 25 -yr Design StormBase.mex 25 -yr Design StormBase.CRF 25 -yr Design StormBase.PRF 1/1/2013 6:01:06 PM 1/1/2013 6:01:06 PM 1/1/2013 6:01:06 PM 1/1/2013 12:47:12 PM 1/1/2013 6:01:14 PM Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 1 Time Overview Simulation start date : Simulation end date : Save time step [hh:mm:ss] : Maximum time step [sec] : Minimum time step [sec] : 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 23:50:00 0:02:00 1 1 Calculation started : Calculation ended : Calculation time [hh:mm:ss] : Hotstart start date : 2013 -01 -01 18:01:09 2013 -01 -01 18:01:43 0:00:33 Input Summary Number of Manholes: Number of Basins: Number of Outlets: Number of Storage Nodes: Number of Circular Pipes: Number of Rectangular pipes: Number of CRS defined pipes: Number of Pumps: Number of Controlled Pumps: Number of Weirs /Orifices: Number of Controlled Weirs /Gates: Number of Valves: Number of Controlled Valves: Nodes Min Invert Level Max Invert Level Min Ground Level Max Ground Level Min X Coordinate Max X Coordinate Min Y Coordinate 27 17 2 0 48 5 0 1 0 15 0 0 0 NW -O -2 SE -1 -A Bioret NW -3 -1 SE -2 -2 NW -1 -C Bioret SE -1 -6 SE -1 -2 -8.00 ft 2.50 ft 1.90 ft 7.80 ft 6.039E06 ft 6.0441E06 ft 2.1081E06 ft Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 2 Max Y Coordinate NW -1 -1 2.1156E06 ft Total Manhole Volume 9541.2 ft3 Total Basin Volume 1930225.0 ft3 Links Total Circular Volume 174941.2 ft3 Total CRS Volume 30045.0 ft3 Total Length 18529.00 ft Simulation Result Summary Continuity Balance 1 : Start volume in Pipes, Manholes and Structures 2 : End volume in Pipes, Manholes and Structures 3 : Total inflow volume Specified inflows Runoff : Non - specified inflows Outlets (inflow) : 26565625.0 ft3 17610862.1 ft3 3084599.2 ft3 3480.3 113 3088079.5 ft3 - -> 3088079.5 ft3 4 : Total diverted volume Operational, non - specified outflows Outlets : 10937389.2 ft3 Pumps : 1175279.8 ft3 12112669.0 ft3 - -> 12112669.0 ft3 5 : Water generated in empty parts of the system : 833.2 ft3 6 : Continuity Balance = (2 -1) - (3 -4 +5) : 68993.5 ft3 Continuity Balance max value : 69993.0 ft3 Continuity Balance min value : 0.0 ft3 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 3 Boundary Connections Outlet levels Boundary Condition ID Location Temporal variation Value /TS name Validity Minimum Value Maximum Value Note [ft] [ft] [ft] ft ft NW 25 -yr Tide F NW- Time Series OUTFALL \\ 192 .168.1.152 \pacific\2012\212082 CBG Alameda Point\212082 Modeling \URBAN Modeling Current\25 -yr Coincident Tide SLR= 4.6.dfs0 Unlimited 0.76 6.31 Nodes - Water level G : Max level exceeds ground level W : Max level exceeds weir crest level C : Max level exceeds critical level Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 4 Minimum Maximum Ground Level Ground Level - Maximum Time - Minimum Time - Maximum Note [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] NW- OUTFALL -8.00 6.31 2.40 -3.91 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 G NW -O -2 -8.00 1.88 2.40 0.52 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 14:06:00 NW VAULT -6.00 1.88 3.00 1.12 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:52:00 W NW -2 -1 -8.00 1.89 2.00 0.11 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:50:00 NW -1 -1 -6.00 2.00 2.40 0.40 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:40:00 NW BASIN -2.00 1.88 3.00 1.12 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:52:00 NW -2 -2 -6.00 1.89 2.00 0.11 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:50:00 NW -3 -1 -6.00 1.89 1.90 0.01 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 NW -1 -2 -5.00 2.22 2.50 0.28 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:18:00 NW -2 -3 -6.00 2.09 2.20 0.11 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:36:00 NW -2 -A Bioret -1.50 2.14 2.50 0.36 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 W NW -3 -2 -6.00 1.90 2.50 0.60 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 4 I NW -1 -3 -5.00 T 2.34 2.50 0.16 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:06:00 [cfs] NW -1 -A Bioret -1.50 2.27 2.50 0.23 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:06:00 W NW -2 -B Bioret -1.50 2.15 2.50 0.35 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:36:00 W NW -3 -3 -6.00 2.34 2.70 0.36 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 12:42:00 0.000 NW -3 -A Bioret -0.50 3.10 3.50 0.40 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 W NW -1 -B Bioret -1.50 2.36 2.50 0.14 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:06:00 W NW -1 -4 -4.00 2.37 4.20 1.83 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:06:00 0.000 NW -3 -B Bioret -0.50 2.36 3.50 1.14 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:42:00 W NW -1 -5 -4.00 2.52 7.00 4.48 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050-01-01 13:08:00 NW -1 -C Bioret -1.50 2.53 2.50 -0.03 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 13:08:00 G W Number of Critical level exceedings : 0 Number of Ground level exceedings : 2 Number of Weir Crest level exceedings : 8 Nodes - Volume spilled No Spilling Nodes were found in the network Weir /Orifice- Gate /Valve Discharge Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 5 Minimum Maximum Flow - Accumulated Time - Minimum Time - Maximum [cfs] [cfs] [ft3] NW VAULT +BAS1N - 16.453 106.318 160280.5 2050 -01 -01 15:48:00 2050 -01 -01 12:40:00 NW -1 -A Overflow 0.000 47.887 312129.3 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:46:00 NW -1 -B Overflow 0.000 20.644 75158.2 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:38:00 NW -1 -C Overflow 0.000 12.193 81817.2 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:50:00 NW -2 -A Overflow 0.000 28.781 107383.9 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -2 -B Overflow 0.000 19.101 82680.7 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:38:00 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 5 NW -3 -A Overflow 0.000 17.347 48534.7 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -3 -B Overflow 0.000 21.244 81157.5 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 12:46:00 Pumps - Discharge (1) : Pump stops due to dry pump well. Links - Result summary LinkID Minimum Maximum Flow - Accumulated Time - Minimum Time - Maximum Pump starts Dry stops (1) Speed Operation total Time - Qmax [cfs] [cfs] [ft3] [cfs] [ft] [Count] [Count] [Hr:Min:Sec] NW PUMP 0.000 44.595 1175279.8 2050 -01 -01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 11:08:00 6 0 Constant 7:19:20 (1) : Pump stops due to dry pump well. Links - Result summary LinkID From Node 1 To Node Qf Hmax Qmax Hmax/D Qmax /Qf I Flow - Accumulated Time - Hmax Time - Qmax [cfs] [ft] [cfs] Ift3I NW-1-1+V NW -1 -1 NW 50.225 1.94 37.495 1.969 0.747 360803.4 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 (1) VAULT 13:44:00 12:46:00 1 94 4' 96' 360803.4 2050 -01 -01 2050 -01 -01 (2) VAULT 13:44:00 12:46:00 50.002 1 846 368740.9 2050 -01 -01 13:26:00 2050 -01 -01 12:46:00 NW -1 -2 +1 2050 -01 -01 2050-01-01 (2) NW -1 -2 NW -1 -1 50.002 2.14 37.510 1.846 0.750 368740.9 13:26:00 12:46:00 50.071 86 681 1 414200.8 2050-01-01 13:10:00 2050 -01 -01 12:40:00 0.08 2050-01-01 13:06:00 2050 -01 -01 12:50:00 NW -1 -5 +4 NW -1 -5 NW -1 -4 23.395 2.44 12.382 2.045 0.529 225801.6 2050 -01 -01 13:08:00 2050 -01 -01 12:50:00 2050-01-01 1 1 1 1 Bioret 0.692 0.851 14.001 1.230 30178.8 13:08:00 20:30:00 ' 2050-01-01 C 1 120081.3 1. 11 11 664 2.53 2050 -01 -01 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 6 Links - Data LinkID Bioret To Node ILevel Up - Invert Down - Invert Level Length Dimension (Max Height) Slope Qf 13:08:00 17:26:00 NW-2-1+V (1) NW -2 -1 NW VAULT 50.210 1.88 40.915 1.969 0.815 235563.2 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 2050 -01 -01 12:36:00 NW-2-1+V (2) NW -2 -1 NW VAULT 50.210 1.88 40.915 1.969 0.815 235563.2 2050-01-01 13:50:00 2050 -01 -01 12:36:00 NW-2-2+1 (1) NW -2 -2 NW -2 -1 50.144 1.89 23.947 1.782 0.478 120056.8 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW-2-2+1 (2) NW -2 -2 NW -2 -1 50.144 1.89 23.947 1.782 0.478 120056.8 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 2050 -01 -01 12:34:00 NW -2 -3 +2 NW -2 -3 NW -2 -2 23.343 1.89 19.181 2.193 0.822 99950.3 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 2050 -01 -01 12:40:00 NW -2 -A +2 NW -2 -A Bioret NW -2 -2 0.992 2.06 1.143 13.705 1.153 44294.6 2050 -01 -01 12:36:00 2050 -01 -01 18:50:00 NW -2 -B +3 NW -2 -B Bioret NW -2 -3 0.388 2.14 0.506 17.766 1.305 19349.8 2050 -01 -Ol 12:36:00 2050 -01 -01 18:50:00 NW-3-1+2- 1 (1) NW -3 -1 NW -2 -1 49.834 1.89 17.530 1.782 0.352 126613.8 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 2050 -01 -01 12:42:00 NW-3-1+2- 1 (2) NW -3 -1 NW -2 -1 49.834 1.89 17.530 1.782 0.352 126613.8 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 2050 -01 -01 12:42:00 NW -3 -2 +1 NW -3 -2 NW -3 -1 50.397 1.89 35.136 1.662 0.697 263038.8 2050 -01 -01 13:50:00 2050 -01 -01 12:42:00 NW -3 -3 +2 NW -3 -3 NW -3 -2 23.147 2.17 21.411 2.087 0.925 163342.8 2050 -01 -01 12:40:00 2050 -01 -01 12 :46 :00 NW -3 -A +2 NW -3 -A Bioret NW -3 -2 1.091 2.92 1.240 13.041 1.137 55235.7 2050 -01 -01 12:36:00 2050 -01 -01 17:24:00 NW -3 -B +3 NW -3 -B Bioret NW -3 -3 1.948 2.36 2.074 10.280 1.065 84509.7 2050 -01 -01 12:42:00 2050 -01 -01 17:26:00 NW -B -V NW BASIN NW VAULT 158.570 1.88 27.397 1.094 0.173 156262.7 2050-01-01 13:52:00 2050 -01 -01 16:08:00 NW-0- 2 +OUT NW -O -2 NW- OUTFALL 261.394 6.31 -0.327 2.302 -0.001 -0.3 2050-01-01 00:00:00 2050 -01 -01 00:18:00 NW -O -V +2 (1) NW VAULT NW-0-2 111.465 1.88 0.112 1.700 0.001 929.7 2050 -01 -01 14:06:00 2050 -01 -01 07:18:00 NW -0-V +2 (2) NW VAULT NW-0-2 111.465 1.88 0.112 1.700 0.001 929.7 2050 -01 -01 14:06:00 2050 -01 -01 07:18:00 Links - Data LinkID From Node To Node ILevel Up - Invert Down - Invert Level Length Dimension (Max Height) Slope Qf Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 7 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 8 [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ %o] [1 NW -1 -1 +V (1) NW -1 -1 NW VAULT -5.38 -6.00 618.00 4.00 1.003 50.225 NW -1 -1 +V (2) NW -1 -1 NW VAULT -5.38 -6.00 618.00 4.00 1.003 50.225 NW -1 -2 +1 (1) NW -1 -2 NW -1 -1 -4.50 -5.38 885.00 4.00 0.994 ' 50.002 NW -1 -2 +1 (2) NW -1 -2 NW -1 -1 -4.50 -5.38 885.00 4.00 0.994 50.002 NW -1 -3 +2 NW -1 -3 NW -1 -2 -4.16 -4.50 341.00 4.00 0.997 50.071 NW -1 -4 +3 NW -1 -4 NW -1 -3 -3.76 -4.16 401.00 4.00 0.998 50.082 NW -1 -5 +4 NW -1 -5 NW -1 -4 -3.45 -3.76 307.00 3.00 1.010 23.395 NW -1 -A +2 NW -1 -A Bioret NW -1 -2 -1.50 -4.50 193.00 0.48 15.544 0.692 NW -1 -B +3 NW -1 -B Bioret NW -1 -3 -1.50 -4.16 155.00 0.75 17.161 ' 2.391 NW -1 -C +5 NW -1 -C Bioret NW -1 -5 -1.50 -3.45 138.00 0.81 14.130 1 2.664 NW -2 -1 +V (1) NW -2 -1 NW VAULT -5.24 -6.00 758.00 4.00 1.003 50.210 NW -2 -1 +V (2) NW -2 -1 NW VAULT -5.24 -6.00 758.00 4.00 1.003 50.210 NW -2 -2 +1 (1) NW -2 -2 NW -2 -1 -4.69 -5.24 550.00 4.00 1.000 50.144 NW -2 -2 +1 (2) NW -2 -2 NW -2 -1 -4.69 -5.24 550.00 4.00 1.000 50.144 NW -2 -3 +2 NW -2 -3 NW -2 -2 -4.31 -4.69 378.00 3.00 1.005 23.343 NW -2 -A +2 NW -2 -A Bioret NW -2 -2 -1.50 -4.69 100.00 0.48 31.900 0.992 NW -2 -B +3 NW -2 -B Bioret NW -2 -3 -1.50 -4.13 100.00 0.35 26.300 0.388 NW- 3 -1 +2 -1 (1) NW -3 -1 NW -2 -1 -4.76 -5.24 486.00 ' 4.00 0.988 49.834 NW- 3 -1 +2 -1 (2) NW -3 -1 NW -2 -1 -4.76 -5.24 486.00 4.00 0.988 49.834 NW -3 -2 +1 NW -3 -2 NW -3 -1 -4.36 -4.76 396.00 4.00 1.010 50.397 NW -3 -3 +2 NW -3 -3 NW -3 -2 -3.93 -4.36 435.00 3.00 0.989 23.147 NW -3 -A +2 NW -3 -A Bioret NW -3 -2 -0.50 -4.36 100.00 0.48 38.600 1.091 NW -3 -B +3 NW -3 -B Bioret NW -3 -3 -0.50 -3.93 100.00 0.61 34.300 1.948 NW -B -V NW BASIN NW VAULT -2.00 -2.50 50.00 4.00 10.000 158.570 NW -O -2 +OUT NW -O -2 NW- OUTFALL -4.92 -5.20 55.00 5.00 5.091 261.394 NW -O -V +2 (1) NW VAULT NW -O -2 -4.50 - 4.92 85.00 4.00 4.941 111.465 NW-0-V+2 (2) NW VAULT NW -O -2 -4.50 - 4.92 85.00 4.00 4.941 111.465 Northwest Drainage Area - Mike URBAN Prototype Model - 20,000 gpm Pump, 4.6 ft Sea Level Rise Page 8 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES F) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM MODEL (FILES INCLUDED ON SEPARATE CD) Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES G) DETAILED BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. UPDATED DRAFT Backbone Infrastructure Engineer's Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate Summary Alameda Point ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA October 31, 2013 Prepared For: •••RRfr•••■ RERUN I•RRRRi or .-1 .. 7 . IR •RRRRRRRRt. R Prepared By: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, inc. rIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS •'PLANNERS 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com Assumptions / Exclusions AU■ ■ ■■■■ena. ■■■■u Iuuuu■ ■r v to ■� . -i �: ■ • IN ■ •.ileniirIS -• .A■ 11■ •■■■ •■111W Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERS PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE KEY ASSUMPTIONS & EXCLUSIONS ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 1 GENERAL This estimate is based on information available at this time. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. (CBG) assumes no liability for changes in prices, fees or costs due to unforeseen conditions or changes required by Governing Agencies, Market Conditions, or other issues beyond the control of this office. 2 This estimate is based upon the Draft Master Infrastructure Plan, dated October 31, 2013. This estimate is also being prepared concurrently with the Alameda Point Planning Guide, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Zoning Amendment, Town Center & Waterfront Master Plan and Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS). This estimate is intended to be updated through the community review process of the documents listed above. 3 This estimate includes the construction costs of the backbone infrastructure described in the Draft MIP. All in -tract or on -site improvements interior to the development blocks are assumed to be future development costs and are excluded from this estimate. 4 This estimate excludes costs associated with Environmental Remediation. This estimate assumes that all environmental remediation will be completed by the Navy prior to transfer of the property to the City. 5 This estimate excludes the costs associated with the extension of infrastructure to the VA Project west of Monarch Street. 6 This estimate excludes improvements to the existing piers and wharfs in the southeast portion of the site, such as utility replacements, seismic retrofits, etc. 7 This estimate applies and includes a 25% contingency to all backbone infrastructure construction costs. The contingency is not applied to the soft costs. 8 This estimate includes Construction Administration (4 %), Professional Services (15 %) and Plan Check & Inspection Fees (4 %). The soft costs are applied to the backbone infrastructure hard costs without contingency excluding the Regional Transit Costs which are assumed to already include soft costs. 9 This estimate excludes all costs associated with the maintenance and operations of the backbone infrastructure. DEMOLITION 10 This estimate includes the costs associated with the Demolition and Abatement of the existing buildings within the Development Areas. The following typical unit costs for demolition and abatement are assumed in this estimate: • Single Family Residential Structures = $50,000 per structure • Multi - Family Residential Structures = $100,000 per structure • Industrial / Warehouse Structures (north of W. Atlantic Ave) = $7.50 per square foot • Industrial / Warehouse Structures (south of W. Atlantic Ave) = $15 per square foot 11 This estimate assumes the existing utilities within the public right of ways will be removed. The existing utilities within the Development Parcels are assumed to be 50% slurry filled and 50% removed. 12 This estimate assumes the existing on -site concrete and pavement materials will be processed and reused on -site for future street base rock, utility trench backfill and other uses as approved by the City and project geotechnical engineers. 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \ MIP \Assumptions_2013- 10- 31.xis Page 1 of 4 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Item Description 13 This estimate assumes a budget of $15M to relocate supportive housing (Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures for Women and Children, and Operation Dignity) to the northeast corner of the project site. This cost is included in Phase 2. GRADING 14 This estimate assumes the Flood and Sea Level Rise Protection will be provided by the following improvements: (Please see the enclosed exhibit depicting the Flood Protection Concept for Alameda Point) • Development Areas = The elevation of the development pads and streets will be elevated to be above the required elevation for flood and sea level rise protection. • Reuse Areas = A system of perimeter flood and sea level protection measures will be constructed including elevated sea walls, berms and revetments. 15 This estimate assumes the Northern Shoreline will be stabilized. The Northern Shoreline will be stabilized for all areas where Flood Protection measures are proposed within 200' of the shoreline. 16 This estimate includes costs for liquefaction remediation for Development Areas, roadway and utility corridors and areas within Flood Protection measures. 17 This estimate includes costs for importing material ($25 /CY) for the following areas: • Flood Protection Berms & Revetments • Replacement of pavement and concrete within Residential Development Areas • Raise Development Areas that are below the Flooding Criteria (northeast corner of site) • Anticipated settlement associated with liquefaction remediation • Anticipated settlement associated with new structural loads within areas that previously had no structures 18 This estimate includes a budget to accelerate the settlement within areas where differential settlement are anticipated. This is intended to include a surcharge program and /or wick drains. DEWATERING 19 This estimate includes costs for a dewatering operation during utility construction. 20 This estimate includes a budget to address contaminated groundwater that maybe encountered during construction dewatering. The budget included assumes only minor occurrences of groundwater contaminates will be encountered. UTILITIES 21 This estimate assumes that all existing utilities within the project site will be replaced with new systems that are consistent with current codes and regulations. This includes utility replacements within the backbone streets within the Reuse Areas. 22 This estimate excludes the costs associated with interim rehabilitation improvements to the existing utility systems within the Reuse Areas. These interim improvements are anticipated to be completed by proposed development projects that utilize the existing utilities prior to their replacement. 23 This estimate assumes that utilidors will be constructed for all utilities within 50% of W. Atlantic Ave. and within the roadways south and east of Building 5. 24 This estimate includes budgets within each phase to maintain utility services to existing buildings and future phases throughout construction. 25 This estimate assumes that initial sub - phases within Phases 1 and 2 will initially connect to the existing sanitary sewer system between each phase and Pump Station 1. This estimate includes costs associated with rehabilitation improvements to this portion of the existing system, such as pipe lining. The ultimate sanitary sewer system connecting to Pump Station 1 is assumed to be constructed with subsequent phases. P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP\Assumptions_2013- 10- 31.xls Page 2 of 4 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Item Description 26 Sanitary sewer system must be a grid system of collection pipelines that connect the upstream pipe ends of separate sewer zones. 27 This estimate includes costs for point of source water quality facilities, such as roadside vegetated swales, to provide water quality treatment for the proposed streets only. All other on -site water quality solutions for the Development Areas are excluded and assumed to be on -site / in -tract costs. 28 This estimate assumes that the existing 115 kV poles adjacent to Main Street will remain in their existing locations. 29 This estimate excludes costs associated with upgrading the existing Cartwright Substation. ON -SITE STREET WORK 30 This estimate assumes the street cross sections of the backbone roadway framework are consistent with those depicted in the Draft MIP. 31 This estimate includes budgets within each phase to maintain access to existing buildings and future phases throughout construction. TRANSPORTATION 32 This estimate includes costs for the following off -site street and intersection improvements outlined in the DEIR Mitigation Measures. 33 This estimate excludes the costs associated with completing the Stargell Ave Widening to 4 Lanes (from Main St to 5th St) and the extension of Mitchell Ave (from Main St to the western boundary of Alameda Landing) 34 This estimate includes an assumed budget of $1.75M for Off - Island Mitigations. 35 This estimate includes costs for the following transit costs: • Bus Rapid Transit - Option W -2 -B from the RTAS (Assumed to be constructed in Phase 2) This estimate assumes a 25% project share of the estimate from the RTAS of $20M. • Shuttle Service (Assumed to be implemented in Phase 1) This estimate utilizes the initial start -up estimate cost from the RTAS of $1M. • Ferry Terminal Parking Lot Expansion @ Ex Terminal (Assumed to be constructed in Phase 1) • Ferry Terminal New @ Seaplane Lagoon (Assumed to be constructed in Phase 2) This estimate assumes a budget of $10M. • Transit Center (Assumed to be constructed in Phases 1 and 2) This estimate assumes a budget of $1.5M. • Broadway / Jackson Project Share (Assumed to be spread across Phases 1 and 2) This estimate utilizes a previous estimate by others of $4.5M. • TDM Costs (Assumed to be spread across the Phases 1 and 2) This estimate utilizes a previous estimate by others of $4.2M. • Cross Alameda Trail (Assumed to be constructed in Phase 2) This estimate utilizes a previous estimate by others of $1.9M. LANDSCAPING 36 This estimate includes the costs associated with constructing the backbone park and open space system as outlined in the Draft MIP, unless otherwise noted below. 37 This estimate includes a budget of $20M for the construction of the Sports Complex. This cost is assumed to be spread across Phases 1 and 2. 38 This estimate includes costs associated with improvement to approximately half of Enterprise Park. The remainder is assumed to be maintained in its existing condition or improved by others. 39 This estimate includes costs for constructing the Bay Trail adjacent to the project site frontages to the Sea Plane Lagoon, San Francisco Bay and Oakland Inner Harbor. P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \ MIP \Assumptions_2013- 10- 31.xls Page 3 of 4 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Item Description PUBLIC BENEFITS 40 This estimate includes costs for the following public benefit costs: • Fire Station (Assumed to be constructed in Phase 2) This estimate assumes a budget of $4.5M. • Bay Trail NW Territories & VA Property (Assumed to be constructed in Phase 2) • Pro -Rata Share of Satellite Corporation Yard (Assumed to be constructed in Phase 2) This estimate assumes a budget of $1M. 41 This estimate excludes costs associated with other Public Benefits, such as Enhanced Sports Complex, NW Territories Open Space, Wetland Creation / Restoration, Marina, Library, School, Sustainability Programs, etc. These Public Benefit costs are assumed to be provided by others. P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP\Assumptions_2013- 10- 31.xls Page 4 of 4 Overall Summary ■■■.I '■: ■■■■ ■r a. • . I■ ■� s -� 1r A - 1• ■ ■�1■r�n ■ -- J■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY - OVERALL ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Description PHASE 1 PHASE 2 October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 PHASE3 TOTAL BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DEMOLITION / SITE PREPARATION $ 33,919,000 $ 42,064,000 $ 1,946,000 $ 77,929,000 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION BY OTHERS BY OTHERS BY OTHERS BY OTHERS 3 FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING $ 41,483,000 $ 40,343,000 $ 23,573,000 $ 105,399,000 4 DEWATERING $ 3,740,000 $ 2,955,000 $ 2,680,000 $ 9,375,000 5 SANITARY SEWER $ 12,657,000 $ 3,255,000 $ 4,497,000 $ 20,409,000 6 STORM DRAIN $ 13,325,000 $ 8,408,000 $ 10,250,000 $ 31,983,000 7 POTABLE WATER $ 5,314,000 $ 4,405,000 $ 6,110,000 $ 15,829,000 8 RECYCLED WATER $ 1,470,000 $ 506,250 $ 876,000 $ 2,852,250 9 DRY UTILITIES $ 7,201,000 $ 6,149,000 $ 6,491,000 $ 19,841,000 10 ON -SITE STREET WORK $ 23,455,000 $ 19,904,000 $ 13,411,000 $ 56,770,000 11 TRANSPORTATION $ 10,400,000 $ 34,206,000 $ $ 44,606,000 12 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE $ 28,990,000 $ 15,898,000 $ 20,030,000 $ 64,918,000 13 PUBLIC BENEFITS $ 1,250,000 $ 16,038,000 $ - $ 17,288,000 SUBTOTAL BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COST $ 183,200,000 $ 194,130,000 $ 89,860,000 $ 467,200,000 (to nearest $10,000) SOFT COSTS 14 CONSTRUCTION ADMIN $ 5,862,000 $ 6,212,000 $ 2,876,000 $ 14,950,000 15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 21,984,000 $ 23,296,000 $ 10,783,000 $ 56,063,000 16 FEES $ 7,720,000 $ 7,784,000 $ 4,694,000 $ 20,198,000 17 IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE $ 733,000 $ 777,000 $ 359,000 $ 1,869,000 SUBTOTAL SOFT COST (to nearest $10,000) $ TOTAL BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST $ (to nearest $10,000) 36,300,000 $ 219,500,000 $ 38,070,000 $ 232,200,000 $ 18,710,000 $ 108,570,000 $ 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandq.com 93,080,000 560,280,000 P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087- 10\ Estimate \2013 \MIP \Summary_2.xls /Overall Page 1 011 Exhibits LAl 1 ARBOR q r x 1 x 'v 1 x •, 'I''I'll." ,�.o Itl'Irr 1414, " .4 .4 E.' 11e 1w 4 1+ M . —41116411110 ar ill r ^N7,141\ '11-1-1-141 Win J VA DEVELOPED PARCELS Fg PHASE 3 [1111 .., e Fml ALAMEDA POINT PHASING MAP BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE ., ■ • CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 0' 500' 1,500' 2,000' SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JULY, 2013 .••••••••••■ ••••I ••••••• ■L lelni RP J.'.1' • :i 112 1106 1103 1116 011 e e 1092 110.9 0 01 1102 RAISE REVETMENT 100 YEAR TIDE + 18" SEA LEVEL RISE & 2 FEET FREEBOARD (ELEV 7.1) 1101 1086 1095 804 1092 10614 103 1083 11°3 1147 842 1138 \\ \ ) 1093 1148 199 1159 1173 1186 1095 611 111 / � o 1127 813 1127 1107 1103 0093 014' 1097 812 1272 SECTION D - AERIAL NOT TO SCALE 091 1152 1080 1123 1145 1147 1144 1E•M 1104 .3 1123 , RAISE & °FT SEA PLANE LAGOON P�EpS h. AT 4r, 1173 1105 1123 12A 1103 r 1104 1103 1000 1093 1109 1132 HON 1126 1105 181 1087 1096 1099 1113 108.9 1096 106 CONSTRUCT BERM 100 YEAR TIDE + 18" SEA LEVEL RISE & 2 FEET FREEBOARD (ELEV 7.1) 0033 SECTION A & B, A • 1131 .F, 1130 NOT TO SCALE 052 1128 1152 Q 1101 1106 033 1128 1136 1091 NOTE: ALL PROPOSED ELEVATIONS DEPICTED ARE BASED ON THE CITY OF ALAMEDA'S DATUM. ALL EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IS BASED ON THE NAVY'S DATUM. (0.0' CITY OF ALAMEDA = 107.6' NAVY) 1147 M r r,►' A TiT1 822 027 0 I 1004 089 1129 1130 Y 1125 1102 00,1 1113 81 1112 1183 1087 1116 1090 1096 13 1095 1098 1104 1104 1091 1093 1002 1131 1102 1 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR 1105 1100 BASIN (TYP.) 111 I MULTI - PURPOSE [015 1DL. IL 1119 106 1113 1104 u 1103 1132 1146 114E 0129 11°5 X21 1104 113° 114 1114 1104 017 ,09.7 8601 0119 832 014A 1079 1093 1105 1111111-11 _ r -1r 7 ( 1130 PHASE 3 1 Li 1123 rn ■ 1124 ALAMEDA POINT FLOOD PROTECTION BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE • • En • 0' CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 500' 1,500' 2,000' • SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JULY, 2013 ■ ■ ■ ■� EM■■•.■ ■!_ :i .. ��_. ■ ■.' - -I ., J.'•' • :i PHASE BOUNDARY LIQUEFACTION REMEDIATION AREA (SETTLEMENT — 6 ") LIQUEFACTION REMEDIATION AREA (SETTLEMENT — 11 ") NORTHERN SHORELINE STABILIZATION SEA PLANE LAGOON BULKHEAD IMPROVEMENTS SEA PLANE LAGOON REVETMENT REPAIRS NEW DEVELOPMENT Sc ROADWAYS ALAMEDA POINT GEOTECHNICAL REMEDIATION BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA .■■■■■■■■■■. ■■■■I 1U■■•U■ ■.'ICI • ■••••••••••■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 6111 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD, SUITE 150 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 SAN RAMON • LATHROP G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - MIP ESTIMATEI3 PHASEIX6 GEOTECH.DWG LS -1(� OAKLAND INNER HARBOR LINIANiA,L PI Malirair EX 20 FM PS -1 •� �1 ,I . 8 SS - _ _ 8 SS LI7 EX 20 FM EX 20" FORCE MAIN CONNECTION TO EXISTING SIPHONS AT WEBSTER TUBE I� ii I�I III ^� 1 8 SS 24" SS I PHASE 3 6 8" SS L_ 1 i [ flR A F1111 ALAMEDA POINT SANITARY SEWER BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE • • • 0' CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 500' 1,500' 2,000' SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JULY, 2013 .■■■■■■■■■■. •■■■I 1U■■•U• ■!_�I _. fir_. ■ ■••••••••••i Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 6111 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD, SUITE 150 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 SAN RAMON • LATHROP (925) 866-0322 FAX (925) 866 -8575 Ifk 8 SS LS -5 (o) SEAPLANE LAGOON PHASE 2 LS -3 <12" SS I- 1 I'HAS! I 12 SS A LS -2 T%�52 SS 8 8" SS 1 8 SS 8 SS LEGEND PHASE BOUNDARY PHASE 1 SEWER PHASE 2 SEWER PHASE 3 SEWER NEW DEVELOPMENT & ROADWAYS LIFT STATION EXISTING 20" FORCE MAIN EXISTING PUMP STATION 1 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - MIP ESTIMATEI3 PHASEIXB_SEWER.DWG OAKLAND INNER HARBOR OUTFALL OUTF LL 36 SD 0 NIMA, R Nl 1 V) r ir- fr 11 11 0 1 1 0 p PHASE 3 0 N N r 6 0 < 24" SD I t 60 SD 48 SD 36 1 SD CO OUTFALL OUTFALL PHASE 1 :DR A ALAMEDA POINT STORM DRAIN BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE • 00, II ■ • CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 0' 500' 1,500' 2,000' • SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JULY, 2013 ■■■■I 1U ■■•U■ ■.'ICI UP i.'ui' • ■••••••••••■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 6111 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD, SUITE 150 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 SAN RAMON • LATHROP (925) 866-0322 FAX (925) 866 -8575 Ifk SEAPLANE LAGOON 1 co 36 SD 24" SD cn LEGEND PHASE BOUNDARY PHASE 1 STORM DRAIN PHASE 2 STORM DRAIN PHASE 3 STORM DRAIN NEW DEVELOPMENT & ROADWAYS PUMP STATION G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - MIP ESTIMATEI3 PHASEIXB_STORM DRAIN.DWG N. LIEIRMANIKIA \\ 0 II Ifk [ flR A F1111 ALAMEDA POINT POTABLE WATER BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE • 00, II ■ • CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 0' 500' 1,500' 2,000' • SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JULY, 2013 .■■■■■■■■■■. •■■■I 1U■■•U• ■!_1I ,. �r _. ■ N. 'In UP i.'w' • ■••••••••••i Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 6111 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD, SUITE 150 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 SAN RAMON • LATHROP (925) 866-0322 FAX (925) 866 -8575 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR 0 1 1 La- fu° PHASE 2 gam 16 W 16 W 112 W1 SEAPLANE LAGOON 1 1 16 W PHASE 1 m© 1 12 W m� 16 W • • m x • ■• LEGEND PHASE BOUNDARY PHASE 1 WATER PHASE 2 WATER PHASE 3 WATER EXISTING WATER NEW DEVELOPMENT & ROADWAYS G :11087- 101ACAD- 10I EXHIBITS \BASE CASE ALT - MIP ESTIMATEI3 PHASEIXB_POTABLE WATER.DWG SO- \\ \0 Ae. 0 c_Y‘ ALAMEDA POINT RECYCLED WATER BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE • •• • 0' CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 500' 1,500' 2,000' • SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JULY, 2013 .••••••••••■ ••••i = =■■•E■ ■L lelni RP A. 'I•1' • :i PHASE 1 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR M M RECON \\ • 0 CnR A F1111 ALAMEDA POINT ON -SITE ROADWAYS BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE • 00, II ■ • CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 0' 500' 1,500' 2,000' SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JULY, 2013 .■■■■■■■■■■. •■■■I 1U■■•U• M. 'In UP J.'•' • ■••••••••••i Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 6111 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD, SUITE 150 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 SAN RAMON • LATHROP (925) 866-0322 FAX (925) 866 -8575 Ifk 0 0 0 1 =�; Lj L L r I MILIMM A SEAPLANE LAGOON c 0 U 0 U 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 A 0 U 0 0 L COM • • LEGEND PHASE BOUNDARY PHASE 1 ROADWAY PHASE 2 ROADWAY PHASE 3 ROADWAY NEW DEVELOPMENT & ROADWAYS ROADWAY LEGEND M C A P COM RES L RECON OVER LEX SARA PAN MAIN STREET CENTRAL AVENUE WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE PACIFIC AVENUE ISLAND COLLECTOR - COMMERCIAL ISLAND COLLECTOR - RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREETS RECONSTRUCT EXISTING ROADWAY OVERLAY EXISTING ROADWAY EXTEND EXISTING ROADWAY - LEXINGTON STREET EXTEND EXISTING ROADWAY - SARATOGA STREET EXTEND EXISTING ROADWAY - PAN AM WAY G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - MIP ESTIMATEI3 PHASEIXB_ROADWAYS.DWG OAKLAND INNER HARBOR \A•' \t_ O r I ` i Ir- - l__Jl.J1 NIASiA,L PI I_ JL —I I— --I I_ _IL JL 0 — 0 p ■ PHASE 3 \\ 6 :pi) A VT1 (SEASONAL) ALAMEDA POINT LANDSCAPING BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE . , ■ • 0' CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 500' 1,500' 2,000' SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: JULY, 2013 .••••••••••■ ••••1 = =■■•M■ •!_ :I .. �!_. ■ ■L IMPni RP J.'�' • :i Estimate Summary AUU•••■■U■■II. ■■■■u m■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-1 or 1 • IN ■ •.ileniirIS -• �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Item Description Amount BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DEMOLITION / SITE PREPARATION $ 77,929,000 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION BY OTHERS 3 FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING $ 105,398,000 4 DEWATERING $ 9,375,000 5 SANITARY SEWER $ 20,408,000 6 STORM DRAIN $ 31,984,000 7 POTABLE WATER $ 15,829,000 8 RECYCLED WATER $ 2,853,000 9 DRY UTILITIES $ 19,841,000 10 ON -SITE STREET WORK $ 56,771,000 11 TRANSPORTATION $ 44,606,000 12 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE $ 64,918,000 13 PUBLIC BENEFITS $ 17,288,000 SUBTOTAL BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COSTS (to nearest $10,000) $ 467,200,000 SOFT COSTS 14 CONSTRUCTION ADMIN $ 14,950,000 15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 56,064,000 16 FEES $ 20,200,000 17 IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE $ 1,869,000 SUBTOTAL SOFT COSTS (to nearest $10,000) $ 93,080,000 TOTAL BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS (to nearest $10,000) $ 560,280,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Summary Page 1 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r R to ■� •-� or 1 • IN ■■I■IEN101117• .A■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DEMOLITION / SITE PREPARATION ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount DEMOLITION / SITE PREPARATION 1 Demo & Abatement of Ex Structures - Resd Bldgs 63 EA $ 50,000 $ 3,150,000 2 Demo & Abatement of Ex Structures - Multi - Family Bldgs 63 EA $ 100,000 $ 6,300,000 3 Demo & Abatement of Ex Structures - Industrial (N) 541,500 SF $ 7.50 $ 4,061,250 4 Demo & Abatement of Ex Structures - Industrial (S) 1,186,000 SF $ 15.00 $ 17,790,000 5 Demolition of Existing Pavement and Concrete 8,498,000 SF $ 0.75 $ 6,373,500 (Assume to be recycled and stockpiled) 6 Demolition of Ex Sea Plane Lagoon Ramps 4 EA $ 100,000 $ 400,000 7 Clearing and Grubbing - Open Space areas only 65 AC $ 2,000 $ 129,000 8 Slurry Fill Existing Utilities - Development Parcels 146,400 LF $ 10 $ 1,464,000 9 Remove Existing Utilities - Development Parcels 141,900 LF $ 35 $ 4,966,500 10 Remove Existing Utilities - Within Proposed R/W's 69,250 LF $ 35 $ 2,423,750 11 Demolition of Ex Railroad Spurs 11,400 LF $ 25 $ 285,000 12 Relocate Collaborative Housing 1 LS $ 15,000,000 $ 15,000,000 SUBTOTAL DEMOLITION / SITE PREPARATION COSTS $ 62,343,000 25% CONTINGENCY $ 15,585,750 TOTAL DEMOLITION / SITE PREPARATION COSTS $ 77,929,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Demolition Page 2 of 20 .I■1111MEl Ilk ■■MEII 1!■. \t■ ■F .21.. 111 ..I! MIL 11171 ,tr1. • I■ ■ ■�lrrfw��' J! 41■■■■■■M■11111r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Unit Item Description Quantity Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS BY OTHERS 25% CONTINGENCY BY OTHERS TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS BY OTHERS 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate\ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Remediation Page 3 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� . -i g. ■. • IN ■■MIEN10 S-- .A■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING Assumes: The flood protection solution for the project site incorporates raised development areas and a perimeter system of raised roadways (berms) to protect Adaptive Reuse areas. These facilities are to provide protection from 100 year tide, plus 18" of sea level rise, and include the appropriate freeboard. GEOTECHNICAL REMEDIATION 1 Northern Shoreline Stabilization - DDC 255,000 SF $ 1 $ 255,000 2 Northern Shoreline Stabilization - Concrete Piles 5,100 LF $ 2,500 $ 12,750,000 3 Sea Plane Lagoon - Northern Headwall 3,020 LF $ 3,000 $ 9,060,000 4 Sea Plane Lagoon - Revetment Repairs 1,800 LF $ 200 $ 360,000 5 Sea Plane Lagoon - Floodwall on Wharf 2,200 LF $ 500 $ 1,100,000 6 Liquefaction Remediation - DDC Dev Areas & Roadways 12,050,000 SF $ 1 $ 12,050,000 7 Liquefaction Remediation - DDC Berm 741,550 SF $ 1 $ 741,550 Subtotal Geotechnical Remediation $ 36,316,550 EARTHWORK 8 Import - Berms Raise to Flood Protection Elevation 82,200 CY $ 25 $ 2,055,000 Settlement due to DDC - Assume 1' 37,700 CY $ 25 $ 942,500 Settlement due to Increased Load - Assume 1' 37,700 CY $ 25 $ 942,500 9 Import - Replace Ex Pay and Concrete - Residential Parcels 84,000 CY $ 25 $ 2,100,000 (Assume 1' Depth over Ex Pave / Concrete Demo) 10 Import - Development Areas Raise Above Flood Plain 546,500 CY $ 25 $ 13,662,500 Settlement due to Fill 273,250 CY $ 25 $ 6,831,250 Settlement due to DDC - Excludes Parks 297,700 CY $ 25 $ 7,442,500 Settlement due to Increased Structure Load - Assume 1' 230,750 CY $ 25 $ 5,768,750 11 Rough Grade - Assume 1' across Development Areas 491,500 CY $ 3.50 $ 1,720,250 12 Rock Slope Protection 10,550 LF $ 200 $ 2,110,000 13 Finish Super Pad 237 AC $ 10,000 $ 2,370,000 14 Settlement Acceleration Program - Budget 1 LS $ 450,000 $ 450,000 15 Retaining Walls - Budget 1 LS $ 375,000 $ 375,000 16 Erosion Control - Phases 1 and 2 302 AC $ 3,500 $ 1,057,000 17 Erosion Control - Phase 3 17,435 LF $ 10 $ 174,350 Subtotal Earthwork $ 48,001,600 SUBTOTAL FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING COSTS $ 84,318,150 25% CONTINGENCY $ 21,079,538 TOTAL FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING COSTS $ 105,398,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate\ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Grading Page 4 of 20 AUU•••■■U■■II. ■■■■u Iuuuu■ ■r v to ■� . -i or ■. • IN ■■.ilrro1117• Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DEWATERING ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount DEWATERING 1 Dewatering - On -Site Roadways & Main Street 2 Groundwater Contamination Treatment - Budget 57,995 LF $ 100 $ 5,799,500 1 LS $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 SUBTOTAL DEWATERING COSTS $ 7,500,000 25% CONTINGENCY $ 1,875,000 TOTAL DEWATERING COSTS $ 9,375,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Dewatering Page 5 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-i or ■. • IN ■■.IEN1i01117• �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SANITARY SEWER ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount SANITARY SEWER 1 36" Sanitary Sewer - In existing pavement 2 24" Sanitary Sewer - In existing pavement 3 24" Sanitary Sewer 4 12" Sanitary Sewer - In existing pavement 5 12" Sanitary Sewer 6 8" Sanitary Sewer - In existing pavement (to Lift Station) 7 8" Sanitary Sewer 8 Manholes (Assume 1 every 300) 9 Stubs to Future Development 10 Lift Stations - With back -up power 11 Temporary Lift Station - Budget 12 Connect to Ex Pump Station 1 13 Connect New Main to Existing Trunk Main 14 Rehabilitate Existing Trunk Main - Budget 15 Utilidors 16 Maintain Service to Ex Buildings & Future Phases 17 Connect Existing Lateral to New Main 18 Replace Bay Mud - Within Utility Trenches 365 LF $ 275 $ 100,375 3,550 LF $ 250 $ 887,500 50 LF $ 150 $ 7,500 3,305 LF $ 140 $ 462,700 2,735 LF $ 70 $ 191,450 1,075 LF $ 100 $ 107,500 30,970 LF $ 50 $ 1,548,500 140 EA $ 6,000 $ 840,000 101 EA $ 2,000 $ 202,000 6 EA $ 750,000 $ 4,500,000 1 EA $ 500,000 $ 500,000 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 8 EA $ 10,000 $ 80,000 6,650 LF $ 20 $ 133,000 2,575 LF $ 1,000 $ 2,575,000 3 LS $ 750,000 $ 2,250,000 79 EA $ 10,000 $ 790,000 42,050 CY $ 25 $ 1,051,250 SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER COSTS $ 16,326,775 25% CONTINGENCY $ 4,081,694 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER COSTS $ 20,408,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Sewer Page 6 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r R to ■� •-1 or 1 • IN ■ •.ilenimIS -• �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE STORM DRAIN ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount STORM DRAIN 1 60" Storm Drain 2,845 LF $ 240 $ 682,800 2 60" Storm Drain - In existing pavement 3,950 LF $ 360 $ 1,422,000 3 48" Storm Drain 8,405 LF $ 192 $ 1,613,760 4 48" Storm Drain - In existing pavement 375 LF $ 288 $ 108,000 5 36" Storm Drain 8,775 LF $ 144 $ 1,263,600 6 36" Storm Drain - In existing pavement 1,100 LF $ 216 $ 237,600 7 24" Storm Drain 14,425 LF $ 96 $ 1,384,800 8 18" Storm Drain 10,550 LF $ 72 $ 759,600 9 Manholes (Assume 1 every 300) 168 EA $ 6,000 $ 1,008,000 10 Multi- Purpose Basin Excavation 45,000 CY $ 5 $ 225,000 Inlet / Outlet 3 EA $ 250,000 $ 750,000 Passive Landscaping 290,000 SF $ 2 $ 580,000 Access Road 44,000 SF $ 5 $ 220,000 11 Force Mains (12-24") 1,100 LF $ 144 $ 158,400 12 Emergency & Treatment Flow Pump Station 1 EA $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 With Back -up Power 13 Retrofit Ex Outlets to Sea Plane Lagoon / Inner Harbor 5 EA $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 14 Mitigation for Storm Drain Outfall Retrofit 5 EA $ 100,000 $ 500,000 15 Utilidors 3,125 LF $ 1,000 $ 3,125,000 16 Interim Drainage to Existing Parcels to Remain (Budget) 1 LS $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 17 Stubs to Future Development (Budget) 104 EA $ 2,000 $ 208,000 18 Existing Main Street Storm Drain Pump Modification 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 19 Roadside Vegetated Swales / Water Quality Facilities 101,940 LF $ 40 $ 4,077,600 20 Replace Bay Mud - Within Utility Trenches 78,500 CY $ 25 $ 1,962,500 SUBTOTAL STORM DRAIN COSTS $ 25,587,000 25% CONTINGENCY $ 6,396,750 TOTAL STORM DRAIN COSTS $ 31,984,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Storm Drain Page 7 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r R to ■� •-� or 1 • IN ■ •.ileniirIS -• �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE POTABLE WATER ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount POTABLE WATER 1 16" Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) 11,220 LF $ 140 $ 1,570,800 2 16" Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) - In Ex Pavement 2,875 LF $ 280 $ 805,000 3 12" Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) 42,385 LF $ 120 $ 5,086,200 4 8" Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) - Big Whites 3,975 LF $ 60 $ 238,500 5 Stubs to Future Development 107 EA $ 2,000 $ 214,000 6 Connect to Ex Waterline (Including Meter & Backflow) 59 EA $ 15,000 $ 885,000 7 Fire Hydrants (Assume 1 every 500) 126 EA $ 4,000 $ 504,000 8 Irrigation Services (Assume 1 every 0.33 Mile) 41 EA $ 2,000 $ 82,000 9 Utilidors 3,450 LF $ 250 $ 862,500 10 Maintain Service to Ex Buildings & Future Phases 1 LS $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 11 Connect Existing Lateral to New Main (Includes Meter) 104 EA $ 10,000 $ 1,040,000 12 Reconnect Coast Guard Housing Pipeline 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 SUBTOTAL POTABLE WATER COSTS $ 12,663,000 25% CONTINGENCY $ 3,165,750 TOTAL POTABLE WATER COSTS $ 15,829,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Water Page 8 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-i or ■. • IN ■■ mlenim S-- �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE RECYCLED WATER ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount RECYCLED WATER 1 12" Recycled Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) 2 Stubs to Future Development 3 Irrigation Services 4 Utilidors 28,855 LF $ 60 $ 1,731,300 52 EA $ 2,000 $ 104,000 21 EA $ 2,500 $ 52,500 1,575 LF $ 250 $ 393,750 SUBTOTAL RECYCLED WATER COSTS $ 2,282,000 25% CONTINGENCY $ 570,500 TOTAL RECYCLED WATER COSTS $ 2,853,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Recycled Water Page 9 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-1 or 1 • IN ■ •.ilenimIS -• �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DRY UTILITIES ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount DRY UTILITIES 1 Relocate Elec Transmission (115 kV) Poles - Main St 2 Relocate Exiting Street Lights - Main St 3 Joint Trench Facilities - Main St 4 Joint Trench Facilities - Off -Site (to Substation) 5 Joint Trench Facilities - On -Site 6 Additional Facilities for Multiple Utility Companies 7 Electroliers - Assume 1 every 120' 8 Utilidors 9 Maintain Service to Ex Buildings - During Construction 10 Establish New Connection to Historic Buildings to Remain 11 Connect to Existing Substation 0 EA $ 50,000 N.I.C. 40 EA $ 5,000 $ 200,000 6,100 LF $ 120 $ 732,000 3,950 LF $ 240 $ 948,000 58,645 LF $ 120 $ 7,037,400 59,495 LF $ 20 $ 1,189,900 483 EA $ 4,000 $ 1,932,000 3,575 LF $ 250 $ 893,750 1 LS $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 119 EA $ 10,000 $ 1,190,000 4 EA $ 100,000 $ 400,000 SUBTOTAL DRY UTILITIES COSTS $ 15,873,050 25% CONTINGENCY $ 3,968,263 TOTAL DRY UTILITIES COSTS $ 19,841,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Dry Utilities Page 10 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■I. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r R to ■� . -i �: ■ • IN ■ •.ilborIS -• �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ON -SITE STREET WORK ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount ON -SITE STREET WORK Please see Appendix for the linear footage cost breakdowns 1 Main Street Reconstruction Pacific to Atlantic 1,150 LF $ 750 $ 862,500 Atlantic to Main Gate 5,875 LF $ 985 $ 5,786,875 Intersection Modification - Atlantic Ave /Main St 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Intersection Modification - Stargell Ave /Main St 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Intersection Modification - Singleton Ave /Main St 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Intersection Modification - Pacific /Main St 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Transition to Ex Roadway - At Northern Boundary 1 LS $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Transition to Ex Roadway - At Southern Boundary 0 LS $ 100,000 $ - Traffic Signal Modification - Atlantic Ave / Main St 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Traffic Signal Modification - Stargell Ave / Main St 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Traffic Signal Modification - Singleton Ave / Main St 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Traffic Signal Modification - Pacific /Main St 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Relocate Ferry Entrance - Including Signal 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000 2 On -Site Streets West Atlantic Avenue - New 1,750 LF $ 860 $ 1,505,000 Pacific Avenue - New 1,900 LF $ 565 $ 1,073,500 Island Collector- Bike Lanes -New 1,635 LF $ 490 $ 801,150 Island Collector - Bikeway - New 1,975 LF $ 520 $ 1,027,000 Local Streets - Sharrows - New 1,875 LF $ 405 $ 759,375 Local Streets - Bike Lanes - New 2,700 LF $ 465 $ 1,255,500 Local Streets - Bike Lanes (Protected) - New 4,375 LF $ 465 $ 2,034,375 Seaplane (East) - New 2,800 LF $ 665 $ 1,862,000 Seaplane (North) - New 3,045 LF $ 575 $ 1,750,875 West Hornet Avenue - New 2,200 LF $ 480 $ 1,056,000 West Midway Avenue - New 1,900 LF $ 445 $ 845,500 West Redline Avenue - Reconstruction 3,650 LF $ 525 $ 1,916,250 Essex Drive - Reconstruction 1,115 LF $ 650 $ 724,750 West Midway Avenue - Reconstruction 2,775 LF $ 520 $ 1,443,000 Tower Avenue - Reconstruction 2,775 LF $ 540 $ 1,498,500 Monarch Street - Reconstruction 3,175 LF $ 630 $ 2,000,250 Big Whites - Reconstruction 4,900 LF $ 300 $ 1,470,000 Lexington Street - Reconstruction 1,450 LF $ 480 $ 696,000 Lexington Street - New 1,025 LF $ 460 $ 471,500 Saratoga Street - Reconstruction 1,450 LF $ 480 $ 696,000 Saratoga Street - New 1,025 LF $ 460 $ 471,500 Pan Am Way - Reconstruction 1,050 LF $ 465 $ 488,250 Pan Am Way - New 425 LF $ 395 $ 167,875 Roadway Resurfacing 1,750 LF $ 250 $ 437,500 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate\ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Street Work Page 11 of 20 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Unit Item Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 3 Central Avenue Realignment 1 LS $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 4 Traffic Signals - On -Site (Budget) 3 EA $ 250,000 $ 750,000 5 Conform to Ex Intersections - Budget During Construction 33 EA $ 100,000 $ 3,300,000 6 Temporary Access Roads to Ex Bldg's - During Construction 1 LS $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 7 Misc Frontage Improvements to Ex Bldg's to Remain 10,900 LF $ 100 $ 1,090,000 8 Driveways - Residential Alleys & Commercial Parking lots 130 EA $ 1,000 $ 130,000 9 Temp Barricades - At Entrances to Future Development 97 EA $ 1,500 $ 145,500 10 Traffic Calming Budget 1 LS $ 650,000 $ 650,000 11 Roundabout 1 EA $ 250,000 $ 250,000 SUBTOTAL ON -SITE STREET WORK COSTS $ 45,417,000 25% CONTINGENCY $ 11,354,250 TOTAL ON -SITE STREET WORK COSTS $ 56,771,000 P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate\ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Street Work Page 12 of 20 AUU•••■■ena. ■■■■u m■■■■■■ ■r v to ■L •71 • IN ■■I■ilenimIS -- �■ 11■ •■■■ •■111W Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TRANSPORTATION ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Improvement Project Project Amount Pro -Rata Share Amount OFF -SITE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS VEHICLE IMPROVEMENTS 1 Fernside Blvd / Otis Dr - Intersection & Signal Improvements 2 Main St / Pacific Ave - Signal Improvements 3 Webster St / RAMP - Signal Improvements 4 Park St / Otis Dr - Signal Improvements 5 Broadway / Tilden Way - Signal Improvements 6 High St / Fernside Blvd - Signal Improvements 7 Atlantic Ave / Constitution Way - Signal Modification BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS 8 Stargell Avenue Class I Trail - Main St to 5th Street 9 Main St Class I Trail - RAMP to Pacific Ave 10 Central Ave Class I & I I Trail - Pacific Ave to 4th St Subtotal Off-Site Project Improvements OFF -SITE PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS - Pro -Rata Share VEHICLE IMPROVEMENTS 11 Park St / Clement Ave - Intersection Improvements 12 Park St / Encinal Ave - Intersection Improvements 13 Broadway / Otis Dr - Intersection Improvements 14 Tilden Way / Blanding Ave / Fernside Blvd - Intersection Imp's 15 High St / Fernside Blvd - Signal Improvements / Transit Priority 16 High St / Otis Dr - Intersection Improvements 17 Island Dr / Otis Dr / Doolittle Dr - Intersection Improvements 18 Fernside Blvd / Otis Dr - Signal Improvements 19 Park St / Blanding Ave - Intersection Improvements 20 Challenger Dr /Atlantic Ave - Signal Improvements /Transit Priority 21 Park St / Lincoln Ave - Signal Improvements / Transit Priority PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS 22 Main St / Pacific Ave - Signal Improvements 23 Webster St / RAMP - Signal Improvements / Transit Priority 24 High St / Fernside Blvd - Intersection Improvements 25 Atlantic Ave / Constitution Way - Signal Modification 300,000 100% $ Included in Main Street Estimate 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 300,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 150,000 400,000 100% $ 400,000 Included in Main Street Estimate N.I.C. 100% N.I.C. $ 1,050,000 $ 550,000 10% $ 55,000 $ 200,000 8% $ 16,000 $ 275,000 9% $ 24,750 $ 350,000 5% $ 17,500 $ 100,000 30% $ 30,000 $ 275,000 14% $ 38,500 $ 550,000 7% $ 38,500 $ 50,000 10% $ 5,000 $ 215,000 12% $ 25,800 $ 100,000 4% $ 4,000 $ 100,000 10% $ 10,000 Included in Main Street Estimate $ 250,000 100% $ 250,000 Included in Item #15 Included in Item #7 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate\ 2013 \M I P \M I P_Summary.xls \Transportation Page 13 of 20 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Item Description Improvement Project Project Amount Pro -Rata Share Amount TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 26 Park St Transit Signal Priority - Blanding Ave to Otis Dr 27 RAMP Transit Corridor Improvements - Main St to Webster St (incl. transit signal priority, exclusive transit lane eastbound) 28 Stargell Ave Queue Jump Lanes - Main St & 5th St Intersections BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS 29 Stargell Avenue Class I Trail - Main St to 5th Street 30 Main St Class I Trail - RAMP to Pacific Ave 31 Central Ave Class I & I I Trail - Pacific Ave to 4th St 32 Oak Street Bicycle Blvd - Santa Clara Ave to Central Ave Subtotal Off -Site Project Contributions ADDITIONAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 33 BRT - Project Contribution 34 Shuttle Service 35 Ferry Terminal - Expand Pkg Lot @ Existing Terminal 36 Ferry Terminal - New Terminal @ Seaplane Lagoon 37 Transit Center 38 TDM Costs - Establish Program & Monitoring 39 Cross Alameda Trail - Class / Trail along RAMP from Main St to Constitution Way 40 Other Potential Project Improvements 41 Wayfinding Directional Signage Subtotal Additional Project Improvements P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate\ 2013 \M I P \M I P_Summary.xls \Transportation $ 500,000 13% $ 65,000 $ 4,750,000 10% $ 475,000 $ 3,000,000 100% $ 3,000,000 Included in Item 118 Included in Main Street Estimate Included in Item /110 $ 100,000 10% $ 10,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 570,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 6,250,000 $ 150,000 25% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% $ 4,065,050 $ 5,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 570,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 6,250,000 $ 150,000 $ 30,570,000 SUBTOTAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS $ 35,685,050 25% CONTINGENCY $ 8,921,263 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS $ 44,606,000 Page 14 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-1 or 1 • IN ■ •.ilenlirIS -• .A■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 1 Upgrade Existing Landscaping 2 Primary Open Spaces 3 Seaplane Lagoon Landscaping 4 Sports Complex 5 Enterprise Park ( "Southeast Park") 6 Landscaping Buffer for Substation 7 Bay Trail - Main Street, Berms & Seaplane Lagoon 8 Northern Shoreline Parking & Landscaping 9 Flood Protection Berm Landscaping 6.0 AC $ 217,500 $ 1,305,000 19.2 AC $ 435,000 $ 8,352,000 15.4 AC $ 650,000 $ 10,010,000 1 LS $ 20,000,000 $ 20,000,000 16.0 AC $ 350,000 $ 5,600,000 25,000 SF $ 8 $ 200,000 503,400 SF $ 8 $ 4,027,200 2.0 AC $ 350,000 $ 700,000 8.0 AC $ 217,500 $ 1,740,000 SUBTOTAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COSTS $ 51,934,000 25% CONTINGENCY $ 12,983,500 TOTAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COSTS $ 64,918,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Parks and Open Space Page 15 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� ■ -1 is 1 • IN ■ ■.lenlirIS -• �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PUBLIC BENEFITS ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount PUBLIC BENEFITS 1 Fire Station 2 Marina 3 Wetland Restoration / Creation 4 Northwest Territories Open Space 5 Corporation Yard - Pro -Rata Share 6 Bay Trail - NW Territories & VA Property 1 0 0 0 1 1 LS LS LS LS LS LS $ 4,500,000 BY OTHERS BY OTHERS BY OTHERS $ 1,000,000 $ 8,330,000 $ 4,500,000 BY OTHERS BY OTHERS BY OTHERS $ 1,000,000 $ 8,330,000 SUBTOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS COSTS $ 25% CONTINGENCY $ TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS COSTS $ 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate\ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Public Benefits 13,830,000 3,457,500 17,288,000 Page 16 of 20 AUU•••■■ena. ■■■■u m■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-i • IN ■ ■.Ilrrr1117• 1111•M■■iIW Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION ADMIN ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount CONSTRUCTION ADMIN 1 Construction Admin (4% costs) 0.04 LS $ 373,760,000 $ 14,950,400 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION ADMIN COSTS $ 14,950,000 25% CONTINGENCY N.I.C. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ADMIN COSTS $ 14,950,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \ConstrAdmin Page 17 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II► ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-i or ■. • IN ■■.glen101117• .A■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1 Professional Services (15% costs) 0.15 LS $ 373,760,000 $ 56,064,000 SUBTOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COSTS $ 56,064,000 25% CONTINGENCY N.I.C. TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COSTS $ 56,064,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \ProssionalSery Page 18 of 20 AU■■■■■■ ■■■II. ■■■■u 1■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-1 or 1 • IN ■■.glEsii01117• �■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEES ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Fee Amount ENTITLEMENT FEES 1 Entitlement Fees Subtotal Entitlement Fees CITY PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION FEES 2 Grading and Improvement Plan Review 3 Grading and Improvement Bond 4 Inspection Fee Subtotal City Plan Check & Inspection Fees Not Included N.I.C. N.I.C. Assume 1% of Infrastructure Costs $ 3,737,600 Assume 1% of Infrastructure Costs $ 3,737,600 Assume 2% of Infrastructure Costs $ 7,475,200 EBMUD FEES 5 System Capacity Charge (Potable): 5/8" ($22,260 / unit x 0 units) 1" ($55,760 / unit x 41 units 1 -1/2" ($111,520 / unit x 0 units) 2" ($178,430 / unit x 0 units) 6 Design and Inspection Fee $11,964 + $39 / LF x 60455 LF 7 Connection Fee: 5/8" $1,114 / unit x 0 units 1" $1,114 / unit x 41 units 1 -1/2" $3,001 / unit x 0 units 2" $3,306 / unit x 0 units 8 Fire Hydrant Fee ($3,012 / hydrant x 126 hydrants $16 / LF x 20 LF x 126) 9 EBMUD Bond (1% of Water Costs) 10 Account Fee ($38 / unit x 41 units) Subtotal EBMUD Fees $ 14,950,400 $ 2,286,160 $ $ 2,369,709 $ 45,674 $ $ 419,832 $ 126,630 $ 1,558 $ 5,249,563 SUBTOTAL FEES $ 20,200,000 25% CONTINGENCY N.I.C. TOTAL FEES $ 20,200,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \Fees Page 19 of 20 AUU•••■■ena. ■■■■u m■■■■■■ ■r v to ■� •-i or ■. • IN ■ •.ilenlirIS -• .A■ Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Amount IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE 1 Improvement Acceptance (0.5% Costs) 0.005 LS $ 373,760,000 $ 1,868,800 SUBTOTAL IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE COSTS $ 1,868,800 25% CONTINGENCY N.I.C. TOTAL IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE COSTS $ 1,869,000 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10\ Estimate \ 2013 \MIP \MIP_Summary.xls \ImprovementAccept Page 20 of 20 Appendix Typical Unit Costs AUU•••■■U■■II. ■■■■u m■■■■■■ ■r v to ■L •71 I' 1 • IN ■■.ilrrrs - - .A■ 11■ •■■■ •■111W Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Unit Unit Price DEMOLITION 1 Demo of Existing Pavement and Concrete 2 Demolition of Existing Sea Plane Lagoon Ramps 3 Clearing and Grubbing 4 Slurry Fill Existing Utilities - Development Parcels 5 Remove Existing Utilities - Development Parcels 6 Remove Existing Utilities - Within Proposed R/W's 7 Demolition of Ex Railroad Spurs GRADING 8 Northern Shoreline Stabilization - DDC 9 Northern Shoreline Stabilization - Concrete Piles 10 Sea Plane Lagoon - Northern Headwall 11 Sea Plane Lagoon - Revetment Repairs 12 Liquefaction Remediation - DDC DevAreas and Roadways 13 Liquefaction Remediation - DDC Berm 14 Import 15 Rough Grade - Assume 1' across Development Areas 16 Rock Slope Protection 17 Finish Super Pad 18 Erosion Control DEWATERING 19 Dewatering Budget SF $ 0.75 EA $ 100,000.00 AC $ 2,000.00 LF $ 10.00 LF $ 35.00 LF $ 35.00 LF $ 25.00 SF $ 1.00 LF $ 2,750.00 LF $ 3,000.00 LF $ 200.00 SF $ 1.00 SF $ 1.00 CY $ 25.00 CY $ 3.50 LF $ 200.00 AC $ 10,000.00 AC $ 3,500.00 LF $ 100.00 SANITARY SEWER 20 36" Sanitary Sewer - In existing pavement LF $ 275 21 24" Sanitary Sewer - In existing pavement LF $ 250 22 24" Sanitary Sewer LF $ 150 23 12" Sanitary Sewer - In existing pavement LF $ 140 24 12" Sanitary Sewer LF $ 70 25 8" Sanitary Sewer LF $ 50 26 Manholes (Assume 1 every 300') EA $ 6,000.00 27 Stubs to Future Development EA $ 2,000.00 28 Lift Stations (With Back -Up Power) EA $ 750,000.00 29 Temporary Lift Station EA $ 500,000.00 30 Connect New Main to Existing Trunk Main EA $ 10,000.00 31 Connect Existing Lateral to New Main EA $ 10,000.00 32 Utilidors LF $ 1,000.00 33 Replace Bay Mud - Within Utility Trenches CY $ 25.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Unit Costs.xls Page 1 of 3 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Item Description Unit Unit Price STORM DRAIN 34 60" Storm Drain 35 60" Storm Drain 36 48" Storm Drain 37 48" Storm Drain 38 36" Storm Drain 39 36" Storm Drain 40 24" Storm Drain 41 18" Storm Drain 42 Catch Basins 43 Manholes (Assume 1 every 500) Multi- Purpose Basin 44 Excavation 45 Inlet / Outlet 46 Passive Landscaping 47 Access Road 48 Treatment Flow Force Mains (12 -24') 49 Emergency and Treatment Flow Pump Station (With Back -Up Power) 50 Retrofit Ex Outlets to Sea Plane Lagoon / Inner Harbor 51 Mitigation for Storm Drain Outfall Retrofit 52 Utilidors 53 Stubs to Future Development (Budget) 54 Roadside Vegetated Swales / Water Quality Facilities 55 Replace Bay Mud - Within Utility Trenches - In existing pavement - In existing pavement - In existing pavement POTABLE WATER 56 16" Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) 57 12" Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) 58 8" Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) 59 Stubs to Future Development 60 Connect to Existing Waterline (Including Meter and Backflow) 61 Fire Hydrants (Assume 1 every 500) 62 Irrigation Services (Assume 1 every 0.33 Mile) 63 Utilidors 64 Connect Existing Lateral to New Main (Includes Meter) RECLAIMED WATER 65 8" Recycled Water Pipe (Including appurtenances) 66 Stubs to Future Development 67 Irrigation Services 68 Utilidors P: \1000 - 1099 \1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP Unit Costs.xls LF $ 240.00 LF $ 360.00 LF $ 192.00 LF $ 288.00 LF $ 144.00 LF $ 216.00 LF $ 96.00 LF $ 72.00 EA $ 3,200.00 EA $ 6,000.00 CY $ 5.00 EA $ 50,000.00 SF $ 3.00 SF $ 5.00 LF $ 144.00 EA $ 1,000,000.00 EA $ 250,000.00 EA $ 100,000.00 LF $ 1,000.00 EA $ 2,000.00 LF $ 40.00 CY $ 25.00 LF $ 140.00 LF $ 120.00 LF $ 60.00 EA $ 2,000.00 EA $ 15,000.00 EA $ 4,000.00 EA $ 2,000.00 LF $ 250.00 EA $ 10,000.00 LF $ 60.00 EA $ 2,000.00 EA $ 2,500.00 LF $ 250.00 Page 2 of 3 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Item Description Unit Unit Price STREET WORK 69 Clearing and Grubbing 70 Demo Existing Pavement and Concrete 71 Demo Existing Curb and Gutter 72 Sawcut Existing Pavement 73 Rough Grading 74 Fine Grading 75 AC Paving 76 Aggregate Base - Assume On -Site Reuse 77 2" AC Overlay 78 SubGrade Fabric 79 Pavement Sealant 80 Curb and Gutter 81 Median Curb 82 Sidewalk 83 Handicap Ramps (Assume 1 every 500') 84 Signing / Striping / Monuments - Budget (Main Street) 85 Signing / Striping / Monuments - Budget (In- Tract) 86 Parkway Landscaping and Irrigation 87 Median Landscaping and Irrigation 88 Roadside Vegetated Swales 89 Traffic Control 90 Construction Sequencing 91 Electroliers (Assume 1 every 150') 92 Traffic Signals - On -Site (Budget) 93 Conform to Existing Intersections 94 Driveways - Residential Alleys and Commercial Parking Lots 95 Temp Barricades - At Entrances to Future Development 96 Roundabout 97 Roadway Resurfacing DRY UTILITIES 98 Relocate Elec Transmission (115 kV) Poles - Main St (Replace with Steel Poles) 99 Relocate Exiting Street Lights - Main St 100 Joint Trench Facilities - Main St 101 Joint Trench Facilities - Off -Site (to Substation) 102 Joint Trench Facilities - On -Site 103 Additional Facilities for Multiple Utility Companies 104 Electroliers - Assume 1 every 150' 105 Utilidors 106 Establish New Connection to Historic Buildings to Remain LANDSCAPING 107 Upgrade Existing Landscaping 108 Parks / Open Space 109 Sea Plane Lagoon Landscaping 110 Entry Monuments (Budget) 111 Enterprise Park ( "Southeast Park') 112 Landscaping Buffer for Substation 113 Bay Trail - Main Street and Berms 114 Northern Shoreline Parking and Landscaping 115 Flood Protection Berm Landscaping LF $ 2.50 SF $ 1.00 LF $ 10.00 LF $ 4.00 CY $ 10.00 SF $ 0.50 SF -IN $ 0.55 SF -IN $ 0.10 SF $ 2.00 SF $ 0.35 SF $ 0.05 LF $ 25.00 LF $ 20.00 SF $ 5.00 LF $ 6.00 LF $ 10.00 LF $ 5.00 SF $ 7.50 SF $ 7.50 LF $ 40.00 LF $ 40.00 LF $ 20.00 LF $ 26.67 EA $ 250,000.00 EA $ 100,000.00 EA $ 1,000.00 EA $ 1,500.00 EA $ 250,000.00 LF $ 120.00 EA $ 50,000.00 LF $ 300.00 LF $ 120.00 LF $ 240.00 LF $ 120.00 LF $ 20.00 EA $ 4,000.00 LF $ 250.00 EA $ 10,000.00 AC $ 217,500.00 AC $ 435,000.00 AC $ 650,000.00 EA $ 100,000.00 AC $ 350,000.00 SF $ 8.00 SF $ 8.00 AC $ 350,000.00 AC $ 217,500.00 P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Unit Costs.xls Page 3 of 3 Street Linear Footage Costs 41111M ■UUU•I ■■MEII IIMIMM Mr ■L 4171 "r j. • I■ I■■rlirlrli7w AI! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE Note: Costs below assume an even split of roadway parking /planting and 2' median platform planting. R/W 103' R/W NORTH R/W 11' WALK 1' FC 10' BIKEWAY 2' PARKING / :PLANING' 11` EB TRAVEL 12' EB DEDICATED TRANSIT VEDIA\ 12' DEDICATES TRANSIT 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 5" AC 5 22" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Median Curb 10 Sidewalk 11 Bike Path 12 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 13 Signing / Striping / Monuments 14 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 15 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Roadway Low Points (2 Filter Boxes & 18" x -ing per 300') 17 Electroliers FC 11' _7' 12' .',,-3 TRAVEL .PARKING/ WALK 11SN � PLAN4�1• F'Y'.� T kr� ii__3 Included in Grading Included in Demolition 103 SF $ 0.50 $ 51.50 50 SF $ 2.75 $ 137.50 50 SF $ 2.20 $ 110.00 53 SF $ 0.35 $ 18.55 50 SF $ 0.05 $ 2.50 3 LF $ 25.00 $ 75.00 3 LF $ 20.00 $ 60.00 29 SF $ 6.50 $ 188.50 8.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 25.50 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 10.00 $ 10.00 4 SF $ 7.50 $ 30.00 7 SF $ 7.50 $ 52.50 1 LF $ 85.87 $ 85.87 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 859.42 SAY $ 860.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 1 of 25 .•II■■■!I■■■ ■. WWI 1 ■ •t \t■ ■r ._I .. 111 .. I■ ■L ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ !lrrrlirr17-w J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF PACIFIC AVENUE SOUTH R/W 86' R/W NORTH R/W 2° 7' 11' PARKING EB TRAVEL STR PED BUFFER 12' TURN 11' 7' WB TRAVEL PARKING STRIPED BUFFER 2II,E L©�A/ WALK BI .D 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Median 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Sidewalk 10 Handicap Ramps (assume 2 every 500) 11 Signing / Striping / Monuments 12 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 13 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 14 Electroliers Included in Grading Included in Demolition 86 SF $ 0.50 $ 43.00 61 SF $ 2.20 $ 134.20 61 SF $ 1.60 $ 97.60 64 SF $ 0.35 $ 22.40 61 SF $ 0.05 $ 3.05 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 12 SF $ 6.50 $ 78.00 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 10.00 $ 10.00 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 37.89 $ 37.89 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL PACIFIC AVENUE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 563.14 SAY $ 565.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 2 of 25 .■■■■■■■■■ ■. WWI 1•■•■■■ ■r ._I .. 111 .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�' J! 4111MM■■■NI!r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF ISLAND COLLECTOR - BIKE LANES WEST R/W 6' %LDA/ ; BIKE BI O 72' R/W 8'* 10'* PARKING SB TRAVEL STRIPED BUFFER NB TRAVEL PARKING STRIPED BUFFER EAST R/W 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Sidewalk 10 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 11 Signing / Striping / Monuments 12 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 13 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 14 Electroliers Included in Grading Included in Demolition 72 SF $ 0.50 $ 36.00 49 SF $ 2.20 $ 107.80 49 SF $ 1.60 $ 78.40 52 SF $ 0.35 $ 18.20 49 SF $ 0.05 $ 2.45 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 10 SF $ 6.50 $ 65.00 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 7.50 $ 7.50 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 35.01 $ 35.01 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL ISLAND COLLECTOR - BIKE LANES LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 487.36 SAY $ 490.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 3 of 25 .••■■■!I■■■ ■. MOM 1 ■ ■•\U■ ■r .21 .. 111 .. I■ ■L ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111■■■■■ ANIF Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF ISLAND COLLECTOR - BIKEWAY WEST R/W 70' R/W 10' ;LDA g,o:BIKEWAY B 0 .. 8'* DARKING 10"* SB TRAVEL 10'* NB TRAVEL FC z.t PARKING <LD 4810 EAST R/W WALK 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Median Curb 10 Sidewalk 11 Bike Path 12 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 13 Signing / Striping / Monuments 14 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 15 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 17 Electroliers Included in Grading Included in Demolition 70 SF $ 0.50 $ 35.00 33 SF $ 2.20 $ 72.60 33 SF $ 1.60 $ 52.80 36 SF $ 0.35 $ 12.60 33 SF $ 0.05 $ 1.65 3 LF $ 25.00 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 20.00 $ 20.00 10 SF $ 6.50 $ 65.00 8.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 25.50 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 7.50 $ 7.50 4 SF $ 7.50 $ 30.00 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 34.53 $ 34.53 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL ISLAND COLLECTOR - BIKEWAY LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 519.18 SAY $ 520.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 4 of 25 .■■■■■■ ■■■ ■. MOM 1 ■ •t\■■ ■r .21 .. 111 .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr ■"� J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF LOCAL STREETS - SHARROWS 56' g'* 10'* 10'* PARKING TRAVEL & TRAVEL & BIKE SHARROW BIKE SHARROW 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Sidewalk 10 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 11 Signing / Striping / Monuments 12 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 13 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 14 Electroliers Included in Grading Included in Demolition 56 SF $ 0.50 $ 28.00 33 SF $ 2.20 $ 72.60 33 SF $ 1.60 $ 52.80 36 SF $ 0.35 $ 12.60 33 SF $ 0.05 $ 1.65 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 10 SF $ 6.50 $ 65.00 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 31.17 $ 31.17 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL LOCAL STREETS - SHARROWS STREET LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 405.82 SAY $ 405.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 5 of 25 .■■■■■■■■■ ■. ■■!O1 1•■•■■■ ■r ._1 .. 111 .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■lrlrlir 117 J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF LOCAL STREETS - BIKE LANES NEST R/W 7' 7' 10' 10' 7' 7' 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Sidewalk 10 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 11 Signing / Striping / Monuments 12 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 13 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 14 Electroliers Included in Grading Included in Demolition 68 SF $ 0.50 $ 34.00 45 SF $ 2.20 $ 99.00 45 SF $ 1.60 $ 72.00 48 SF $ 0.35 $ 16.80 45 SF $ 0.05 $ 2.25 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 10 SF $ 6.50 $ 65.00 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 34.05 $ 34.05 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL LOCAL STREETS - BIKE LANES LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 465.10 SAY $ 465.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 6 of 25 .••■■■!I■■■ ■. ■■!O1 1•■•\M■ ■r .21 .. 111 .. I■ ■L ■ -I 11 j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111•■■■■ ■ ■IIIlr Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF LOCAL STREETS - PROTECTED BIKE LANES NEST R /,w. 68' R/W EAST R /W WALK ;fir, c••:a q 6' 7' 10'1' 10's 7 r='BPKE PARKING SB TRAVEL NB TRAVEL PARKING STRIPED BUFFER F, 6' BIKE STRIPED BUFFER ..x L: - WALK PI ' 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Sidewalk 10 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 11 Signing / Striping / Monuments 12 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 13 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 14 Electroliers "ir Included in Grading Included in Demolition 68 SF $ 0.50 $ 34.00 45 SF $ 2.20 $ 99.00 45 SF $ 1.60 $ 72.00 48 SF $ 0.35 $ 16.80 45 SF $ 0.05 $ 2.25 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 10 SF $ 6.50 $ 65.00 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 34.05 $ 34.05 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL LOCAL STREETS - PROTECTED BIKE LANES LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 465.10 SAY $ 465.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 7 of 25 4••■■■OIMMI. MOM 1 ■ ■•\U■ ■r .21 .. 111 .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ !lrrrkrr17-w J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF WEST MIDWAY AVENUE SOUTH R/IM EX 56' ROADWAY± NORTH R/W EXFC EX 12' EX 16' EX EX 16' EXFC EX 12° S/W FC TRAVEL 10,* 10'* WALK LDA/ WB TRAVEL BIO EB TRAVEL TRAVEL 12' BIKEWAY SAN FC 5' 6' Y �.Y'• ` _ Wr • "k, LDA/ WALK BIO 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4 "AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Median Curb 10 Sidewalk 11 Bike Path 12 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 13 Signing / Striping / Monuments 14 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 15 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" x -ing per 3009 17 Electroliers Included in Grading Included in Demolition 56 SF $ 0.50 $ 28.00 18.5 SF $ 2.20 $ 40.70 18.5 SF $ 1.60 $ 29.60 20 SF $ 0.35 $ 7.00 18.5 SF $ 0.05 $ 0.93 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 2 LF $ 20.00 $ 40.00 12 SF $ 6.50 $ 78.00 10.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 31.50 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 2 SF $ 7.50 $ 15.00 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 30.69 $ 30.69 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL WEST MIDWAY AVENUE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 443.42 SAY $ 445.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 8 of 25 .I■•■■■!I■■■ ■. WWI I ■ ■•\U■ ■r ._I .. 111 .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111•■■■■ ■ ■NINIF Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Unit Item Description Quantity Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF LEXINGTON STREET Note: Costs below are for Lexington Street south of West Ranger Avenue. WEST R/W EX 56' ROADWAY± EAST R/W EXEC EX 12' EX 8' EX 12' S/W PARKING t TRAVEL FC 6' 4' 5' 7' 11'* LDA/ SB BIKE 2' PARKING SB TRAVEL BIO STRIPED BUFFER WALK 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Sidewalk 11 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 12 Signing / Striping / Monuments 13 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 14 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18 "x -ing per 300) 15 Electroliers EXEC EX 12' EX 12' TRAVEL 11'* S/W FC 4' 1 6' NB TRAVEL LDA / BIO 0 LF $ 56 SF $ 0 LF $ 56 SF $ 33 SF $ 33 SF $ 36 SF $ 33 SF $ 2 LF $ 12 SF $ 1 LF $ 1 LF $ 8 SF $ 1 LF $ WALK 2.50 $ - 1.00 $ 56.00 10.00 $ - 0.50 $ 28.00 2.20 $ 72.60 1.60 $ 52.80 0.35 $ 12.60 0.05 $ 1.65 25.00 $ 50.00 6.50 $ 78.00 12.00 $ 12.00 5.00 $ 5.00 7.50 $ 60.00 30.93 $ 30.93 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL LEXINGTON STREET LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 459.58 SAY $ 460.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 9 of 25 .I■••■■!I■M► MOM 1 ■ ■•\U■ ■r ._1 .. V .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111•■■■■ ■ ■NI!r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF SARATOGA STREET Note: Costs below are for Saratoga Street south of West Ranger Avenue. WEST R/W EX 56' ROADWAY± EAST R/W EX 12' EXEC C EX 12' EX 12' EXFC EX 8' EX 12' 11'* SB TRAVEL PARKING S/W FC 7' 5' 4' 6' PARKING 2' NB BIKE STRIPED BUFFER 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Sidewalk 11 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 12 Signing / Striping / Monuments 13 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 14 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18 "x -ing per 300) 15 Electroliers 0 LF 56 SF 0 LF 56 SF 33 SF 33 SF 36 SF 33 SF 2 LF 12 SF 1 LF 1 LF 8 SF 1 LF 2.50 1.00 10.00 0.50 2.20 1.60 0.35 0.05 25.00 56.00 28.00 72.60 52.80 12.60 1.65 50.00 6.50 $ 78.00 12.00 $ 12.00 5.00 $ 5.00 7.50 $ 60.00 30.93 $ 30.93 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL SARATOGA STREET LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 459.58 SAY $ 460.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 10 of 25 4••■■■■■M. MOM 1•■U \t■ ■r .21 .. ■ .. I■ ■L ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF PAN AM WAY Note: Costs below are for Pan Am Way north of West Redline Avenue. WEST R/W EX 54' ROADWAY± EAST R/W EX 1 6' WALK EXFC S/W 5' FC 6' EX 16.25' EX TRAVEL 9' - 9' EXEC EX 16.25' I EX 5' EX 4.5' TRAVEL I 'LDA 5/W 6' FC 4, 5' NB NB TRAVEL 2' BIKE LDA/ WALK STRIPED BIO BUFFER LOA/ BIKE 2' SB TRAVEL BIO STRIPED BUFFER. 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Sidewalk 10 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 11 Signing / Striping / Monuments 12 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 13 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 14 Electroliers 54 SF $ 31 SF $ 31 SF $ 34 SF $ 31 SF $ 2 LF $ 11 SF $ 1 LF $ 1 LF $ 9 SF $ 1 LF $ Included in Grading Included in Demolition 0.50 $ 27.00 2.20 $ 1.60 $ 0.35 $ 0.05 $ 25.00 $ 6.50 $ 12.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.50 $ 68.20 49.60 11.90 1.55 50.00 71.50 12.00 5.00 67.50 30.57 $ 30.57 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL PAN AM WAY LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 394.82 SAY $ 395.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 11 of 25 .••■ ■ ■!I■ ■ ■ ■. MOM 1•■• \t■ ■r ._1 .. 111 .. I■ ■L ■ •I 1 j_ • l• !lrrlrlrr117-w J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF SEAPLANE (NORTH) Note: Costs below assume an even split of roadway parking /planting. SOUTH R/W 76' R/W NORTH R/W 13' WALK F'1 PARKING / BIKE r PLANTIN!Gt 10' 10 EB TRAVEL WB TRAVEL STRIPED BUFFER 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Median Curb 10 Sidewalk 11 Bike Path 12 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 13 Signing / Striping / Monuments 14 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 15 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Roadway Low Points (2 Filter Boxes & 18" x -ing per 300') 17 Electroliers 6 t . BIKE ePARKING h PLANTIN0r1 FC 13' WALK Included in Grading Included in Demolition 76 SF $ 0.50 $ 38.00 40 SF $ 2.20 $ 88.00 40 SF $ 1.60 $ 64.00 43 SF $ 0.35 $ 15.05 40 SF $ 0.05 $ 2.00 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 0 LF $ 20.00 $ - 26 SF $ 6.50 $ 169.00 0 SF $ 3.00 $ - 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 0 SF $ 7.50 $ - 7 SF $ 7.50 $ 52.50 1 LF $ 78.67 $ 78.67 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL SEAPLANE (NORTH) LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 574.22 SAY $ 575.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 12 of 25 .■■■■■■■■■ ■. MOM 1•■M■■■ ■r ._1 .. ■ I■ ■L ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■lrrrlirr17-w J! 4111MM■■■NI!r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF SEAPLANE (EAST) Note: Costs below assume an even split of roadway parking /planting. 85' R/W EAST R/W 15' FC 12' 13'* 13' 15' WALK BIKEWAY LOA . :PARKING/ ':'?PLANTING SB TRAVEL NB TRAVEL PARKING / PLANTING', WALK 8 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Median Curb 10 Sidewalk 11 Bike Path 12 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 13 Signing / Striping / Monuments 14 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 15 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Roadway Low Points (2 Filter Boxes & 18" x -ing per 300') 17 Electroliers Included in Grading Included in Demolition 85 SF $ 0.50 $ 42.50 30 SF $ 2.20 $ 66.00 30 SF $ 1.60 $ 48.00 33 SF $ 0.35 $ 11.55 30 SF $ 0.05 $ 1.50 3 LF $ 25.00 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 20.00 $ 20.00 30 SF $ 6.50 $ 195.00 10.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 31.50 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 3 SF $ 7.50 $ 22.50 7 SF $ 7.50 $ 52.50 1 LF $ 79.87 $ 79.87 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL SEAPLANE (EAST) LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 662.92 SAY $ 665.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 13 of 25 .I■1111•M■■■ ■. MOM 1 ■ •t \t■ ■r ._1 .. 111 .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 11 j_ • I■ !lrrrlirr17-w J! 4111• ■ ■ ■IIlr Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (NEW) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF WEST HORNET SOUTH R/W FC r 5' LDn, HIKE L�I�) 70' R/W 7' PARKING STRIPED BUFFER 11'* _ EB TRAVEL 11'* WB TRAVEL 7' PARKINS HIKE STRIPED "s BUFFER 1 Grading 2 Remove Existing Pavement 3 Fine Grading 4 4" AC 5 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 6 SubGrade Fabric 7 Pavement Sealant 8 Curb & Gutter 9 Median Curb 10 Sidewalk 11 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 12 Signing / Striping / Monuments 13 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 14 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 15 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 16 Electroliers LDA /_ RIO • NORTH R/W WALK Included in Grading Included in Demolition 70 SF $ 0.50 $ 35.00 45 SF $ 2.20 $ 99.00 45 SF $ 1.60 $ 72.00 48 SF $ 0.35 $ 16.80 45 SF $ 0.05 $ 2.25 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 0 LF $ 20.00 $ - 12 SF $ 6.50 $ 78.00 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 0 SF $ 7.50 $ - 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 34.05 $ 34.05 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL WEST HORNET LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 479.10 SAY $ 480.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \ Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \New Streets Page 14 of 25 4•1111•M■■■ ■. MOM 1 ■ •t \t■ ■r .21 .. '! .. I■ ■L ■ -I 11 j_ • I■ ■lrlrlir 117 J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF WEST REDLINE AVENUE - RECONSTRUCTION TH EX 6' S/W 5' 'WALK EX 55' ROADWAY+ EX 6' LDA TRAVEL 5 FC 10'* LDA/ TRAVEL BIO EXL 10' * TRAVEL EX 16.5' TRAVEL EXFC NORTH R/W EX6' EX L. LDA S/W FC 5, 5, LDA % WALK 810 12' BIKEWAY 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Median Curb 11 Sidewalk 12 Bike Path 13 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 14 Signing / Striping / Monuments 15 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 17 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 18 Electroliers 1 LF $ 2.50 $ 2.50 42 SF $ 1.00 $ 42.00 2 LF $ 10.00 $ 20.00 55 SF $ 0.50 $ 27.50 18.5 SF $ 2.20 $ 40.70 18.5 SF $ 1.60 $ 29.60 20 SF $ 0.35 $ 7.00 18.5 SF $ 0.05 $ 0.93 3 LF $ 25.00 $ 75.00 2 LF $ 20.00 $ 40.00 10 SF $ 6.50 $ 65.00 10.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 31.50 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 3 SF $ 7.50 $ 22.50 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 30.93 $ 30.93 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL WEST REDLINE AVENUE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 527.16 SAY $ 525.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 15 of 25 4•rr■■■!I■■■ ■. MOM 1 ■ •t \t■ ■r ._1 .. V .. I■ ■L ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF ESSEX DRIVE - RECONSTRUCTION SOUTH R/W EX 12 S/W EX 73' ROADWAY+ NORTH R/W EXEC 6' WALK EX 19' C TRAVEL if EXEC EX 20' EX 19' EX 12' EC MEDIAN PARKING S/W 6' 8'* 10'* ' 10'* LDA/ PARKING EB TRAVEL WB TRAVEL BI0 8'* PARKING TRAVEL 3' LDA 10' BIKEWAY 6' 6' x LDA/ WALK BI0 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Median Curb 11 Sidewalk 12 Bike Path 13 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 14 Signing / Striping / Monuments 15 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 17 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" x -ing per 300) 18 Electroliers Included in Dry Utilities 0 LF $ 2.50 $ 90 SF $ 1.00 $ 2 LF $ 10.00 $ 73 SF $ 0.50 $ 33 SF $ 2.20 $ 33 SF $ 1.60 $ 36 SF $ 0.35 $ 33 SF $ 0.05 $ 3 LF $ 25.00 $ 1 LF $ 20.00 $ 12 SF $ 6.50 $ 8.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 3 SF $ 7.50 $ 12 SF $ 7.50 $ 1 LF $ 34.53 $ 90.00 20.00 36.50 72.60 52.80 12.60 1.65 75.00 20.00 78.00 25.50 12.00 5.00 22.50 90.00 34.53 TOTAL ESSEX DRIVE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 648.68 SAY $ 650.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 16 of 25 .■■■■■■■■■ ■. ■■..II 1•■•■■■ ■r ._1 .. V .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■lrlrlir 117 J! 4111MM■■■NI!r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF WEST MIDWAY AVENUE - RECONSTRUCTION SOUTH R / Vd EX 56' ROADWAY± NORTH R/W EXFE EX 12' EX 16' EX EX 16' EXEC EX 12° S/W FC TRAVEL 10,* 10'* WALK LOA/ WB TRAVEL BIO EB TRAVEL TRAVEL 12' BIKEWAY S/W FC 5' 6' Y �.Y'• ` _ Wr • "k, LDA/ WALK BIO 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Median Curb 11 Sidewalk 12 Bike Path 13 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 14 Signing / Striping / Monuments 15 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 17 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" x -ing per 300) 18 Electroliers 0 LF $ 2.50 $ - 56 SF $ 1.00 $ 56.00 2 LF $ 10.00 $ 20.00 56 SF $ 0.50 $ 28.00 18.5 SF $ 2.20 $ 40.70 18.5 SF $ 1.60 $ 29.60 20 SF $ 0.35 $ 7.00 18.5 SF $ 0.05 $ 0.93 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 2 LF $ 20.00 $ 40.00 12 SF $ 6.50 $ 78.00 10.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 31.50 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 2 SF $ 7.50 $ 15.00 10 SF $ 7.50 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 30.69 $ 30.69 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL WEST MIDWAY AVENUE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 519.42 SAY $ 520.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 17 of 25 4•1111M I■■■ ■. MOM 1 ■ ■•\U■ ■r ._1 .. V .. I■ ■L ■ -I 11 j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111•■■■■ ■ ■IIlr Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF TOWER AVENUE - RECONSTRUCTION 11TH 59' ROADWAY± NORTH R/W EX 14' TRAVEL 12' BIKEWAY EX 12' TRAVEL 11'* EB TRAVEL 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Median Curb 11 Sidewalk 12 Bike Path 13 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 14 Signing / Striping / Monuments 15 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 17 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" x -ing per 300) 18 Electroliers (assume 1 every 150') EX 14' TRAVEL '41- TC 11'* WB TRAVEL EXEC EX 5' _/ALK BIOS" 0 LF 59 SF 2 LF 59 SF 20.5 SF 20.5 SF 22 SF 20.5 SF 2 LF 2 LF 12 SF 10.5 SF 1 LF 1 LF 3 SF 10 SF 1 LF $ 2.50 $ - $ 1.00 $ 59.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 0.50 $ 29.50 $ 2.20 $ 45.10 $ 1.60 $ 32.80 $ 0.35 $ 7.70 $ 0.05 $ 1.03 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 20.00 $ 40.00 $ 6.50 $ 78.00 $ 3.00 $ 31.50 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.50 $ 22.50 $ 7.50 $ 75.00 $ 31.41 $ 31.41 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL TOWER AVENUE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 540.54 SAY $ 540.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 18 of 25 .•r.■■■■■■■ ■. MOM 1 ■ ■U\U■ ■r .21 .. ■ .. I■ ■L ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111MM■M■IIlr Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF MONARCH STREET - RECONSTRUCTION PdF T R/W EX 72' ROADWAY± EAST R/W EX SIDEWALK /PARk11 3' LDA (WIDTH VARIES) 9' 6' FC t2' EXFC i EX 16.5' TRAVEL WALK LDA/ 310 BIKEWAY EXc. 13.* SB TRAVEL EXFC EX 16.5' EX 6' EX 6' TRAVEL LDA S/W 13'* FC 6' 6' NB TRAVEL LDA/ WALK 310 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Median Curb 11 Sidewalk 12 Bike Path 13 Handicap Ramps (Assume 1 every 500) 14 Signing / Striping / Monuments 15 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 15 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 16 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 17 Electroliers 1 LF $ 2.50 $ 72 SF $ 1.00 $ 1 LF $ 10.00 $ 2.50 72.00 10.00 72 SF $ 0.50 $ 36.00 23 SF $ 2.20 $ 50.60 23 SF $ 1.60 $ 36.80 26 SF $ 0.35 $ 9.10 23 SF $ 0.05 $ 1.15 3 LF $ 25.00 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 20.00 $ 20.00 15 SF $ 6.50 $ 97.50 10.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 31.50 1 LF $ 6.00 $ 6.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 4 SF $ 7.50 $ 30.00 15 SF $ 7.50 $ 112.50 1 LF $ 32.85 $ 32.85 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL MONARCH STREET LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ SAY $ 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com 628.50 630.00 P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 19 of 25 4.1111• I■M. MOM 1 ■ ■•\U■ ■r .21 .. 111 .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111•■■■■ ■ ■NINIF Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF LEXINGTON STREET - RECONSTRUCTION )T EX 56' ROADWAY± EAST R/W EXEC EX 12' EXEC EX 8' EX 12' EX 12' EX 12' S/W PARKING FC 4' 5' 7' LDA/ SB BIKE 2' PARKING BIO STRIPED BUFFER 6' WALK TRAVEL 11'* SB TRAVEL TRAVEL S/W FC 11'* 4' 6' NB TRAVEL LDA/ WALK BIO 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Sidewalk 11 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 12 Signing / Striping / Monuments 13 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 14 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 15 Electroliers 0 LF $ 2.50 $ - 56 SF $ 1.00 $ 56.00 2 LF $ 10.00 $ 20.00 56 SF $ 0.50 $ 28.00 33 SF $ 2.20 $ 72.60 33 SF $ 1.60 $ 52.80 36 SF $ 0.35 $ 12.60 33 SF $ 0.05 $ 1.65 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 50.00 12 SF $ 6.50 $ 78.00 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 8 SF $ 7.50 $ 60.00 1 LF $ 30.93 $ 30.93 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL LEXINGTON STREET LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 479.58 SAY $ 480.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 20 of 25 4.1111• I■M. MOM 1 ■ ■•\U■ ■r ._1 .. V .. I■ ■L ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111•■■■■ ■ ■NI!r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF SARATOGA STREET - RECONSTRUCTION EX 56' ROADWAY± EAST R/W EXFC EXFC EX 12 S/W EC 6' 4' WALK LDA/ BIO EX 12' TRAVEL 11'* SR TRAVEL EX 12' EX B EX 12' TRAVEL PARKING S/W EC 11'* 7' 5' 4' 6' NB TRAVEL PARKING 2' NB BIKE 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Sidewalk 11 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 12 Signing / Striping / Monuments 13 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 14 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 15 Electroliers STRIPED BUFFER v4 4�s1' WALK 0 LF $ 2.50 $ 56 SF $ 1.00 $ 2 LF $ 10.00 $ 56 SF $ 0.50 $ 33 SF $ 2.20 $ 33 SF $ 1.60 $ 36 SF $ 0.35 $ 33 SF $ 0.05 $ 2 LF $ 25.00 $ 12 SF $ 6.50 $ 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 8 SF $ 7.50 $ 1 LF $ 30.93 $ 56.00 20.00 28.00 72.60 52.80 12.60 1.65 50.00 78.00 12.00 5.00 60.00 30.93 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL SARATOGA STREET LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 479.58 SAY $ 480.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 21 of 25 .■■■■■■■■■ ■. MOM 1•■•■■■ ■r ._1 .. V .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■ ■rrr�rr�"� J! 4111MM■■■NI!r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF PAN AM WAY - RECONSTRUCTION EX 54' ROADWAY+ EAST R/W EXEC EXQ EX 12' EX 16.25' EX 16.25' S/W TRAVEL 4- TRAVEL FC 6' 5' 6' 9' 9' _ WALK LDA/ BIKE 2' SB TRAVEL NB TRAVEL 1 2' BIO STRIPED STRIPED BUFFER EXEC EX 5' EX 4.5 LD A FC 6 4' BIKE LDA/ BIO 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 4 Fine Grading 5 4" AC 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 7 SubGrade Fabric 8 Pavement Sealant 9 Curb & Gutter 10 Sidewalk 11 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 12 Signing / Striping / Monuments 13 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 14 Roadway Low Points (2 CB's & 18" crossing every 300') 15 Electroliers 1 LF $ 2.50 49 SF $ 1.00 2 LF $ 10.00 54 SF $ 0.50 31 SF $ 2.20 31 SF $ 1.60 34 SF $ 0.35 31 SF $ 0.05 2 LF $ 25.00 11 SF $ 6.50 1 LF $ 12.00 1 LF $ 5.00 9 SF $ 7.50 1 LF $ 30.57 2.50 49.00 20.00 27.00 68.20 49.60 11.90 1.55 50.00 71.50 12.00 5.00 67.50 30.57 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL PAN AM WAY LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 466.32 SAY $ 465.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 22 of 25 .••■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■. ■■..I I ■ ■U\U■ ■r ._I .. ■ .. I■ ■1 ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■lrlrlir 117 J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS (RECONSTRUCTION) ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF BIG WHITES - RECONSTRUCTION R/W rd EX 32' ROADWAY± R/W EXFC EX 4.5' EX 5' EX. EX 11.25' EX 11.25' WALK 6' WALK LDA TRAVEL TRAVEL FC FC 6' 10' 10' LDA/ TRAVEL WITH TRAVEL WITH BIO BIKE SHARROW BIKE SHARROW rr: J.' 1 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LF $ 2.50 $ 2.50 2 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 27 SF $ 1.00 $ 27.00 3 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 2 LF $ 10.00 $ 20.00 4 Fine Grading 32 SF $ 0.50 $ 16.00 5 4" AC 18.5 SF $ 2.20 $ 40.70 6 16" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 18.5 SF $ 1.60 $ 29.60 7 SubGrade Fabric 20 SF $ 0.35 $ 7.00 8 Pavement Sealant 18.5 SF $ 0.05 $ 0.93 9 Curb & Gutter 1 LF $ 25.00 $ 25.00 10 Vertical Curb 1 LF $ 20.00 $ 20.00 11 Sidewalk 6 SF $ 6.50 $ 39.00 12 Handicap Ramps (Assume 1 every 5009 1 LF $ 6.00 $ 6.00 13 Signing / Striping / Monuments 1 LF $ 5.00 $ 5.00 14 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 6 SF $ 7.50 $ 45.00 15 Roadway Low Points (1 CB & 18" crossing every 300') 1 LF $ 13.79 $ 13.79 16 Electroliers Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL BIG WHITES LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 297.51 SAY $ 300.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Reconstructed Streets Page 23 of 25 4U1111M I■■■ ■. WWI 1 ■ ■U\U■ Mr ..211 .. ■.. I■ ■L 11-1 >tr j. • I■ ■ ■rir�r ■�� 1■ 4■ ••••••■111111r Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF MAIN STREET - ATLANTIC AVENUE TO MAIN GATE Note: Bay Trail & Buffer included in In -Tract costs Er TI'EET LIGHTS AND II' l BE RELOCATED .DERGROUND LDA • ,8 TRAIL 4' DG LXt.r _ EX 10' _ / EX 11' CLEAR± RAVEEL _,I IJJLDLI.L <`WE5T EC 10, BIOSWALE/ LANDSCAPE 12' BIKEWAY 19 it MAINTENANCE PARKIN!'/ ME, I. =•i, EX 12' TRAVEL 11.5' SB TRAVEL* 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Grading 3 Fine Grading 4 Sawcut Existing Pavement 5 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 6 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 7 5" AC 8 22" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 9 SubGrade Fabric 10 Pavement Sealant 11 Curb & Gutter 12 Median Curb 13 Sidewalk 14 Bike Path 15 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500') 16 Signing / Striping / Monuments 17 Local Storm Drain (24" main & 18" crossings every 300') 18 Storm Drain Catch Basins (Assume 1 every 3009 19 Storm Drain Filter Boxes (Assume 2 every 300') 20 Roadside Vegetated Swales 21 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 22 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 23 Traffic Control 24 Construction Sequencing 25 Electroliers EX 12' TRAVEL 10' TURN LANE ExEP EX 12' TRAVEL 11.5' NB TRAVEL* EAST FC EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO REMAIN* -2' BUFFER 1 LF $ 2.50 $ 2.50 6 CY $ 10.00 $ 60.00 66 SF $ 0.50 $ 33.00 0 LF $ 4.00 $ - 50 SF $ 1.00 $ 50.00 0 LF $ 10.00 $ 30 SF $ 2.75 $ 82.50 30 SF $ 2.20 $ 66.00 33 SF $ 0.35 $ 11.55 30 SF $ 0.05 $ 1.50 3 LF $ 25.00 $ 75.00 1 LF $ 20.00 $ 20.00 2 SF $ 6.50 $ 13.00 10.5 SF $ 3.00 $ 31.50 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 10.00 $ 10.00 1 LF $ 110.00 $ 110.00 1 LF $ 10.67 $ 10.67 1 LF $ 66.67 $ 66.67 1 LF $ 60.00 $ 60.00 9 SF $ 7.50 $ 67.50 19 SF $ 7.50 $ 142.50 1 LF $ 40.00 $ 40.00 1 LF $ 20.00 $ 20.00 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL MAIN STREET - ATLANTIC AVENUE TO MAIN GATE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 985.88 SAY $ 985.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Main St (Atlantic to Main Gate) Page 24 of 25 4••U■■OIMMI. MOM 1 ■ •t \t■ ■r .21 .. 111 .. I■ ■L ■ -I 1r j_ • I■ ■lrlrkrr11' J! Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ALAMEDA POINT BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL PER FOOT STREET COSTS ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price October 31, 2013 Job No.: 1087 -010 Cost per LF MAIN STREET - PACIFIC AVENUE TO ATLANTIC AVENUE Note: Bay Trail & Buffer included in In -Tract costs L =, EX 115kV POLES TO REMAIN EX 12' TRAIL EXTC b WEST FC 4 10' 12' DG BIOSWALE/ BIKEWAY LANDSCAPE 4'± - e - EX 1:i r'- AVEL En 12 EX 12' TRAVEL 4 . 11' TRAVEL SB TRAVEL 1 Clearing & Grubbing 2 Grading 3 Fine Grading 4 Sawcut Existing Pavement 5 Remove Existing Pavement / Concrete 6 Demo Ex Curb & Gutter 7 5" AC 8 22" AB (Assume On -Site Re -Use) 9 2" AC Overlay Existing Pavement 10 SubGrade Fabric 11 Pavement Sealant 12 Curb & Gutter 13 Median Curb 14 Sidewalk 15 Bike Path (Existing Pavement to Remain) 16 Handicap Ramps (Assume 2 every 500) 17 Signing / Striping / Monuments 18 Local Storm Drain (24" main & 18" crossings every 300') 19 Storm Drain Catch Basins (Assume 2 every 300) 20 Roadside Vegetated Swales 21 Median Irrigation and Landscaping 22 Parkway Irrigation and Landscaping 23 Traffic Control 24 Construction Sequencing 25 Electroliers 11' TURN EX 14' EX 13' TRAVEL SHOULDER & EAST PARKING F, 11' NB TRAVEL 16' 310SWALE /LANDSCAPE EXTC 0 LF $ 2.50 $ 0 CY $ 10.00 $ - 0 SF $ 0.50 $ - 3 LF $ 4.00 $ 12.00 21.5 SF $ 1.00 $ 21.50 1 LF $ 10.00 $ 10.00 0 SF $ 2.75 $ 0 SF $ 2.20 $ - 42 SF $ 2.00 $ 84.00 0 SF $ 0.35 $ - 0 SF $ 0.05 $ - 1 LF $ 25.00 $ 25.00 2 LF $ 20.00 $ 40.00 0 SF $ 6.50 $ - 0 SF $ 3.00 $ - 1 LF $ 12.00 $ 12.00 1 LF $ 10.00 $ 10.00 1 LF $ 110.00 $ 110.00 1 LF $ 21.33 $ 21.33 2 LF $ 60.00 $ 120.00 4 SF $ 7.50 $ 30.00 26 SF $ 7.50 $ 195.00 1 LF $ 40.00 $ 40.00 1 LF $ 20.00 $ 20.00 Included in Dry Utilities TOTAL MAIN STREET - PACIFIC AVENUE TO ATLANTIC AVENUE LINEAR FOOT COSTS $ 750.83 SAY $ 750.00 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866 -0322 • www.cbandg.com P: \1000 - 1099\ 1087 -10 \Estimate \2013 \MIP \MIP_Roadway Costs (Update).xls \Main St (Pacific to Atlantic) Page 25 of 25 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATED DRAFT October 31, 2013 APPENDICES H) FISCAL ANALYSIS (WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES) To be presented to the City Council at the November 19, 2013 public hearing. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. EXHIBIT B ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ADDENDUM SHEET The Final Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) for Alameda Point will incorporate the following addendums to the Updated Draft MIP, dated October 31, 2013. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Revise all references of 18- inches of built -in sea level rise protection to 24- inches. Remove "initial" and near - term" references to the flood protection system. Add sentences in paragraph 5, after sentence 2, "The 24- inches of sea level rise protection will be provided by a system of perimeter levees surrounding the Development and Reuse Areas. The timing of the construction of the comprehensive levee system is subject to adequate funds being generated through the Alameda Point development impact / infrastructure fee program and other potential public and private sources of funds. It is anticipated that it will take multiple years to accumulate the required funding to construct the levee system. Therefore to facilitate initial phases of development, the Development Areas will also be raised to an elevation that provides built -in protection from 18 inches of sea level rise." Add sentence to the end of the section, "The implementation of the MIP shall be consistent with the City Council Adopted Fiscal Neutrality Policy for Alameda Point." II. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE I. Backbone Infrastructure Costs & Value Engineering Revise sentence 1 in paragraph 1, "The backbone infrastructure for Alameda Point described in the MIP is estimated to cost approximately $550 to $600 million." Revise the Town Center Sub -Phase 1A scenario to include 32 acres of developable area and have backbone infrastructure costs estimated at $62.7 M. Add sentence to the end of the section, "The implementation of the MIP shall be consistent with the City Council Adopted Fiscal Neutrality Policy for Alameda Point." III. DEMOLITION AND PRESERVATION C. Environmental Remediation Add sentence in paragraph 5, before last sentence, "Additional measures, such as slurry walls, may be required to preclude the migration of groundwater contamination during the construction dewatering process associated with utility installations." Add last paragraph stating, "There are existing Industrial Waste Lines within the Reuse Areas that have potential low- levels of radiation contamination. These existing pipelines may be abandoned in place through the Navy's Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 remediation efforts, although this is still under discussion between the Navy and environmental regulatory agencies. In the case that new utility or street construction encounters these lines, special contractor qualifications and procedures will be required." Revise Figure 8 to depict the updated locations of utilidors and slurry walls based on the most recent information available regarding the Navy's remediation efforts. IV. FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING Revise all references of 18- inches of built -in sea level rise protection to 24- inches. Remove "initial" and near - term" references to the flood protection system. A.2 Benchmarking Sea Level Rise Criteria Revise sentence 3 in paragraph 2, "Levees will also require an additional 1 -foot of protection above this criteria, as freeboard, providing additional factor of safety and protection." A.3 Proposed Sea Level Rise Protection Add sentence in paragraph 2, after sentence 1, "The MIP assumes that both the Development and Reuse Areas will be protected from potential flooding sources and sea level rise." Revise sentence 2 in paragraph 2, "Accordingly, the Development Areas are proposed to be protected by a perimeter levee with built -in protection from 24- inches of sea level rise as well as raising the inland areas to a minimum elevation that provides built -in protection from 18- inches of sea level rise." Add sentence to the end of paragraph 2, "Lastly, the MIP recommends that permanent land uses shall not be placed in the FEMA designated 100 -year flood zones without the necessary flood protection measures being implemented." A.5.b. Development Areas Replace the paragraph 1 with, "The Development Areas will be protected by a perimeter levee system that is designed to provide built -in protection for 24- inches of sea level rise. The timing of the construction of the comprehensive levee system is subject to adequate funds being generated through the Alameda Point development impact / infrastructure fee program and other potential public and private funding sources. Accordingly to facilitate initial phases of development, the inland Development Areas will also be elevated to provide built -in protection from 18- inches of sea level rise. The minimum elevations of the inland Development Areas will be designed to be at or above the 100 -year tidal elevation plus 18- inches of sea level rise. The finish floors of all new structures will be constructed 24- inches above the 100 -year tidal elevation. The minimum elevations of the perimeter areas of the Development Areas will be designed to be at or above the 100 -year tidal elevation, plus consideration for wave /wind run up, plus 24- inches of sea level rise plus 1 -foot of additional protection (freeboard consistent with FEMA regulations for coastal levees)." Revise sentence 7 to end with "plus 1 -foot of additional protection (freeboard)." Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 2 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 A.6. Site Grading Design Criteria Update Table 5 to reflect the updated elevations. Revise Figures 11, 13 and 14 to depict updated initial flood protection system. A.10. Earthwork Quantities Revise the estimated quantity of fill to be 1,900,000 cubic yards and the estimate quantity of import material to be 1,875,000 cubic yards. Add sentence to paragraph 1, after sentence 4, "Barging the required import material to the site is preferable, such that environmental impacts are minimized." C. Value Engineering Opportunities Add last paragraphs, "The MIP evaluated an additional value engineering alternative of not stabilizing the northern shoreline. This would eliminate the construction costs associated with the shoreline stabilization measures. However, this alternative would require that the critical infrastructure within the potential zone of deformation be relocated. The infrastructure that would be relocated includes Pump Station R, the 20 -inch force main and Main Street. Also, there would be approximately 52 acres of land within the potential developable area or Sports Complex area that would be within the zone of deformation and could not be utilized for permanent improvements. Lastly, this alternative would allow a potential seismic hazard to be unmitigated which could have impacts to the adjacent Oakland / Alameda Estuary and the Port of Oakland's shipping channel. Accordingly, this alternative is not recommended to be implemented." In regards to the flood and sea level rise protection system, additional alternatives may be pursued and evaluated depending on the future development proposals. For example, if development is set back from the shoreline an adequate distance, then the wind/wave run up component of the flood protection criteria could be avoided. This may be feasible along the southeastern shoreline where the wind / wave run up is estimated to be larger than the remainder of the site. Another alternative example could include a scenario that includes a large development area proposal that could commit to building a comprehensive levee system surrounding the subject area as an initial phase improvement. In this case, the raising of grades for development areas interior to that levee system could be avoided. In summary, alternative flood protection measures and systems may be proposed and are subject to the approval of the Public Works Director, such that the alternatives meet the design parameters outlined in the MIP, specifically that 24" inches of sea level rise protection is built in. V. STREET SYSTEM B. Proposed On -Site Street System Add new paragraphs at the end of the section, "The alignment and configuration of Orion Street north of the Town Center Sub - District is subject to future planning efforts during the preparation and processing of the Main Street Neighborhood Master Plan. The proposed street system includes the reconstruction of Main Street, reducing from 4 travel lanes to 3 travel lanes and incorporating a protected bikeway and widened pedestrian trail. As part of the Main Street improvements, the Main Street / Pacific Avenue / Central Avenue intersection will be reconfigured to eliminate the significant offset Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 3 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 in the north -south direction. The intersection reconfiguration will either include the construction of a round -about or the realignment of Central Avenue to the west in alignment with Main Street. Additionally, as the proposed street improvements for Central Avenue extend to the southeast, the intersection of Central Avenue / Lincoln Street / West Ticonderoga Avenue will also need to be reconfigured. This intersection also has an offset due to Encinal High School's facilities. This intersection is anticipated to be reconfigured to align the intersection at the existing Lincoln Street / Central Avenue intersection or as accepted by the Public Works Director. This will require acquisition of right -of -way from the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD). The feasibility of these intersection realignments will require further evaluation and coordination with various stakeholders, including the surrounding residences, AUSD and adjacent proposed developments. See Figure 28.1 depicting a conceptual alignment of Main Street, Central Avenue and the intersection configurations described above. This Conceptual Plan is for cost estimating purposes only and it does not represent a proposed design." Revise Figure 23, West Atlantic Avenue to reflect the current concepts from the Town Center and Waterfront Precise Plan, which will ultimately be finalized in the final Precise Plan document. Add Figure 23, West Redline Extension. Modify Figure 27 to be titled "Proposed Transit Priority Streets." Add Figure 28.1, Central Avenue Concept. C.2. d. Ferry Service Remove "frequent ". D. Proposed Off -Site Street Improvements Revise the following listed improvements to be consistent with FEIR mitigation measures, as follows, all others are to remain: Project Improvements — Bicycle Improvements • Stargell Avenue Class I Improvements — Main Street to 5th Street • Main Street Class I Improvements — Stargell Avenue to Pacific Avenue Project Contributions (Pro -Rata Share) — Vehicle Improvements • Broadway / Otis Drive — Signal Improvements • Island Drive / Otis Drive / Doolittle Drive — Signal Improvements • Project Contributions (Pro -Rata Share) — Transit Improvements Park Street Transit Improvements — Blanding Avenue to Otis Drive RAMP Transit Improvements — Main Street to Webster Street Stargell Avenue Transit Improvements — Main Street to 5th Street • Project Contributions (Pro -Rata Share) — Bicycle Improvements • Oak Street Bicycle Boulevard — Blanding Avenue to Encinal Avenue Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 4 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 VIII. STORMWATER SYSTEM Revise all references of 18- inches of built -in sea level rise protection to 24- inches. Remove "initial" and near - term" references to the flood protection system. Update Figures 39, 40, 41 and 44. XIII. PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION A.3 Flood Protection and Site Grading Replace paragraph 1 of this section with the following text, "Within the Development Areas, each development phase will implement the necessary flood protection improvements and site grading to provide protection from the 100 -year tidal event plus 18- inches of sea level rise. This will consist of elevating each development phase area to the required elevation and the installation of new stormwater system improvements. These improvements will be phased to match the development phases as closely as possible. In addition, each development phase will contribute to the site -wide perimeter levee system that will provide protection from the 100 -year tidal event, plus wave /wind run -up, plus 24- inches of sea level rise and 1' of freeboard. The timing of the construction of the comprehensive levee system is subject to adequate funds being generated through the Alameda Point development impact / infrastructure fee program and other potential public and private funding sources." B. Conceptual Financing Plan Add sentence to the end of the second paragraph on page 148: "As the City finalizes its other studies and analyses, such as the impact /infrastructure fee program and the Transportation Demand Management Plan, and is closer to implementing new development, the exact amount of a feasible assessment for each type of assessment will need to be analyzed and determined." Update Figure 58, Phase 1A "Town Center ". Add sentence to the end of the section, "The implementation of the MIP shall be consistent with the City Council Adopted Fiscal Neutrality Policy for Alameda Point." XIV. MIP FLEXIBILITY Add paragraph 2, "These alternatives assume a similar development footprint as the Reuse Plan. If the development footprint was concentrated to the central portion of the project site, then the required infrastructure systems and associated costs would be significantly reduced. However, the remaining areas within the project site, but outside the concentrated development footprint, would be effectively abandoned, requiring demolition and improvements to re- establish as passive open space or these remaining areas and associated existing infrastructure systems could remain as -is and would require a high level of maintenance to continue to be operable. This condensed footprint alternative was not evaluated in the EIR or the MIP." B. Transit Oriented Mixed Use Add sentence to end of paragraph 4, "This is largely due to the development footprint of this Alternative remaining consistent with the Reuse Plan." Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 5 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 C. Implementation Add sentence to end of paragraph, "Specifically, attention should be focused on evaluating the potential of implementing the infrastructure adjustments to accommodate the Transit Oriented Mixed Use Alternative as development proposals are approved. This will maintain flexibility and capacity for future land use changes." XV. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS A. Backbone Infrastructure Costs Revise the Town Center Sub -Phase lA scenario to include 32 acres of developable area and have backbone infrastructure costs estimated at $62.7 M. Add sentence after paragraph 3, "The implementation of the MIP shall be consistent with the City Council Adopted Fiscal Neutrality Policy for Alameda Point." Update Table 15 — Backbone Infrastructure Construction Costs. Add under Utility Systems: • Installation of utilidors • Remediation measures for encountered groundwater contamination and industrial waste lines Add under Transportation Improvements: • Surface Parking Lots consistent with public parking strategy as contemplated in the proposed zoning ordinance amendment and Transportation Demand Management Plan. Add under Parks and Open Space: • Seaplane Lagoon Frontage (based on Town Center and Waterfront Precise Plan) C. Public Services This section has been modified to read as follows: Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) has prepared an analysis of the cost of providing municipal services to the project, as well as revenues for the City expected to be generated there. The analysis includes services costs and the cost of maintaining the infrastructure needed for the plan (where the City is the party responsible for providing maintenance). The fiscal analysis includes the regular (weekly, monthly, annual, etc.) maintenance costs, such as chip seal of road surfaces, but not the cost of replacement of infrastructure that is being newly constructed as part of the development of Alameda Point. Willdan has prepared an estimate of the net fiscal impact of the project. In additional to capital improvements, the Financing Plan for Alameda Point may include fiscal mitigation measures, such as a services assessment or special tax if necessary, to ensure that the Alameda Point development does not have a net negative fiscal impact on the City. Not included in the analysis, however, is the cost of replacement at the end of the expected lifespan of the infrastructure. As with any other infrastructure in the City, most infrastructure replacement costs are built into the rates and fees associated with services, such as water, wastewater, and electricity. This approach, in which the users pay for the eventual replacement cost of the facilities they are using, is appropriate and financially sound. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 6 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 XVI. NEXT STEPS B. Financing Plan A Financing Plan will be developed for each individual project at Alameda Point. The Financing Plan will further evaluate the feasibility of available funding sources for backbone infrastructure and a feasible amount of each annual assessment necessary to fund relevant infrastructure, maintenance, operations and services. Additionally, the Alameda Point development infrastructure /impact fee will be established as a mechanism to collect a portion of funds from both Development and Reuse Areas for implementation of infrastructure elements with site -wide benefits. C. FEMA - Flood Hazard Mapping As previously, indicated, the flood zones within Alameda Point are currently not depicted on the effective FEMA flood maps because of its historic federal ownership. Now that the City of Alameda has taken ownership of the majority of Alameda Point, it is recommended that the existing flood zones are mapped and processed with FEMA. This is necessary to characterize flood hazards to future developers, private property owners, long term tenants and characterize potential flood insurance requirements. This will include preparing and processing a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) with FEMA to establish the limits of the existing flood zones at Alameda Point. APPENDIX G Update the Detailed Backbone Infrastructure Construction Cost Estimate Summary to reflect the addendums outlined above. APPENDIX H Remove the Appendix H - Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Alameda Point as a component of the MIP. The Fiscal Impact Analysis will be processed as a separate document. OTHER GENERAL UPDATES Update the Final MIP to reflect the conclusions and recommendations from the FEIR and the Town Center and Waterfront Precise Plan. This is anticipated to include the backbone infrastructure framework, street sections, transit improvements and parks and open space improvements. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 7 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 Table 5 - Site Grading Design Criteria Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 8 Location Improvements Min. Elev. (City Datum) Design Criteria Development Areas (New Construction) Perimeter Eastern Seaplane Lagoon Raise Ex Revetment 7.6 100 -Year Tide +24" Sea Level Rise +1' Wind/Wave +1' Free Board West & North Project Boundary Raise Ex Headwall or Revetment 7.6 100 -Year Tide +24" Sea Level Rise +1' Wind/Wave +1' Free Board Existing Piers Raise Ex Floodwall 10.6 100 -Year Tide +24" Sea Level Rise +4' Wind/Wave +1' Free Board Southeast Project Boundary Raise Ex Revetment 10.6 100 -Year Tide +24" Sea Level Rise +4' Wind /Wave +1' Free Board Inland Areas Adjacent to Main Street Raise Finish Grade 1 100 -Year Tide +18" Sea Level Rise Reuse Areas Perimeter West & North Project Boundary Construct Berm or Raise Ex Revetment 7.6 100 -Year Tide +24" Sea Level Rise +1' Wind/Wave + 1' Free Board Inland Existing Areas to Remain Existing Elevations to Remain - Existing Elevations to Remain As Is Main Street Reconstruction NW Alameda Ferry Terminal Parking Lot Entrance to Atlantic Ave. Raise Main Street 3.6 - 7.6 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 8 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 Table 15 - Backbone Infrastructure Construction Costs Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 9 Description PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 TOTAL BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE 1 DEMOLITION / SITE PREPARATION $33,919,000 $42,064,000 $2,571,000 $78,554,000 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION BY OTHERS BY OTHERS BY OTHERS BY OTHERS 3 FLOOD PROTECTION AND SITE GRADING $45,426,000 $40,539,000 $26,226,000 $112,191,000 4 DEWATERING $4,069,000 $2,955,000 $2,680,000 $9,704,000 5 SANITARY SEWER $12,063,000 $3,255,000 $3,778,000 $19,096,000 6 STORM DRAIN $12,268,000 $8,408,000 $9,188,000 $29,864,000 7 POTABLE WATER $5,041,000 $4,405,000 $5,781,000 $15,227,000 8 RECYCLED WATER $1,196,000 $506,250 $876,000 $2,578,250 9 DRY UTILITIES $6,889,000 $6,149,000 $6,163,000 $19,201,000 10 ON -SITE STREET WORK $23,521,000 $19,904,000 $13,411,000 $56,836,000 11 TRANSPORTATION $11,197,000 $36,285,000 $2,391,000 $49,873,000 12 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE $39,296,000 $15,898,000 $26,086,000 $81,280,000 13 PUBLIC BENEFITS $1,250,000 $16,038,000 $- $17,288,000 SUBTOTAL (to the nearest $10,000) $196,140,000 $196,410,000 $99,150,000 $491,690,000 SOFT COSTS 14 CONSTRUCTION ADMIN $6,276,000 $6,285,000 $3,173,000 $15,734,000 15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $23,537,000 $23,569,000 $11,898,000 $59,004,000 16 FEES $8,130,000 $7,857,000 $4,989,000 $20,976,000 17 IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE $785,000 $786,000 $397,000 $1,968,000 SUBTOTAL (to nearest $10,000) $38,730,000 $38,500,000 $20,460,000 $97,680,000 TOTAL (to the nearest $10,000) $234,870,000 $234,910,000 $119,610,000 $589,370,000 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 9 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 8 UTILIDOR LOCATIONS.DWG Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 10 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 11 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_11_INITIAL FLOOD PROTECTION (24 ").DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 RAISE HEADWALL w J U Cr) Q Q 1 0< O� 00 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 12 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_13_ADAPTIVE MEASURES (HEADWALL - BCDC).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 55' -85'± FLOOD PROTECTION EASEMENT O w CC C Q Q O w m w in m in w w w > CC w O O _ CO V) w J U Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 13 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES\XB_14_ADAPTIVE MEASURES (BERM - BCDC).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 CLASSIFICATIONS REGIONAL ARTERIAL I-- CC CO Q � L.- (3 b- = CD 0' m w J V) C� Q W C) • • • WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE 00 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 14 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_23_STREET SECTIONS (DEVELOPMENT).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 W J ¢ ✓ Cf) O TRAVEL LANE NOTE: w cip LANES SHALL BE CLASSIFICATIONS W CD W p O � r) W ¢ W AS APPROVED BY FIRE SHALL BE STRIPED AS J CD w uJ CO ¢ C/) J in ¢ U) v ¢ J J O • • 69' ROADWAY± N) a N CC QO " 11 CO W CO ii 1 U J W CC ©Fz-- WEST REDLINE AVENUE EXTENSION O z H O W O Q O ¢ LLJ CO =0( Oz I O O W Q (n Z_ C n O c O O ▪ O O O OZ. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 15 G:11087- 10WCAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_24_STREET SECTIONS (REUSE AREAS).DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 1 a 1 z � I CO H I- X LL I REDLINE AVE 1- 0 0) W MIDWAY AVE IS H3 VNOW SAN FRANCISCO BAY 0 CD w >< CC w D ARY TRANSIT STREET SECONDARY TRANSIT STREET OTHER STREETS Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 16 G :11087- 101ACAD- 101 EXHIBITS \BASE CASE ALT - FIGURES \XB 27 PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEMS.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 O z w J 0 w O LL1 3.11N4A V 7 tt \ �I \ $ t OA OA PA PA I j it1 af1NJAV MIdlOWd V 1 1 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. Page 17 G:\1087-1 01ACAD 101EXHIBITS1BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB 28.1 CENTRAL AVENUE CONCEPT.DWG ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 BASIN (2.8 AC) NOTE: SHAPE AND LOCATIONS OAKLAND INNER HARBOR OUTFALL PUMP (40,000 GPM) ran tri OUTFALL OUTFALL PUMP (20,000 GPM) OF BASINS ARE FLEXIBLE LEGEND SEAPLANE LAGOON FUTURE PUM( (20,000 GPM) —)110— PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: DECEMBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 39 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_39_STORM DRAIN (DEVELOPMEI T).D N ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR OUTFAL PUMP (40,000 GPM) BASIN (2.8 AC) ir► OUTFALL PUMP (20,000 GPM) rt1 v PUMP - (20,000 GPM) NOTE: SHAPE AND LOCATIONS OF BASINS ARE FLEXIBLE LEGEND OUTFALL FUTURE PUMP (60,000 GPM) SEAPLANE LAGOON FUTURE BASIN (2.8 AC) PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW OUTFALL FUTURE PUM1 (20,000 GPM) ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: DECEMBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' FIGURE 40 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ULTIMATE SYSTEM Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_40_STORM DRAIN (ULTIMAT .DVy9 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR OUTFALL OUTFALL PUMP (40,000 GPM) BASIN (2.8 AC) OUTFALL OUTFALL PUMP (20,000 GPM) SEAPLANE LAGOON FUTURE PUMP (60,000 GPM) rFUTURE BASIN / (2.8 AC) NOTE: SHAPE AND LOCATIONS OF BASINS ARE FLEXIBLE LEGEND PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTFALL FUTURE PUMr (20,000 GPM) ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: DECEMBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' C8NO(DR9 o C4.1T1 ©® Oboon9 Demo FIGURE 41 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN REUSE AREAS INITIAL CONSTRUCTION Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITS\BASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_41_STORM DRAIN (INITIAL REU09 ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN - ADDENDUM SHEET February 5, 2014 LEGEND • — — • i OAKLAND INNER HARBOR PS -1 E EXISTING 20" FM (TO SIPHONS) EX SEWER E TRUNK MAIN ' oS L1-Cll I 1_ CONNECT TO EXISTING SEAPLANE LAGOON A LS -3 1 DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED POTABLE WATER PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER & DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED LIFT STATION EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & DIRECTION OF CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN FLOW --1 EXISTING SUBSTATION ALAMEDA POINT MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA DATE: DECEMBER, 2013 SCALE: 1" = 1,000' Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. FIGURE 58 PHASE lA "TOWN CENTER" G :11087- 101ACAD- 101EXHIBITSIBASE CASE ALT - FIGURESIXB_58_PHASE 1A (TOWN CENTS DeV 9 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 4th day of February, 2014, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore — 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 5th day of February, 2014. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda