Bayshore Bikeway - Harbor Drive Segment

HARBOR DRIVE SEGMENT BAYSHORE BIKEWAY

PARKING, TRAIL LAYOUT, AND URBAN DESIGN FEATURES

Prepared for:

Prepared by: Planning + Landscape Architecture

December 2011

Acknowledgements This report for Parking, Trail Layout and Urban Design Features for the Harbor Drive Segment of the Bayshore Bikeway was prepared for the Unified Port of San Diego under the direction of Paul Brown, Senior Asset Manager.

The consultant was KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture of San Diego, California. Project principal was Mike Singleton, AICP CTP, ASLA, LEED AP. Project planner was John Eric Holloway, ASLA, LEED Green Associate, LCI. Project landscape architect was Tim Henderson and 3D visualizations were prepared by Matt Wilkins.

Table of Contents

Introduction, Project Scope, and Previous Plans

1

Document Organization................................................................................................................ 3 Project Scope.................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Study Area........................................................................................................................... 3 Previous Planning Efforts............................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1: Bayshore Bikeway - Harbor Drive Segment from Park to 32nd Street.................... 4 Figure 2: Bayshore Bikeway (2006) Overview Map and Approved Cross Sections................ 5 Figure 3-6: Conceptual Plans from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan ............6-9

Existing General Conditions

2

Study Area General Conditions................................................................................................... 10 Figure 7: Context of the Working Waterfront & the Barrio Logan Community ................. 11 Figure 8: Existing Ownership...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9: Existing Easements....................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10: General Character of the Working Waterfront....................................................... 14 Figure 11: Drainage and Pavement Conditions ....................................................................... 15

Parking Conditions and Analysis

3

Overall Goal for Parking.............................................................................................................. 16 Current Parking Conditions........................................................................................................ 16 Level One Analysis........................................................................................................................ 16 Level Two Analysis........................................................................................................................ 16 Level Three Analysis..................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 12: Parking Conditions..................................................................................................... 17 Figure 13: Index- Existing Parking and Initial Parking Analysis........................................... 18 Figure 14- 17: Sheet 1-4 Existing Parking and Initial Parking Analysis......................... 19-22 Table 1: Level 1 Parking Analysis ............................................................................................... 23 Table 2: Level 2 Parking Analysis ............................................................................................... 23 Table 3: Level 3 Parking Analysis................................................................................................ 24

4

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Recommended Bikeway Layout, Streetscapes and Parking

Recommended Bikeway Layout.................................................................................................. 25 Optional Roadway Modifications............................................................................................... 26 Optional Bridge Modifications.................................................................................................... 26 Overview Perspectives.................................................................................................................. 26 Cross Sections and Detailed Perspectives.................................................................................. 26 Figure 18: Key Map for Recommended Bayshore Bikeway Layout ....................................... 27 Figure 19-28: Sheet 1-10: Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration.... 28-37 Figure 29-30: Alternative Roadway Modifications and Repair Levels............................. 38-39 Figure 31: Alternative Harbor Drive Bridge Modifications..................................................... 40 Figure 32-37: Overview of Project Improvements ............................................................. 41-46 Figure 38-50: Cross Sections and Detailed Perspectives.................................................... 47-59

Stormwater Runoff Control, Landscape and Art Treatments

5

Stormwater Runoff Control Concept.......................................................................................... 60 Landscape Treatments.................................................................................................................. 60 Lighting Treatments...................................................................................................................... 60 Art Treatments............................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 51: Plan View of Stormwater Runoff Concept Plan...................................................... 61 Figure 52: Section View of Stormwater Runoff Concept Plan................................................. 62 Figure 53: Conceptual Bio-swale Landscape Treatments........................................................ 63 Figure 54: Median Landscape Treatments................................................................................. 64 Figure 55: Landscape Composition Concepts........................................................................... 65 Figure 56: Sample Parkway and Median Trees......................................................................... 66 Figure 57: Sample Native Grasses and Accent Plants ............................................................. 67 Figure 58: “Art Revolution” Recommended Art Concepts for Light Standards................. 68 Figure 59: “Art Uprising” for Denoting Districts along Harbor Dr...................................... 69 Figure 60: “Industrial Art” Recommended Art Concepts for Two Entry Monuments..... 70

Probable Costs, Phasing and Follow On Studies Required

6

Estimate of Construction Costs................................................................................................... 71 Probable Maintenance Costs....................................................................................................... 71 Follow-on Studies Required......................................................................................................... 71 Project Phasing.............................................................................................................................. 71 Table 4: Option 1 Cost Estimates................................................................................................ 72 Table 5: Option 2 Cost Estimates................................................................................................ 73 Table 6: Option 3 Cost Estimates................................................................................................ 74 Table 7: Option 4 Cost Estimates................................................................................................ 75 Table 8: Summary of Cost Estimates for all Options................................................................ 76 Table 9: Maintenance Schedule and Quantities......................................................................... 76

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Introduction, Project Scope, and Previous Plans

1

Document Organization

Previous Planning Efforts

Project Scope

The maps and graphics from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan have been included in this study to make sure the plan’s recommendations are followed wherever possible.

However, some conditions have changed and other recommendations found in this study may supersede the concepts shown on these plans. The discussion below indicates where a different approach has been used by this study compared to the original 2006 study.

This document is composed primarily of graphics and maps addressing the analyses and recommendations of this study.

Text is limited to introductory pages at the beginning of each of six major sections and intended to define the content of the graphics that follow. The figures and tables are referenced in the text at the beginning of each section.

This study was commissioned by the Unified Port of San Diego to examine the feasibility and impacts of developing resulting from the as yet unbuilt section of the Bayshore Bikeway along Harbor Drive between 32nd Street and Park Boulevard.

The scope called for evaluating the impacts of bikeway development on adjacent on-street parking and adjacent off-street parking lots, bikeway layout and design issues, traffic flow and safety, and associated urban design features intended to improve the overall visual and functional environment. The urban design elements are focussed on improving the visual environment, screening industrial areas and providing activation of public spaces. They are also intended to provide a branding for the area and to set a character for the working waterfront.

Project Study Area

Figure 1 shows the study limits of the project. The study area includes all public rights of way along Harbor Drive, from just slightly south of 32nd Street, northwesterly to Park Boulevard, slightly passed the new pedestrian bridge in downtown San Diego. The study area length is approximately 2.5 miles in length.

The 2006 “Bayshore Bikeway Plan” prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was reviewed prior to undertaking this project to make certain its recommendations were addressed. A few, but important, conditions have changed since the completion of the SANDAG study, and these alterations are noted on the following pages that address the study.

Figure 2 includes an overall map of the Bayshore Bikeway system, with the study area for this project, overlaid on the map.

The figure also includes the proposed cross sections for various segments of the study area. In most cases, the cross sections have been matched with the layout facilities in this plan. However, the City of San Diego did not agree to reducing both travel lanes to 11 feet in width. Based on speeds and the volume of truck traffic, the City required a 13’ outer lane, with the interior lane allowed to be reduced to 11’. In addition, single left turn lanes were required to be 11’ in width, versus an assumed 10’ in width. Finally, the City of San Diego had requested a 6’ onstreet bike lane, versus the 5’ indicated in the previous study.

A compromise was reached, requiring a 6’ Class 2 lane when next to on-street parking, and a 5’ Class 2 lane when next to a gutter or buffer bio-swale strip.

Figures 3 and 4 displays urban design concepts for the project study area. This study did not agree with the use of Acorn lighting standards or more typical banner systems. The character of the working waterfront and Barrio Logan requires a more contextual and local interpretation for streetscape elements. The overall street tree and planting areas as shown in these initial concepts have been more fully defined in this study. Bollard lighting is not recommended because of the spacing requirements and costs. Pedestrian level lighting has been proposed, however. The width of the path proposed in this study is held at a consistent 12 feet. The conceptual plans in the previous study have shown a width that varies, depending on street tree plantings and parkway strips. This approach resulted in hazards in the lane of bike travel, and is better accomplished through continuous buffer strips with street trees, lights and other plant material placed out of the lane of travel.

Figures 5 and 6 show the initial conceptual layout of the Bayshore Bikeway. The connection from the Bayshore Bikeway to the Waterfront Promenade, near the convention center, will not be able to use the south side of the Hilton Hotel, since the hotel was built to the lease line and no accommodation was made for this connection. However, an alternative route has been shown on Figure 5, that could provide a connection from the frontage road to the new sections of the Waterfront Promenade. The rest of the plan view layouts have been followed in general terms, with some minor variations. The use of stamped concrete is not recommended since the extensive use of cobble proposed by this study needs to be taken into the median hardscape areas for consistency of theme.

Parking issues and reconfigurations are limited to north of Chollas Creek to Sampson Street, a 1.1 mile length. The remaining portion of the study area (1.4 miles) will receive layout site plans and urban design concepts, but will not include any parking lot reconfigurations.

3

Figure 1: Bayshore Bikeway - Harbor Drive Segment from Park to 32nd Street

Design Treatments (no parking adjustments) North end from Sampson to Park=1.1 miles Bayshore Bikeway Trail Alignments (full length of corridor =2.5 miles) Parking Study Area with Design Treatments (Sampson to south of 32nd St.= 1.4 miles)

NORTH

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

4

Figure 2: 2: Bayshore Bayshore Bikeway Bikeway (2006) (2006) Overview Overview Map Map and and Approved Approved Cross Cross Sections Sections Figure

San Diego 86 12

1

Coronado

Stu

2

3

dy Lim its

4

5

11

11

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

U.S. Naval Air Station

5'

5 U.S. Naval Station

National City

1: Approved Cross Section at Harbor Drive Bridge

2: Approved Cross Section between Harbor Dr. Bridge and Cesar Chavez Parkway

FIGURE

SECTION

LOCATION

FACING FIGURE

5-11

2A

Harbor Drive Bridge

South 5-12

2B

U.S. Naval Amphibious Base

FACING

FIGURE

Harbor Drive between bridge and Cesar Chavez

South

5-14

SECTION

LOCATION

FACING

3B

Harbor Drive north of 28th Street

South

All Cross Sections are Looking from the Northwest to the Southeast

San Diego Bay

Pacific Ocean

3: Approved Cross Section between Sampson and 28th Street

LOCATION

SECTION

National City Marine Terminal

BAYSHORE BIKEWAY PLAN

Swe

etwa

ter C

h an n

el

for the

San Diego Association of Governments Prepared by:

in partnership with

Berryman & Henigar

Chula Vista

Silve

Alta Planning + Design

r St r a nd a ch

Bikeways

e Be Stat

Streams March 17, 2006

Bike Path

Chula Vista Harbor

Bike Lane On-Street Bike Route alta

Ferry Connection PLANNING + DESIGN

BAYSHORE BIKEWAY

FIGURE

4: Approved Cross Section between Cesar Chavez and Sampson Street

Bike Path On-Street Bike Lane/Route

FIGURE

NORTH

5-13

SECTION

3A

LOCATION

Harbor Drive north of Sampson Street

SECTION

LOCATION

Harbor Drive north of 32nd28th Street and 3C 5: Approved Cross Section between 32nd Street

5-15

FACING

South

FACING

South

Imperial Beach 0

3,900

7,800 Feet

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Note: These maps and graphics are from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan. They are included here to make sure the plan’s recommendations are followed. However, some conditions have changed & other recommendations found in this study may supersede the concepts shown on these plans.

5

Figure 3: Conceptual Plans & Graphics from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan Note: These maps and graphics are from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan. They are included here to make sure the plan’s recommendations are followed. However, some conditions have changed & other recommendations found in this study may supersede the concepts shown on these plans.

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

6

Figure 4: Conceptual Plans & Graphics from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan Note: These maps and graphics are from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan. They are included here to make sure the plan’s recommendations are followed. However, some conditions have changed & other recommendations found in this study may supersede the concepts shown on these plans.

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

7

Connection to on-street route on Harbor Drive.

Opportunity to use existing service road undercrossing to connect to east side of Harbor.

Note: The connection between Harbor Drive and the Waterfront along the south edge of the Hilton Hotel is not feasible, but an alternative route between the hotel and the parking structure may be.

Figure 5: Conceptual Plans & Graphics from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan

Existing Bayshore Bikeway Class I Path

NO RT H

Potential New Bayshore Bikeway Alignment through Convention Center Hotel Redevelopment Site (former Campbell Shipyard) On-Street Bayshore Bikeway Alignment DESCRIPTION

FIGURE

5-10

Potential Bayshore Bikeway Alignment within former Campbell Shipyard Site Hotel Redevelopment

Note: These maps and graphics are from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan.

They are included here to make sure the plan’s recommendations are followed.

However, some conditions have changed and other recommendations found in this study may supersede the concepts shown on these plans.

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

8

Figure 6: Conceptual Plans & Graphics from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan Continued from Segment 2, at left

Existing Bike Path

SEGMENT 2

Existing On-Street Bike Lane/Bike Route

SEGMENT 3

Proposed New Bike Path Alignment

Section 3A

Harbor Drive

Harbor Drive

Note: The parking structure, Hilton Hotel and Parking Structure along with the Pedestrian Bridge are not shown in this earlier aerial photo.

Convention Way Recommended Bikeway path along west side of Convention Way, a low traffic roadway providing access to convention center loading docks

San Diego Convention Center

Section 1A

Petco Park

Harbor Drive Xing at 8th Recommended Bikeway path alignment crosses to the east side of Harbor Drive at 8th, taking advantage of existing crosswalk in this location.

Harbor Drive BNSF Xing Improvements to on-street crossing to decrease sharp angle of bike lane xing

NASSCO Employee Parking Recommended Bikeway alignment will extend through areas currently used for NASSCO employee parking (paved and unpaved). Will require reconfiguration of parking areas, may result in some parking loss.

Upslope of BNSF Xing Class I trail on east side of Harbor upslope of BNSF crossing may require cut/fill and retaining walls

Section 3B

bor

Har Driv NASSCO Main Gate

Harbor Drive RR Bridge Requires widening bridge or cantilevering in order to accomodate Bikeway path without removing existing 4 foot shoulder area

s

la k

ee

Cr

Main Street

Harbor Drive

Chollas Creek Bridge Harbor Drive xing of Chollas Creek channel is constrained, MTS trolley crosses on separate bridge structure. Bridge widening or new bridge will be necessary for Class I trail

ol

Section 2B

Ch

MTS Trolley ROW Recommended Bikeway path alignment follows east side of Harbor Drive, within or adjacent to MTS trolley right-of-way

Harbor Drive

10th Avenue Marine Terminal

Harborside Trolley Station

e

Section 2A

Beardsley Street

Section 3C

nd

Naval Station San Diego

SR-75 (San Diego-Corona

do Bridge)

Pacific Fleet Trolley Station

H RT NO

West Side Alignment Under Option A, the Bikeway path alignment crosses to the west side of Harbor at 32nd, taking advantage of existing crosswalk at this intersection

East Side Alignment Under Option B, the Bikeway path alignment continues on the east side of Harbor to Gate 7 of the Naval Base

Harbor Drive

Newton Avenue

Main Street

n io at St ate l va n G Na Mai

Continued on Segment 3, at right

FIGURE

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

St

32 Barrio Logan Trolley Station

Note: These maps and graphics are from the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Plan.

They are included here to make sure the plan’s recommendations are followed.

However, some conditions have changed & other recommendations found in this study may supersede the concepts shown on these plans.

et

re

Cesar Chavez Parkway

5-3

San Diego Convention Center to National City Limit

STUDY SEGMENTS

2 and 3

9

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

2

Study Area General Conditions

The project study area was the segment of Harbor Drive between 32nd Street and Park Boulevard and its immediate vicinity. This segment’s adjacent land uses on the bay side include a large Naval base, shipbuilding and repair facilities and other related industrial and maritime activities. Within the southern half, the other side of the roadway is visually dominated by parking lots serving the services on the bay side of the roadway, as well as working rail lines and power transmission towers. The portion north of the SR75 bridge is more mixed use, including a trolley station. The extreme north end transitions into hotel, entertainment, stadium and convention activities. See Figure 7: Context of the Working Waterfront and the Barrio Logan Community.

Existing General Conditions

Overall, the area is dominated by large-scale industrial infrastructure and almost all available ground plane space is occupied by vehicle parking right up to and including the Harbor Drive right-of-way. During typical workday hours, virtually all of this parking is in use by the employees and contractors of primary Port tenants such as NASSCO and BAE. Many different parking configurations are present, ranging from bare dirt lots without parking space markings to more conventional paved lots with marked stalls. Immediately along Harbor Drive, parallel, angled and straight-in parking exists along various segments of the study corridor, often in close proximity to each other.

This variety in parking configuration is due primarily to the various ownerships of the adjacent land and the rail infrastructure that creates irregular parking lot spaces in which the parking configuration has been adapted to fit.

Access to and from these parking lots is also often not consistent with current roadway and parking design standards. Some driveways are at mid-block locations or occur closer to existing intersections than current roadway standards allow. Landscaping is virtually nonexistent. See Figure 10: General Character of the Working Waterfront and Figure 11: Parking Conditions.

Drainage is also another significant issue for much of the southern half of this segment. Nearly all of the median within Harbor Drive lacks curbs, gutters or storm drains and, as a result, stormwater runoff forms large pools within the median that evaporate slowly due to limited percolation. Stormwater runoff is generally not controlled to current standards throughout the corridor, including within the parking areas adjacent to Harbor Drive. For example, many of the parking areas used by NASSCO employees immediately adjacent to the roadway are inundated following typical rain events. Even so, the employees still park in these submerged areas and must contend with this standing water for some time following rain events due to the length of time it takes to evaporate.

Another significant issue is roadway surface conditions. Pavement quality varies considerably, but is generally worse within the southern half of the study corridor. While the northern segment’s asphalt surface is in fair condition, the remainder of the roadway is a patchwork of concrete and asphalt repair overlays, creating a very uneven surface. Intersections and roadway edges are often not well defined and the pavement quality within the roadway shoulders where cyclists are expected to ride is the poorest of all. Along with relatively high vehicular speeds, oblique rail line crossings and a lack of bikeway facilities, these conditions make cycling through this area less than ideal. See Figure 12: Drainage and Pavement Conditions.

Ownership and easement conditions create convoluted parcel shapes that make efficient parking layout difficult. See Figure 8: Existing Ownership and Figure 9: Existing Easements.

In many cases, this results in layouts that are not consistent with current City of San Diego standards for stall length and width, aisle width or landscaping. Field review and mapping analysis revealed that some of this existing parking actually overhangs into the Harbor Drive right-of-way (refer to Section 3 for more discussion on parking).

10

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Naval Base San Diego (32nd St. Naval Station)

Ship Building and Support Facilities

Ship Repair and Support Facilities

10th Avenue Marine Terminal Maritime Operations

Hotel

Convention Center

NO RT H

Prime Industrial Area

Boston Ave. and Main Street Area

Barrio Logan Historic Core Area / Transition Area

Mixed Use / Mercado Del Barrio

Barrio Logan Community Village

East Village (CCDC)

Figure 7: Context of the Working Waterfront & the Barrio Logan Community

11

Figure 8: Existing Ownership

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

12

Figure 9: Existing Easements

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

13

Figure 10: General Character of the Working Waterfront

1

5

North side of the Harbor Drive Bridge and Frontage Road underpass

Corridor is dominated by the rail line, industrial uses and large scaled powerline facilities

6

8

Parking exists along a major portion of the corridor

9

All types of parking conditions exist, much of which does not meet industry parking layout standards

6

8

9

10

5

1 4

3

7

NO RT H

2

Almost all available spaces are filled with parking, especially those south of Sampson

2 The visual quality of the corridor, drops dramatically at Harbor Drive bridge, going southeasterly

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

3 The condition of the road, dominance of on-street parking & higher speeds creates challenges for cyclists

4 Though some landscaping and screening exists, the corridor is mostly devoid of positive aesthetic elements

7 The existing rail lines create additional challenges for cyclists

10 Parallel parking, angled parking and straight in parking all exist along the corridor

14

Figure 11: Drainage and Pavement Conditions

1

2

Nearly all of the median along Harbor Drive in the study area is devoid of curbs, gutters and storm drains

3

Most runoff ponds and eventually evaporates slowly with limited percolation or stormwater collection

4

Many of the adjacent parking areas used by NASSCO, become inundated but are still parked in

Several low lying areas become inundated easily after rain

9 5

2

3

4

10

8

7

NO RT H

1

6

9

5 The northern segments with asphalt are in fair condition

6 Areas where asphalt has been used over the concrete surface, are in very poor condition

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

7 The shoulders where most cyclist have to ride, are in very poor condition with safety issues

8 Asphalt overlays have been patched numerous times, creating an even more uneven surface

9 Intersections and road edges are poorly defined

10 Concrete and asphalt conditions are poorest in the middle and southern segment of the corridor

15

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Parking Conditions and Analysis

3

Overall Goal for Parking

The accommodation of the Bayshore Bikeway Class 1 Multiuse trail will out of necessity cause the removal of parking along Harbor Drive. The existing rights-of-way is not large enough to accommodate a 12-foot wide path along with a 5-foot wide buffer without removing other uses within the right-of-way. A substantial amount of parking can be found within the project study area. Some of this parking is private, some is available for a price and some of the parking is onstreet with no restrictions or costs associated with its use.

Initially, the public and private parking in the area was looked at in terms of what it might take to bring all of the parking into conformance with current development standards. A secondary objective for parking was to limit the exit points from parking adjacent to Harbor Drive to decrease the conflicts between bike path users and vehicles entering and exiting the parking spaces. A third objective for analyzing parking was to provide stormwater runoff solutions that would improve water quality. Finally, another objective for parking was to provide a logical, rational layout for parking that would contribute to a positive visual character for the study area. All of these objectives need to be balanced with the primary parking goal of assuring adequate parking in the area, so that adjacent employers, residents and businesses are not negatively affected by excessive parking removals.

Current Parking Conditions

A parking space count was conducted on a busy weekday and field notes were transferred to the base map to illustrate existing parking facilities. This fieldwork also included mapping major obstructions, as well as both improved and minimally improved driveway access points that could be important in the layout of new facilities. Potential access points near intersections or other improved roadways were also mapped. Prior to any site plan layouts, the team discussed parking standards with the City and the Port District. Agreement was reached on parking stall width and depth and the amount of ADA parking, as well as the frequency of trees per number of parking spaces. Other tasks completed prior to parking lot layout included determining line-of-sight issues due to vertical and horizontal curvatures such as at intersections, along roadway segments and adjacent to existing active rail lines.

Figure 12, Parking Conditions, provides several images that capture the difficult and somewhat chaotic arrangement of parking for several major Port District tenants. NASSCO shipyard, and to a lesser extent BAE, all rely heavily on on-street parking

on both sides of Harbor Drive, as well as the various marginal parking lots found between the railroad tracks and Harbor Drive. Many of these parking lots are owned by NASSCO or leased by NASSCO or BAE from SDG&E, the Railroad Company (BNSF), MTS or other interests. The current haphazard arrangement of parking is not a new condition. The dirt lots squeezed between the tracks have a history of use back into the early 1960s. Though parking demand has likely been increasing from year to year, the supply has remained relatively the same for the past 50 years. Increased car ownership, higher employment levels for the major employers in the area, and other factors all combine to increase the parking demand.

Current conditions include substandard parking surfaces, inadequate drainage, substandard width and depth to spaces, substandard backout aisles and other factors that make it difficult to park in this area. Since the majority of the parking resources are unimproved, the vehicular spacing is often inefficient, with each vehicle operator deciding on the amount of space to leave between vehicles.

According to Table 1: Level 1 Parking Analysis, a total of 2,839 spaces exist in the study area. On-street parking consists of 263 spaces, 160 of which are on the northeast side of the road and 103 on the southwest side of Harbor Drive. As indicated on Table 1 and shown on Figures 13 through 17, a total of 12 lots have been designated, with subsets of the larger lots shown with numbers and letters. Within this total number, 20 spaces are set aside for trolley parking, 125 spaces as part of a “Park and Pay� parcel, then another 830 are in private lots controlled by BAE. This leaves 1,615 spaces under the control of NASSCO. It is likely the majority of the 263 on-street spaces are utilized by NASSCO employees.

Level One Analysis

A three level analysis was completed for parking in the study area. Level One took a cursory review of the overall geometry of parking lots and indicated if these lots meet current City of San Diego Land Development Code size requirements. Figures 13 though 17 and Table 1 have been color coded to show the likely requirements to bring these spaces up to these standards.

This level one analysis has been superseded by Level Two and Level Three approaches, but it is documented here to help determine the level of change that could be required if the City of San Diego was to enforce design standards on these spaces.

Table 1 shows that 160 on-street parking on the northeast side would be lost, with about 411 lost in off-street parking if a strict adherence to design standards were maintained. Based on the parking in the study area, this loss represents a little more than

20% of all spaces. However, these numbers were based on quick estimates of total dimensions and are not very accurate. Level Two analysis overlaid parking templates to determine parking spaces lost and should be used as a more accurate number than those resulting from Level One analysis.

Level Two Analysis

This analysis employed three different scenarios applied to the application of parking standards. Scenario 1 losses would result from a strict enforcement of all parking standards.

A total of 742 spaces (530 NASSCO spaces) would be lost.

This represents a 26% loss in total parking in the study area.

Scenario 2 assumes that a 5% leeway in parking standards were obtained, then only 586 spaces (460 NASSCO spaces) would be lost, or approximately 20% of study area resources.

Scenario 3 assumes that only those lots that are close to Harbor Drive would be reconfigured. This approach resulted from meetings with the City of San Diego that indicated they would not pursue upgrades on all lots, but those that triggered reconfiguration of driveways attached to the public right of way would need a permit and would therefore be expected to meet these standards. Quick layouts of these lots were completed and a loss of 380 total spaces (199 NASCCO spaces) representing a 13% loss of parking resources for the study area. The results of Level Three analysis also supersedes Level Two and One results.

Level Three Analysis

Based on driveway reconfigurations, stormwater runoff requirements, parking lot shade tree requirements and buffering requirements, lots next to Harbor Drive will need to be reconfigured. A substantial number of parking spaces in these lots currently overhang into the public right-of-way and will need to be pulled out of the ROW regardless of if the Bayshore Bikeway project is constructed or not.

Table 3: Level Three, Scenario Four Parking Lot Layouts, should be reviewed in conjunction with the bike path and parking lot layouts shown on Figures 18 through 28 in the next Chapter.

This highly accurate parking lot layout process will result in the loss of 75 NASSCO parking spaces, and 181 on-street parking spaces for a total loss of 256 spaces. The table indicates the changes that would need to take place in each parking lot.

Overall, the loss of parking would represent a 9% loss in parking spaces found in the study area.

16

Figure 12: Parking Conditions

1 Both sides of Harbor Drive along the north segments do not allow for on-street parking

2

3

The trolley station has a drop-off zone and bus pull-out lane that is no longer used

4

Parallel parking exists along both sides of Harbor Drive along much of the roadway southeast of Sampson

5

Some of the off-street parking actually overhangs the public rights-of-way

6 2

3

7

8

9

10

5

4

NO RT H

1

Off-street parking is used heavily by BAE and NASSCO employees

6 Back in parking exists just north of 28th Street

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

7 On street parking is within the public rights of way and is used heavily by NASSCO staff

8 A variety of poles, structures and various obstacles do affect the overall parking capacity of the area

9 Parking spaces are squeezed onto NASSCO owned land or leased land from SDG&E or the railroad

10 The southern most segment of the corridor has limited on-street parking

17

Figure 13: Index- Existing Parking and Initial Parking Analysis

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

18

Figure 14: Sheet 1- Existing Parking and Initial Parking Analysis

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

19

Figure 15: Sheet 2- Existing Parking and Initial Parking Analysis

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

20

Figure 16: Sheet 3- Existing Parking and Initial Parking Analysis

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

21

Figure 17: Sheet 4- Existing Parking and Initial Parking Analysis

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

22

BAYSHORE BIKEWAY: HARBOR DRIVE PARKING DISPOSITIONS

Table Level 1 Parking Analysis (superseded

by Level 3, see Table 3) Level 11:Analysis: Assumptions Without Template Layouts

Table 2: Level 2 Parking Analysis (superseded by Level 3, see Table 3)

Can Remain Parking Lot Major Minimal with Some Will be Modificati Losses # (See Key Removed Loss If Likely on Likely Map) Standards Relaxed

Level 2 Analysis

Can Remain As Is

Lot 1 sub-divided due to complexity

118

41.3%

179

69

Lot consists of 30º parking and 11' one-way drive aisle. Fails to meet SD standards for parking.

D-3 (60º) without parallel parking or D-5 (38º) with parallel parking.

1a

78

30

A-1 (90º 1-sided) parking.

48

61.5%

30

No change from Scenario 1.

1b

9

4

A-1 (90º 1-sided) parking.

5

55.6%

4

No change from Scenario 1.

78

Lot consists of 75º parking on one side and parallel on other. Uturn at southeast allows vehicle turnaround and access to angled parking. Lot "organically" laid out with several angle changes and no trees. Parking is substandard for 360' northeast of trolley station. (39 spaces total).

1c

199

134

D-5 (38º) parking.

65

32.7%

145

D-4 (45º with one-way aisle Additional 1 foot and parallel parking on one needed (2.5% side.) deviation).

54

2

93

69

D-5 (38º) parking. No parallel parking on northeast side.

24

25.8%

73

Additional 1 foot D-4 (45º parking - No parallel needed (2.5% parking on northeast side.) deviation).

20

3

195

176

Lot tallied via aerial photo.

Parking spaces lost due to updated landscape and stormwater requirements.

20

10.0%

195

Remains as-is.

5

231

146

Lot 5 sub-divided due to complexity

85

36.8%

153

Lot 5 sub-divided due to complexity

78

199

4C

A-1 (90º parking) works except Exceeds standards, but land-locked between trolley and freight northeast portion where B-4 rail lines. No trees.

(45º with two-way aisle/parallel) works.

377

5

Lot consists of back-in, 90º and 60º with one-way aisle. Lot also angled at northwest end due to bottleneck created by dead rail tracks. Perpendicular parking on southeast side. May be able to maintain SD standards if changed to 45º.

80

6

Southwest side of lot consists of 90º parking while northeast end D-4 (45º one-way parking) is parallel. Lot exceeds SD standards since aisle is two feet works. wider than required for one-way parking.

127

7

Lot consists of one-way angled parking on northeast side.

Angles range between 75º, 60º, parallel, and perpendicular from C-3 (45º one-way parking) works. northeast to southwest respectively. Lot fails to meet SD standards due to aisle width variations.

Alternates between D-5 (38º parking) and C-5 (parallel 560 feet does not meet standard with 11' drive aisle. parking).

Alternates between D-4 (45º 26 parallel spaces meet SD standards. 160 foot strip of parallel one-way parking isles) for first parking in middle of lot and 45º strip towards southwest side portion and C-5 (one parallel, exceed standards. However, some variety in aisle spacing. one side).

8 124

8B

27

8C

33

Lot just shy of C-2 standard (60º parking). However, D-1 (90º with parallel) and C-3 (45º) work.

8

8E

10

8F

17

8G

Lot consists of 75º (180 feet), 45º (110 feet), 60º (360 feet), and Close to D-4 (45º one-way parallel (460 feet) from northeast to southwest respectively. Lot aisle), but may have to be D-5 does not meet SD standards. However, without palm trees and (38º one-way parking). parallel parking, there is an opportunity for 60º parking.

93

10 11

195

80% of interior spaces and all perimeter spaces meet SD standards.

830

Some aisles do not meet SD standard due to varying width (22'- Very close to SD standard.

23'). Trees along sides, but no trees otherwise.

Keep as is.

Can maintain A-1 (90º) Southwest side consists of 60º spaces while north side is orientation with 90º around parallel. Lot exceeds SD standards for one-way aisle parking. perimeter. (May lose spaces in About one third of lot just shy of 45º SD standards. far north corner).

143

12 Southwest Onstreet Parallel: B, C, F, I

D-4 throughout lot except for north end.

Small percentage of spaces may be lost due to desire for trees along each side of street.

103

Construction of cycle track will require removal of all on-street spaces.

160

Percentage to Remain:

0%

65%

70%

80%

100%

Sub-total per Category:

160

364

299

971

1,045

2,839

= Current Gross Spaces (On & Off / Auto and Motorcycle)

0

237

209

777

1,045

2,268

= Likely Gross Spaces Given Assumptions at Left

Loss as Percent:

NASSCO Counts Current Condition Count

Remarks

286

Lot 1 sub-divided due to complexity

0

48

78

Remains as-is.

0

N/A

5

9

Remains as-is.

0

N/A

27.1%

199

Remains as-is.

0

N/A

21.5%

69

D-5 (38º) parking. No parallel parking on northeast side.

195

Remains as-is.

0

223

Lot 5 sub-divided due to complexity

8

49

124

Remains as-is.

0

N/A

107

37.4%

0

33.8%

24

0%

25.8%

200

85

173

3.5%

232

5a

124

69

D-3 (60º) parking.

55

44.4%

75

5b

27

15

D-4 (45º) parking.

12

44.4%

15

No change from Scenario 1.

12

27

Remains as-is.

0

N/A

5c

33

23

D-4 (45º) parking.

10

30.3%

23

No change from Scenario 1.

10

33

Remains as-is.

0

N/A

5d

12

12

D-4 (45º) parking.

0

0.0%

12

No change from Scenario 1.

0

12

D-4 (45º) parking.

0

0.0%

N/A

5e

8

5

D-4 (45º) parking.

3

37.5%

6

5

D-4 (45º) parking.

3

37.5%

N/A

5f

10

10

D-4 (45º) parking.

0

0.0%

10

No change from Scenario 1.

0

10

D-4 (45º) parking.

0

0.0%

N/A

5g

17

12

D-4 (45º) parking.

5

29.4%

12

No change from Scenario 1.

5

12

D-4 (45º) parking.

5

29.4%

N/A

6

377

319

A-1 (90º) two-way parking.

58

15.4%

319

No change from Scenario 1.

58

319

D-4 (45º) parking.

60

15.4%

454

6B

140

130

D-1 (One way parking).

10

7.1%

128

D-4 (45º with one-way aisle Additional 1 foot and parallel parking on one needed (2.5% side.) deviation).

12

130

D-1 (One way parking).

10

7.1%

186

6C

80

53

C-2 (60º) parking.

27

33.8%

53

No change from Scenario 1.

27

53

C-2 (60º) parking.

27

33.8%

80

6T

69

55

D-5 (38º) parking.

14

20.3%

58

D-4 (45º with one-way aisle Additional 1 foot and parallel parking on one needed (2.5% side.) deviation).

11

15.9%

55

D-5 (38º) parking.

14

20.3%

65

7

143

87

D-3 (60º) parking.

56

39.2%

103

D-1 (90º with one-way aisle Additional 2 feet and parallel parking on one needed (4% side). deviation).

40

28.0%

87

D-3 (60º) parking.

56

39.2%

140

TROLLEY

20

18

Parking spaces lost due to updated landscape and stormwater requirements.

2

10.0%

20

Remains as-is.

20

Remains as-is.

0

Not Included In Count

PARK & PAY

125

62

A-1 (90º) two-way parking.

63

50.4%

75

Additional 1 foot A-4 (45º with two-way aisle.) needed (2.5% deviation).

125

Remains as-is.

0

Not Included In Count

BAE

830

747

Lot tallied via aerial photo.

Parking spaces lost due to updated landscape and stormwater requirements.

83

10.0%

830

0

830

Remains as-is.

0

Not Included In Count

Southwest On-street Parking:

105

82

Parking spaces reduced due to updated landscape and stormwater requirements.

23

21.5%

82

No change from Scenario 1.

21

82

No change from Scenario 1.

23

Not Included In Count

Northeast On-street Parking:

160

0

160

100%

0

No change from Scenario 1.

160

0

No change from Scenario 1.

160

Not Included In Count

2,854

2,112

Scenario 1 Parking Loss =

-742

26.0%

2,268

NASSCO Parking Loss Scenario 1

-530

Note: Lots 1,10 and 11 (shown in grey) not a focus of study

20.12%

Lot 1 sub-divided due to complexity

Loss as Percent

Additional 1 foot B-1 (90º with two-way aisle.) needed (2.5% deviation).

12

8D

Parking Yield if Unaffected Lots Are Not Upgraded (Harbor Drive Edge lots Upgraded to full Spaces Standard) Lost New Count

168

D-5 (38º) functions for lot except northwest side (75 vehicles), which would have to be A-6 (parallel parking).

Loss as Percent

Remarks

286

9

9

Spaces Lost

1

4B

Spaces to Remain:

New Count

Remarks

Change Needed

A-5 (38º) fits throughout, but may be able to achieve 45º.

4

Northeast Onstreet Parallel: A, D, E, G, H

New Count

Loss as Percent

Scenario 3

Parking Yield If Most Standards Met (Within 5% Deviation)

Aisle varies between 21'-22'. 18' parking bays meet standard.

125

8A

Current Parking Lot # Condition (See Key Map) Count

Scenario 2

Keep as is.

2

4A

Scenario 1 Parking Yield if all City Standards Met (See City of San Diego Parking Templates) Spaces Lost

Meets SD standards for single aisle, two-way parking lot. Aisle alternates between 23' and 24'.

20

1

3

Parking Lot Recommendations (See City of San Diego Parking Layout Templates)

Parking Lot Descriptions

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture

B, C, F, I

A, D, E, G, H

Count Without Trolley, Pay & Park, BAE & onstreet lots=

1,615

Parking removed.

Potential for one additional space with minor code change in length.

Varies.

2

25.0%

8.6%

0

Remains as-is.

50

Scenario 2 Parking Loss =

-586

NASSCO Parking Loss Scenario 2

-460

40.0%

20.5%

2,474

Scenario 3 Parking Loss =

-380

NASSCO Parking Loss Scenario 3

-199

13.3%

1615 (NASSCO)**

*This number indicates NASSCO's applicable parking lots as listed.

23

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway Table 3: Level 3 Parking Analysis BAYSHORE BIKEWAY: HARBOR DRIVE PARKING RECONFIGURATIONS LEVEL 3 ANALYSIS (SCENARIO 4): ACTUAL PARKING LOT LAYOUTS

Parking Lot # (See Key Map)

KTU+A Current Condition Count

NAASCO Current Condition Count

Changes Made

Proposed Count of Modified Parking Lots

Spaces Lost (-), spaces gained +

Loss as Percent

NAASCO PARKED LOTS ONLY 1

286

200

Various existing parking lot arrangements, none adjusted.

286

+0

0.0%

2

93

85

D-4 (45º) parking.

86

-7

-7.5%

3

195

173

Various existing parking lot arrangements, none adjusted.

195

+0

0.0%

5

231

232

Various existing parking lot arrangements, none adjusted.

231

+0

0.0%

6

377

454

A-1 (90º) two-way parking.

319

-58

-15.4%

6B

140

186

D-4 (45º) parking.

190

+50

35.7%

6C

80

80

D-4 (45º) parking.

47

-33

-41.3%

6T

69

65

D-4 (45º) parking.

55

-14

-20.3%

7

143

140

D-4 (45º) parking.

130

-13

-9.1%

NAASCO LOTS ONLY

1,614

1,615

1,539

-75

-4.6%

OTHER SHIPYARD AREA LOTS TROLLEY

20

No changes required

20

+0

0.0%

PARK & PAY

125

No chanages required

125

+0

0.0%

BAE

830

No changes required

830

+0

0.0%

OTHER SHIPYARD LOTS

975

975

0

0.0%

ON-STREET CITY OF SD PARKING AREAS Southwest On-street Parking: B, C, F, I

105

Concept calls for the loss of 16 spaces due to ROW width restrictions. Another 6 spaces were lost due to the requirement for tree planter areas to provide a streetscape edge.

84

-21

20.0%

Northeast On-street Parking: A, D, E, G, H

160

Parking removed to accommodate project 2-way cycle track

0

-160

100%

City of SD ROW SPACES

265

84

-181

-68.3%

ALL LOTS

KTU+A EX. COUNT 2,854

Count Without Trolley, Pay & Park, BAE & onstreet lots. ( KTU+A's NAASCO Count)

1,615

KTU+A KTU+A KTU+A PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED COUNT LOSSES LOSS % 2,598 -256 -9.0%

24

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Recommended Bikeway Layout, Streetscapes and Parking

4

Recommended Bikeway Layout and Parking Configuration

It was a goal of this project to limit bikeway development impacts on adjacent parking as much as possible, and to strive to confine the footprint of the Bayshore Bikeway along Harbor Drive to fit within the public right-of-way. In addition, the desired configuration included the retention of the existing number of travel lanes on Harbor Drive, as well as the median and turn lanes, new Class 2 bike lanes in both directions and a new Class 1 bike path on the northeast side. All of these features needed to fulfill minimum facility standards, such as mandated travel lane and bicycle facility widths and buffering.

Their combined widths constituted a minimum of 112 feet of right-of-way, and ranged up to 120 feet, depending upon available right-of-way.

Prior to the final site plan layout, agreement was reached on parking stall width and depth and the frequency of trees per number of parking spaces. The study parking layouts therefore employed current City of San Diego standards. In the interests of space efficiency, the adjacent parking configurations shown on the following layout sheets emulated as much as possible any existing arrangements, though this was not always possible since much of the existing parking did not meet current City of San Diego standards.

The Bayshore Bikeway was then laid out in detail in conjunction with the parking lot design discussed in the previous section. Ideal and minimum cross-sections were explored with various potential barrier options and a refined site plan was developed for the entire corridor. A three-dimensional model was also created and used for creating a number of the following figures. The base map uses an updated aerial background and an overlay of parcels and rights-of-way developed for use in project analysis. Topographic data were obtained from the Port District and NASSCO. Accommodating all of the desired features was accomplished by making use of the existing underutilized median width as new roadway surface. This allowed pavement expansion inward, limiting right-of-way impacts. However, this still resulted in the loss of some on-street parking spaces, as well as some within the immediately adjacent parking lots. It should be noted that the exact limits of the right-of-way shown should be considered good approximations only, because while the mapping used for this study was the most accurate available, it should not be relied upon as definitive. Any further engineering and design studies should utilize up-to-date survey base mapping.

The following pages labeled Figures 19 to 28: Recommended Trail Layout and Parking Reconfiguration, are plan view layouts illustrating the desired configuration adapted to fit within the variable right-of-way widths along the Harbor Drive corridor.

For an overall key map view of the 10 interconnected sheets of design plans, see Figure 18: Key Map for Recommended Bayshore Bikeway Layout and Parking Reconfiguration. Note that the sheet order runs from southeast to northwest, from 32nd Street to Park Boulevard. They illustrate the recommended configuration, including landscape enhancements and lighting. In the lower left corner of each sheet are enlarged views of street sections with typical dimensions. See Figures 38 to 41: Cross Sections, for more detailed three-dimensional model views of these section locations.

The standard sheet legend color scheme clarifies where median reductions occurred, as well as where various paving types would be installed. In general, roadway and parking lot paving would be asphalt with enhanced paving within sections of the median too narrow for landscaping. The Class 2 bike paths are shown as light gray to distinguish them visually from the travel lanes, but would also be asphalt as in integral part of the Harbor Drive surface. In contrast, the Class 1 bike path (cycle track) itself would be concrete. While more costly than asphalt initially, its life cycle costs should be less due to greater longevity and resistance to uplift. Cycle track crossings of driveways and roadway intersections are shown in green, the accepted color application for such situations. This pavement coloring technique for such transition zones was recently approved for use in California.

These sheets illustrate adjacent parking lot reconfiguration and access points, some of which were relocated to accommodate the Bayshore Bikeway. On Figures 19 through 24, for example, the adjacent parking configuration now reflects current City of San Diego standards. The existing layout immediately adjacent to the roadway was changed from straight-in to angled parking to accommodate the space needed for the Bayshore Bikeway.

In general, this resulted in an overall reduction in the number of parking spaces. In addition, existing configurations have generally substandard aisle widths, stall dimensions and access points, and applying current standards to these areas invariably decreased capacity. Some parking spaces were gained, however, due to efficiencies gained from marked parking spots versus allowing the driver to decide on how much space should be left between parked vehicles.

In terms of specific improvements shown on these sheets, the intersection of Belt Street on Figure 20 shows alterations to this location in terms of overall safety and vehicle throughput.

Turn lanes were added on Harbor Drive to allow access to the parking lot from both directions, while one-way circulation within the parking lot was retained.

On Figures 21 and 25, additional southbound left turn only lanes were added at 28th Street and Cesar Chavez parkway to reflect the City of San Diego’s Barrio Logan Community Plan Update recommendations.

On Figure 22, an existing gunite wall and on-street parallel parking do not provide enough space for the desired configuration. A new retaining wall set further back from the roadway is needed to accommodate the Bayshore Bikeway configuration within this segment. Crossing the existing rail line at this location also required more space than currently exists in order to avoid a less than 90 degree crossing of the tracks.

On Figure 23, a new parking lot access from Harbor Drive was aligned with Sicard Street to replace the existing substandard driveways in this area. Access from southbound Harbor Drive would now occur at a signalized intersection from a designated left turn only lane. Another existing entrance at Schley Street, where drivers are forced to perform unsafe and illegal maneuvers to enter and leave the parking lot, has been changed to one-way for safety and limited space due to an adjacent power line tower.

Figures 27 and 28 show a cycle track cantilevered off an existing bridge over the rail yard southeast of Park Boulevard.

This is just one of several potential options to accommodate the Bayshore Bikeway over this bridge, which are addressed later in this section under Figure 31: Alternative Harbor Drive Bridge Modifications.

The parking lot and roadway layout was supplemented with conceptual drainage and stormwater runoff plans by which directional flows were to be intercepted within landscape areas or detention, retention or percolation basins. Where space was particularly restricted, in-line filters in catch basins were considered. Where possible, bio-swales would be used to treat runoff, but it was intended that most runoff would be directed to landscaped bio-swales to supplement irrigation and to keep runoff on site. The latest Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements were addressed as part of this effort.

25

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Optional Roadway Modifications

Figures 29 and 30: Alternative Roadway Modifications and Repair Levels illustrate four options in implementing the Bayshore Bikeway. These are generic sections that apply to the entire corridor and not just a specific location. Starting with Option 1: Minimal Roadway Improvements and ranging through Option 4: Full Roadway Rebuild, they define the various levels of construction that could potentially be considered, from least amount of construction to most comprehensive.

Option 1: Minimal Roadway Improvements, would add new roadway paving only where existing bare dirt median was converted to paved roadway surface. All other roadway surfaces would be retained. Existing roadway crowning would therefore also be retained and the only bio-swales would be outside the right-of-way and within the remaining median.

Option 2: Moderate Roadway Improvements, would be similar to Option 1, but would include bio-swales between the existing roadway and Bayshore Bikeway, as well as make limited improvements to the roadway surface. Existing roadway crowning would be retained.

Option 3: Partial Roadway Rebuild, would be similar to Option 2, except that it would employ the existing roadway surface as a base for regrading the roadway slope to allow surface flows to run into the median bio-swale. Options 3 and 4 differ from Options 1 and 2 by providing the necessary infrastructure to collect runoff from the roadway and funnel it to the median bio-swale, which has a larger capacity than the other bio-swales.

Option 3 would also address major pot-holes and other surface damage, including some grinding to reduce major lifts and allow for a complete asphalt overlay.

Option 4: Full Roadway Rebuild, would involve completely demolishing the existing roadway surface and replacing and regrading it to allow for collecting surface flows within the median bio-swale. This option would therefore involve improving the entire roadway surface.

Optional Bridge Modifications

Figure 31: Alternative Harbor Drive Bridge Modifications, specifically addresses how to accommodate Bayshore Bikeway facilities across the existing bridge over the rail yard southeast of Park Boulevard. The bridge currently supports two travel lanes each way with shoulder separating them from a sidewalk on each side. There is a K-rail in the center of the bridge, with a buffer between it and the edge of the inner lanes.

The existing roadway width is retained in Options 1 and 2, but these options do not allow for the desired Class 2 lanes in both directions as well as a Class 1 path. Option 1 retains a sidewalk on the southbound side along with a Class 2 bike lane, but no bike lane on the northbound side, where a 10 foot bike path is intended to be shared with walkers.

Option 2 has no walkway on the southbound side, but does accommodate Class 2 bike lanes in both directions. Like Option 1, walkers would share the Class 1 bike path on the northbound side. This option is able to provide this level of access by moving the K-rail slightly and eliminating its buffer.

Option 3 retains the northbound sidewalk last seen in Option 1, as well as Class 2 bike lanes in both directions, and a shared use Class 1 bike path for use by both cyclists and walkers. It does so by rebuilding the northbound side of the bridge to extend the existing cantilever and increase overall bridge width by about six feet.

Option 4 retains existing basic bridge lane configuration with minor variations, as well as the existing sidewalks, while adding Class 2 bike lanes in both directions and a Class 1 bike path.

It does so by adding a cantilever structure for the bike path attached to the bridge substructure, increasing overall width by 11 feet. Some method of cantilevering like this would need to be employed to address the utility conduits that were added to this side of the bridge since the 2006 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Study was completed. This cantilever would place users below the existing roadway level and would need to address variations in bridge support structure caused by the oblique alignment of rail lines passing under it.

Overview Perspectives

Figures 32 to 37 are renderings of three-dimensional models of various segments of this corridor to better illustrate the character and extent of recommended development. These figures show the level of landscaping recommended and how the Class 1 bike path would be buffered from the roadway, as well as how crossings of driveways and intersections could be addressed.

The Section 2 renderings address the Chollas Creek bridge and immediate vicinity, showing how a cantilever hung off the northbound side could accommodate the Class 1 bike path.

(The section location is shown on Figure 20.) These illustrations are conceptual in nature, but some sort of cantilever would be needed to accommodate the full breadth of facilities desired.

The bridge itself is wide enough to accommodate the existing two travel lanes each way and new Class 2 bike lanes by reducing median width and restriping the resulting paved surface.

The Section 6 renderings illustrate how a section of retaining wall would need to be built at this location to accommodate the existing elevation change between the bikeway and the adjacent parking lot. They also illustrate the existing condition across Harbor Drive where drivers must cross the sidewalk to park their vehicles. Otherwise, the section renderings show the typical bikeway and street configurations for most of the corridor.

(The section location is shown on Figure 21.)

The Section 7 renderings illustrate the recommended configuration at the 28th Street intersection, one of the more constrained locations within the study corridor. They also show how colored pavement is planned to be used within the Class 1 bike path at intersections and driveways to make it stand out visually. (The section location is shown on Figure 21.)

The Section 8 renderings illustrate the recommended reconfiguration where some adjacent on-street parking on the bay side of Harbor Drive was removed to accommodate the planned bikeway development. The parking shown on the left side of the sections is off-street. (The section location is shown on Figure 21.)

The Section 11 renderings illustrate how the desired facilities would be accommodated in one of the most constrained segments of the study corridor, directly under the SR75 Coronado Bridge. Adjacent bridge abutments required significant median reduction. (The section location is shown on Figure 25.)

Cross Sections & Detailed Perspectives

Figures 38 to 41 are specific segment sections to illustrate how the existing right-of-way would be apportioned to accommodate Bayshore Bikeway development. They relate to the sections noted on Figures 19 to 28: Recommended Trail Layout and Parking Reconfiguration. They were generated from the three-dimensional model developed for this project.

26

Figure 18: Key Map for Recommended Bayshore Bikeway Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

27

Figure 19: Sheet 1- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

28

Figure 20: Sheet 2- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

29

Figure 21: Sheet 3- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

30

Figure 22: Sheet 4- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

31

Figure 23: Sheet 5- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

32

Figure 24: Sheet 6- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

33

Figure 25: Sheet 7- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

34

Figure 26: Sheet 8- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

35

Figure 27: Sheet 9- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

36

Figure 28: Sheet 10- Recommended Trail Layout & Parking Reconfiguration

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

37

Figure 29: Alternative Roadway Modifications and Repair Levels

OPTION 1: Minimal Roadway Improvements (no Bio-swale Buffer) Path and bio-swales are newly constructed. New roadway pavement added near the medians as asphalt.

Existing roadway to remain as is with no fixes, treatments or overlays. Path would be reduced to 10’ to save on new pavement costs. Pedestrian lights on trail would not be included. New path would be permeable concrete with compacted d.g. buffer surface.

Wood rail acts as buffer with 2’ clearance for bike path users.

x

ROW

Actions taken:

Existing grade

x

NEW x

OPTION 2: Moderate Roadway Improvements (Add on Lane with Median Rebuild) Path and bio-swales are newly constructed. New roadway pavement added near the medians as asphalt.

The median would require a curb and small curb line retaining walls in some locations. If drained towards, then gutter and curb line breaks are needed. A seal coat over portions that have been asphalted on top of concrete would be completed. Minor imperfections and roadway damage would be left, major ones filled or grounded to be even.

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

x

ROW

Actions taken:

Existing grade

x

5' NEW x

38

Figure 30: Alternative Roadway Modifications and Repair Levels

OPTION 3:

Partial Roadway Rebuild

(Full Surface Overlay, Add on Lane with Median Rebuild)

New path and bio-swales would be constructed with additional pavement added onto the concrete roads (use of dowels likely). Major pot-holes and damage to concrete would be repaired.

Asphalt course with major lifts on top of concrete would be ground to allow for a new 2-3” asphalt overlay added over the full roadway.

x

ROW

Actions taken:

2% x

NEW x

OPTION 4:

Full Roadway Rebuild

(Full Roadway Rebuild and Drainage Improvements)

Demolish roadway surfaces, rebuild base and grade to drain towards median. Add major storm water runoff treatment areas, basins and subsurface drainage in median. New pavement would be standard asphalt (6” on 6” base?).

x

ROW

Actions taken:

2% x

x

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

39

Figure 31: Alternative Harbor Drive Bridge Modifications

STR

x

Option 1

Expand existing walkway, drop northbound bike lane.

STR

C L

x

SW

BL

TW

TW

KR

TW

TW

KR

BP

BL KR

BP

LEGEND

BL: BIKE LANE STR: STRIPE OFFSET BP: BIKE PATH

SW: SIDEWALK SH: SHOLDER TW: TRAVEL WAY KR: K-RAIL

x

BL

TW

TW

x

KR

TW

C L C L

TW

TW

KR

TW

TW

SH

SW

Remove Remove northbound northbound walkway, rebuild walkway, rebuild cantilever as bike cantilever as bike path. path.

SWSW BL BL

TWTW

TWTW

x

x

x

x

STR

STR STR

STR

Option 33 Option

x

SH

TW

STR

STR

x

x

Option 2 Expand existing walkway and move median.

C L

Existing Conditions

SW

x

STR

STR

C L

KR KR

TWTW

TWTW

KR KR BL BL

BP BP

Add new Add new cantilever cantilever attached to to attached substructure. substructure.

SWSW BL BL

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

TWTW

TWTW

x

x

x

x

KR KR

STR

Option 44 Option

STR STR

STR

C L C L

TWTW

TWTW

BL BL SWSW

BP BP

40

Figure 32: Overview of Project Improvements Looking North from 32nd Street

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

41

Figure 33: Overview of Project Improvements Looking South from 28th Street

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

42

Figure 34: Overview of Project Improvements Looking North from 28th Street

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

43

Figure 35: Overview of Project Improvements Looking South from Sampson Street

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

44

Figure 36: Overview of Project Improvements Looking South from Cesar Chavez Parkway

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

45

Figure 37: Overview of Project Improvements Looking North from Cesar Chavez Parkway

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

46

Figure 38: Cross Sections 2 and 6

2 SHEET 2

6 SHEET 3

CHOLLAS CREEK BRIDGE CROSSING SECTION - FACING NW - STA. 11+35.62

SCALE: 1”=10’.0”

EAST OF S. 28TH STREET ON HARBOR DRIVE SECTION - FACING NW - STA. 24+37.79

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

SCALE: 1”=10’.0”

47

Figure 39: Oblique Cross Section 2

2 SHEET 2

CHOLLAS CREEK BRIDGE CROSSING SECTION PERSPECTIVE

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

SCALE: NTS

PERSPECTIVE IMAGE

48

Figure 40: Section 2 Perspectives

SECTION 2: NORTHBOUND BIRD’S EYE PERSPECTIVE

SECTION 2: VIEW FROM CYCLE TRACK SOUTHBOUND

SECTION 2: SOUTHBOUND BIRD’S EYE PERSPECTIVE

SECTION 2: POSSIBLE OVERHANG DETAIL

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

49

Figure 41: Cross Sections 7 and 8

7 SHEET 3

8 SHEET 3

INTERSECTION OF S. 28TH STREET AND S. HARBOR DRIVE SECTION - FACING NW - STA. 30+96.64

SCALE: 1”=10’.0”

WEST OF S. 28TH STREET ON HARBOR DRIVE SECTION - FACING NW - STA. 35+86.72

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

SCALE: 1”=10’.0” 50

Figure 42: Oblique Cross Section 6

6 SHEET 3

EAST OF S. 28TH STREET ON HARBOR DRIVE SECTION PERSPECTIVE

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

SCALE: NTS

PERSPECTIVE IMAGE

51

Figure 43: Cross Section 6 Perspectives

SECTION 6: CYCLE TRACK AND CLASS 2 BIKE LANES

SECTION 6: VIEW FROM CYCLE TRACK SOUTHBOUND

SECTION 6: VIEW FROM CLASS 2 SOUTHBOUND

SECTION 6: VIEW FROM CLASS 2 NORTHBOUND

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

52

Figure 44: Oblique Cross Section 7

7 SHEET 3

INTERSECTION OF S. 28TH STREET AND S. HARBOR DRIVE SECTION PERSPECTIVE

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

SCALE: NTS

PERSPECTIVE IMAGE

53

Figure 45: Cross Section 7 Perspectives

SECTION 7: BIRD’S EYE OF PARKING LOT ENTRANCE/EXIT NORTHBOUND

SECTION 7: VIEW FROM CYCLE TRACK NORTHBOUND

SECTION 7: BIRD’S EYE OF CROSS WALK

SECTION 7: VIEW FROM RIGHT-TURN LANE NORTHBOUND

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

54

Figure 46: Oblique Cross Section 8

8 SHEET 3

WEST OF S. 28TH STREET ON HARBOR DRIVE SECTION PERSPECTIVE

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

SCALE: NTS

PERSPECTIVE IMAGE

55

Figure 47: Cross Section 8 Perspectives

SECTION 8: VIEW FROM CYCLE TRACK NORTHBOUND

SECTION 8: VIEW FROM BIKE LANE NORTHBOUND

SECTION 8: BIRD’S EYE PERSPECTIVE

SECTION 8: VIEW FROM AUTOMOBILE NORTHBOUND

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

56

Figure 48: Cross Section 11

11 SHEET 7

CORONADO BRIDGE UNDERPASS SECTION - FACING NW - STA. 76+19.82

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

SCALE: 1”=10’.0”

57

Figure 49: Oblique Cross Section 11

11 SHEET 7

UNDER CORONADO BRIDGE SECTION PERSPECTIVE

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

SCALE: NTS

PERSPECTIVE IMAGE

58

Figure 50: Cross Section 11 Perspectives

SECTION 11: BIRD’S EYE VIEW WITH CORONADO BRIDGE

SECTION 11: VIEW FROM CYCLE TRACK NORTHBOUND

SECTION 11: BIRD’S EYE VIEW WITH CORONADO BRIDGE SOUTHBOUND

SECTION 11: VIEW FROM CYCLE TRACK SOUTHBOUND

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

10

59

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Stormwater Runoff Control, Landscape and Art Treatments

5

Stormwater Runoff Control Concept

The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater runoff requirements have become very stringent and require quantity and quality control for all runoff. Standard engineering methods are no longer acceptable for quality control. The requirements restrict the amount of runoff from a site to match the pre-construction amounts. The proposed parking lots will result in impervious surfaces that will result in additional runoff and will therefore have to meet these more stringent standard.

Figure 51 is a diagram showing a typical plan view of the stormwater concepts being proposed at the NASSCO rebuilt parking lots that touch the edge of Harbor Drive. The concept utilizes a combination of permeable concrete, flow inlet raised curbs, underground Silva Cells, open cobble stream courses and a bioswale for water quality improvements. A subsurface drainage system is proposed, but the majority of non-major storm events will be captured in the bioswales and be taken up by ground / soil reservoirs in and around the parking lot trees, as well as vertical infiltration trenches that run the length of the parking lots. Major story events will be captured by overflow pipe inlets into the storm drain and in sheet flows over the bike path and into the road drainage solutions.

Figure 52 shows a cross section of how the stormwater infiltration and drainage system will work. The path will sheet flow into its own bio-swale. Though not shown on Figure 52, the smaller bio-swale will be interconnected with the larger bio-swale at the parking lot edge.

Figure 54 shows typical planting patterns proposed for the various roadway medians proposed in the project. The reconstructed median will be of varying widths so different tree options and plant materials are required to meet the City of San Diego’s median planting street tree requirements. In many cases, the median will be too small for trees, but will contain continuity in design themes and understory plant material. As was the case for the bio-swales, the median will contain a large amount of river cobble rock , as well as decomposed granite and bark mulch. This will serve to lower the overall maintenance costs and allow for clarity in curvilinear patterns running through the median. Small medians and turn lanes that are less than 5’ will not contain plant material, though the curvilinear cobble pattern will carry through.

Figure 55 includes imagery that captures the look and feel proposed for these bio-swales and medians. The figure also shows a variety of non-vegetative ground covers such as cobble, pebble, crushed rock and decomposed granite. The mulches will need to be shredded and course enough to not be carried away by flowing water. The subsurface soil materials around trees, in and around the Silva Cells, and in vertical infiltration trenches will need to include a composted filter media and growing median that helps to provide water quality improvements.

Figure 56 provides images of the proposed street trees that would be placed either in the bio-swales, parking lots or the medians. Parkway trees will need to be smaller than those proposed for the parking lots and the median. This figure also shows samples of some of the native shrubs that can be used in these planted areas.

Landscape Treatments

Figure 57 shows a variety of native grasses and other plants that are ideal for use in the bio-swales. Plant materials in these locations need to be able to survive wet inundation periods, as well as dry periods equally well. Extensive amounts of groundcover color or accent is not envisioned, however the judicious use of color will be provided nearest the intersections and along segments where traffic or cyclists will tend to slow down.

The proposed trees are sample suggestions. All trees will need to have a high growing pattern to allow for a 8’ height clearance for bike path users. Most of the proposed plant material are natives or drought tolerant and low maintenance. Though the trees in this typical diagram appear to have equal spacing, a dynamic rhythm has been established with tree gaps and groupings that are more visible when viewing the broader tree layouts seen in Figures 19- 24.

Lighting Treatments

Figure 53 depicts the proposed planting and groundcover plans for the same typical area shown in Figure 51. This diagram shows a higher level of detail in planting and also indicates the desire to utilize cobble river rock and shredded bark mulch in a significant percentage of the bio-swale areas.

A variety of lighting types are proposed along the corridor.

Taller vehicular scaled lights are proposed in the medians (see Figure 59 for images of the style being recommended). This lighting style needs to capture the industrial nature of the working waterfront. The use of guy wires and supporting horizontal beams are suggested to capture this character. These light standards would be breakaway type lights to improve driver safety.

A second level of lighting is proposed along the pathways.

Though it is not intended to light the entire length of the pathways, a significant number of pedestrian level lighting is suggested. The lighting has been concentrated nearest the intersections and the driveway locations to increase safety.

All cyclists along the route should be riding with lights if dark conditions exist. Pedestrians will benefit from a low level of light along the pathways that will be projected over the path from the tall center median lights. It is important to transition from dark to bright areas in order to give the eye a chance to adjust to different light levels. Figure 58 includes a sample of the pedestrian level light standard being recommended. The design of this light standard fits the nautical and industrial nature of the area. The light standard has been customized with a Barrio Logan cut-out lettering, as well as a working waterfront letters.

The light fixture would also be outfitted with a bracket system to support a variety of art and banner options.

Other Walkway Amenities

Benches, water fountains and trash receptacles are not recommended along this pathway in order to reduce costs, maintenance costs and graffiti issues. The nature of this segment of the Bayshore Bikeway is that it is a linear experience, without many locations for public viewing of natural areas or other public spaces where individuals are likely to want to stop.

Art Opportunities

Figure 58 shows a variety of art concepts that could be created as part of the lighting system. A sample from Seattle, Washington can be seen in this figure to show how dimensional art could be very interesting. By having each light standard handled by a different artist, it would be possible to provide a great deal of visual interest and variety. The name of the art program is called “Art Revolution”. This not only denotes the cultural independence of the Barrio, but is also a play on words that can denote revolving art that could move with the wind. What ever art is used, design guidelines should be provided to obtain a level of consistency while allowing for a great deal of creativity.

Figure 59 denotes the “Art Uprising” program contemplated to mark the different districts along the route. This combination of materials typically found in the industrial areas of Barrio Logan has been morphed with the art culture that is dominant in the area as well.

Figure 60 shows a concept for entry monuments indicated as “Industrial Art”. This fusion of art and industry in consistent with all of the other art concepts contemplated.

60

Figure 51: Plan View of Stormwater Runoff Concept Plan

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

61

Figure 52: Section View of Stormwater Runoff Concept Plan

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

62

Figure 53: Conceptual Bio-swale Landscape Treatments

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

63

Figure 54: Median Landscape Treatments

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

64

Figure 55: Landscape Composition Concepts

POSSIBLE PLANT COMPOSITIONS:

POSSIBLE LOW MAINTENANCE MULCHES:

COBBLE STONE

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

CRUSHED ROCK

DECOMPOSED GRANITE

MULCHES

COMPOST COMPOST FILTER MEDIA GROWING MEDIA 65

Figure 56: Sample Parkway and Median Trees

PARKWAY TREES SUCH AS:

ARBUTUS ‘Marina’ Strawberry Tree

LAGERSTROEMIA indica Crape Myrtle

METROSIDEROS excelsa Christmas Tree

PYRUS calleryana ‘Cleveland Select’ - Pear

PARKING LOT OR MEDIAN TREES SUCH AS:

FRAXINUS uhdei Shamel Ash

PINUS torreyana Torrey Pine

SHRUBS SUCH AS:

MIMULUS cardinalis Scarlet Monkeyflower

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

RIBES viburnifolium Catalina Perfume

PLANTANUS racemosa California Sycamore

ROSA californica California Wild Rose

TIPUANA tipu Tipu Tree

VENEGASIA car.

Canyon Sunflower 66

Figure 57: Sample Native Grasses and Accent Plants

NATIVE and/or DROUGHT TOLERANT GRASSES SUCH AS:

ARISTIDA purpurea Purple Three-Awn

CAREX praegracilis California Field Sedge

DISTICHLIS spicata Salt Grass

Eleocharis mont.

Splike Sedge

JUNCUS patens Spreading Rush

MUHLENBERGIA rigens Deergrass

NASSELLA viridula Green Needlegrass

SCIRPUS cernuus Low Bulrush

IRIS douglasiana Douglas Iris

SATUREJA douglasii Yerba Buena

ACCENTS SUCH AS:

ACHILLEA millefolium Yarrow

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

FESTUCA californica California Fescue

67

Figure 58: “Art Revolution” Recommended Art Concepts for Light Standards

Metal panels with full color art

Dimensional art (Laser or Water Jet Cutouts)

“Art Revolution” with kinetic art that revolves in the wind

Samples of dimensional art on light poles from Seattle’s University Avenue

an Port of S Diego

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

68

Figure 59: “Art Uprising” Recommended Art Concepts for Denote Districts along Harbor Drive

Sample imagery of “I” beam designs using rusted “Corten” steel

The vertical markers would be used to denote the general boundaries between the Maritime Operations, Mercado, Ship Repair, Ship Building and the Navy

A support base wold be designed to divert vehicles from collision impacts to the structure and for driver safety Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

The “I” beams would include Laser Jet or Water Jet cutout letters indicating the Working Waterfront as well as the Districts

The elements would build on the industrial and art character of Barrio Logan and the Working Waterfront

The vertical markers would be used close to intersections and can work in narrow, medium or wide medians 69

Figure 60: “Industrial Art” Recommended Art Concepts for Two Entry Monuments at the South and North End of the Project

Barrio Logan cut-out letters that overhang Harbor Drive with a minimum of 15’ clearance

The monument expresses the industrial nature of the area by using rusted Corten “I” beams that symbolically have art partially taking over the structure

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

The “I” beams will include an element that looks like it is hanging, though it would be held secure on the structure

Imagery Found in the Immediate Area

A barrier or support structure would have to be developed in order to decrease impacts from vehicular collisions and to protect the art project

70

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Probable Costs, Phasing and Follow-On Studies Required

6

Estimate of Construction Costs

Area takeoffs were completed and multiplied by standard industry unit costs. Soft costs such as planning, engineering, permitting, environmental review, inspections, management and other contingency costs were then added to the line item costs. Because of the preliminary nature of the design and engineering and the lack of accurate base mapping, these costs should be considered very preliminary. The unit costs and construction techniques have not yet been assessed, adding an additional level of caution in the use of these very preliminary numbers. A range of costs should be used in discussing and programming for the implementation phase of the work efforts. Costs for all four roadway reconstruction options (see Figure 29 and 30) and all four bridge options (see Figure 31) were developed. Please refer to Tables 4 through 7 for each of the line item summaries per option.

Table 8 summarizes the major cost elements of each of the four options.

Probable Maintenance Costs

The overall project will require a few different sources of maintenance funds. The roadway surfaces, along with some of the raised median hardscape surfaces, should be maintained by the City of San Diego as part of ongoing roadway, gas tax based funding. The ongoing maintenance of the hard surface Bayshore Bikeway would include TRANSNET based sales tax money for capital costs of construction, as well as repair and replacement funding. Other maintenance of the Bayshore Bikeway hardscape surfaces, light detection loops, actuators and other markings would fall under the City of San Diego Street Division.

Maintenance of the bio-swale stormwater runoff system, parking lot shade trees and landscape buffers between the bike path and the parking areas, should be funded by NASSCO or others associated with the use of these parking areas.

Maintenance of the Bayshore Bikeway bio-swale, parkway trees, parkway landscaping, median landscaping, irrigation systems, light fixtures and public art should all be placed under a maintenance assessment district or other assessed form of maintenance where adjacent properties or remote properties that receive a direct benefit from the improvement, are taxed to cover the annual costs of maintenance. The costs of this maintenance will be determined under a separate consultant led study. Table 10 summarizes the quantities of areas to be maintained, as well as the frequency and type of maintenance.

Follow-on Studies Required

Project Phasing

The following is a prioritized list of follow-on research, mapping, design and engineering tasks that are essential for moving this project forward. These tasks include:

A logical progression of phasing would include the following:

This study suggests that the project as originally envisioned is feasible and can be accommodated without extreme expense or disruption to the vehicular carrying capacity of Harbor Drive or major impacts to private parking. However, the conceptual nature of the study did not allow for the identification of a number of issues that will need to be resolved in order to obtain a more accurate construction cost estimate and to determine the types of issues, constraints and options that should be further refined in order to implement the project.

1) Cost estimation services to determine more accurate costs.

2) Civil engineering analysis of roadway expansion and reconstruction options.

3) Value engineering of major roadway improvement elements.

4) Additional input from the community, agencies major stakeholders.

5) Accurate property, easement and public right-of-way limits.

6) Accurate base mapping that indicates all major structures or utilities in the way of the Bayshore Bikeway project.

7) Structural engineering analysis of the Harbor Drive Bridge to determine the best solution for adding a 10’ to 14’ wide bike path facility across this bridge.

8) Civil engineering for stormwater runoff and drainage systems required to implement the plan and resolve water quantity and water quality issues (35% construction documents).

9) Civil engineering for grading solutions to determine proper drainage, ADA requirements and retaining walls (35% construction documents).

10) Structural engineering analysis of the Chollas Creek Bridge to determine the feasibility, options and costs of a 10’ to 14’ cantilever.

11) Traffic engineering to determine signal sequencing, coordination and MUTCD / ITE / City of San Diego requirements for roadway improvements.

12) Landscape architectural review and layout of planting materials, street tree requirements, bio-swales, median plantings and irrigations systems (35% construction documents).

13) Electrical engineering and lighting engineering to determine lighting levels and points of connection options (35% construction documents)..

14) Refinement of the plan based on additional meetings, workshops, City of San Diego staff input, Port District staff and Commissioner input, County of San Diego input, stakeholder input and SANDAG review and suggestions.

15) Environmental review as required under CEQA. 16) Advisory approval for the conceptual plan and environmental review by the lead agency (which may include the City of San Diego, Port District or SANDAG).

17) Public art coordination and program development.

18) Follow on design, planning and engineering to a 100% design level including electrical, drainage, grading, pavements, landscape architecture, pathway amenities, lighting and irrigation systems.

Bike and multi-use facilities with regional significance generally need to be built as one project. However, recognizing difficulties in approvals and funding, a phasing plan will likely be required. Projects such as this one should avoid piecemealing small segments, especially where a near roadway two way path is being contemplated. A cyclist would need to transition from a one-way on-street bike lane or route system to a two way on one side of the road multi-use trail system, which increases safety concerns and decreases connectivity. As such, full segment phasing between major intersections would have to be considered.

1a) Reconstruction of NASSCO parking lots between 28th Street and Sampson Street. This would include new retaining walls and edge treatments to accommodate the northeast expansion of the pathway over the existing tracks that are required to be at or around 90 degrees.

1b) Harbor Drive reconstruction of the median and lane shifting towards the southwest of the northwest bound side of the roadway from 28th to Sampson Street. This would include major drainage and utility extensions for lighting.

1c) Construction of the Bayshore Bikeway from 28th to Sampson, including lighting, signage, street trees and bio-swales.

2a) NASSCO parking lot reconfigurations and stormwater drainage and utility systems from Chollas Creek northward to 28th Street.

2b) Harbor Drive reconstruction of the median and lane shifting towards the southwest of the northwest bound side of the roadway from Chollas Creek to 28th Street. This would include major drainage and utility extensions for lighting.

2c) Construction of the Bayshore Bikeway from 28th to Sampson, including lighting, signage, street trees and bio-swales.

3a) Harbor Drive reconstruction of the median and lane shifting towards the southwest of the northwest bound side of the roadway from Sampson to the southend of the Harbor Drive Bridge. This would include major drainage and utility extensions for lighting.

3b) Construction of the Bayshore Bikeway Sampson to the south end of the Harbor Drive Bridge.

3c) Implementation of the signage and entry monumentation system for the entire corridor, including the public art program.

4a) Construction of a cantilevered bridge on the Chollas Creek bridge and the construction of the path and connectors to the proposed path segments to the south of the study area.

5a) Construction of a cantilevered bridge on the Harbor Drive bridge and the construction of the path and connectors to the proposed path segments to the north of the study area , including connections to the waterfront and the Martin Luther King Promenade.

71

Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Table 4: Option 1 (Bridge and Roadway Reconfigurations) Initial Cost Estimates Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the Quantity of Unit of plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has been completed.

Units Measure

Preliminary Cost Estimate

OPTION 1

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%)

Full Program Budget

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the Quantity of Unit of plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has been completed.

Units Measure

Unit Price (Installed)

Sub-total Cost

OPTON 1 SUMMARY $3,195,511

Project fees / Contingency

$1,469,935 $4,665,446

Option 1: Minimal Roadway & ROW Improvements (No Bio-Swale Buffer) 2. Roadway Reconstruction

$369,828

3. Median Improvements

$1,173,216

4. Roadway Infrastructure

$457,126

5. Bike / Pedestrian Facilities

$2,653,773

6. Identity Signage

$0

7. Bridge Cantilevers

$692,875

8. Landscape and Irrigation

$1,099,291

9. Utility Connections & Relocations

$770,500

Project fees / Contingency

$3,175,308

Option 1: total:

$10,391,918

Grand Total Estimated Construction Costs:

OPTION 1

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%)

Full Program Budget

Unit Price (Installed)

Sub-total Cost

Option 1: Minimal Roadway & ROW Improvements (No Bio-Swale Buffer) 2. Roadway Reconstruction

Non-ROW 1: NASSCO Parking Lots (32nd Street to Sampson Street) 1. Parking Lot Construction

Preliminary Cost Estimate

$15,057,364

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

Demolition of roadway pavements Roadway grinding Roadway asphalt patching Roadway concrete patching Roadway grading Base compaction Roadway asphalt paving Roadway concrete paving Roadway concrete dowelling and expansion joints Roadway striping & botts dots

0 0 0 0 0 90,838 90,838 0 0 1

SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF LS LS

$2.50 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $5.00 $0.71 $2.50 $3.50 $25,000.00 $30,000.00

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,495 $227,095 $0 $0 $30,000

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,674 $34,064 $0 $0 $4,500

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,169 $261,159 $0 $0 $34,500

6,579 20,661 0 70 11,853

LF LF LF EA SF

$5.00 $15.00 $5.00 $2,425.00 $16.00

$32,895 $309,915 $317,980 $169,750 $189,648

$4,934 $46,487 $47,697 $25,463 $28,447

$37,829 $356,402 $365,677 $195,213 $218,095

1 8 1 1 1

LS EA LS LS LS

$175,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $175,001.00

$175,000 $40,000 $2,500 $5,000 $175,001

$26,250 $6,000 $375 $750 $26,250

$201,250 $46,000 $2,875 $5,750 $201,251

118,217 118,217 231 85 118,217 1 0 1 1 1 6,957

SF SF CY CY SF LS EA LS LS LS LF

$5.00 $0.71 $864.00 $864.00 $8.00 $6,000.00 $1,800.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $50.00

$591,085 $83,934 $199,584 $73,440 $945,736 $6,000 $0 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 $347,850

$88,663 $12,590 $29,938 $11,016 $141,860 $900 $0 $4,500 $1,500 $3,000 $52,178

$679,748 $96,524 $229,522 $84,456 $1,087,596 $6,900 $0 $34,500 $11,500 $23,000 $400,028

0 0

LS LS

$15,000.00 $30,000.00

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

1 0 1 1 0 0

LS LS LS LS LS LS

$350,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $2,500.00 $250,000.00 $20,000.00 $650,000.00

$350,000 $0 $2,500 $250,000 $0 $0

$52,500 $0 $375 $37,500 $0 $0

$402,500 $0 $2,875 $287,500 $0 $0

4 4 87,263 176 435 47,130 130 4 4 34,785 252 18,992 146 177

EA EA SF CY CY SF EA EA EA SF EA SF CY CY

$20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $50.00 $65.00 $1.54 $800.00 $20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $800.00 $1.93 $50.00 $65.00

$80,000 $10,000 $218,158 $8,800 $28,275 $72,621 $104,000 $80,000 $10,000 $86,963 $201,600 $36,684 $7,300 $11,505

$12,000 $1,500 $32,724 $1,320 $4,241 $10,893 $15,600 $12,000 $1,500 $13,044 $30,240 $5,503 $1,095 $1,726

$92,000 $11,500 $250,881 $10,120 $32,516 $83,514 $119,600 $92,000 $11,500 $100,007 $231,840 $42,187 $8,395 $13,231

1 1 1 3,000 1 4

LS LS LS LF LS EA

$20,000.00 $100,000.00 $200,000.00 $50.00 $100,000.00 $25,000.00

$20,000 $100,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $100,000

$3,000 $15,000 $30,000 $22,500 $15,000 $15,000

$23,000 $115,000 $230,000 $172,500 $115,000 $115,000

Option 1 Subtotal Design, Engineering, Management & Environmental Review (15%): Permit and inspection fees (2%): As-built record drawings(1%): 90 day landscape, graffiti and trash maintenance period (2%): Bond - Payment and performance (1%): Contingency (25%): Option 1 SubTotal

$7,216,610 $1,082,492 $144,332 $72,166 $144,332 $72,166 $1,804,153 $10,536,251

3. Median Improvements 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Median drainage swales & subsurface excess piping Median concrete curb with stormwater cut throughs Median concrete gutter (where required) with stormwater cut throughs Median lighting (Large pole fixtures) Enhanced paving

4. Roadway Infrastructure 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

New traffic signal at Sicard Street Pedestrian crossing signals Class 2 bike lane signage and crossing markings Roadway delineators New traffic signage, stops signs & other regulatory signs

5. Bike / Pedestrian Facilities 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11

10' multi-use path grading 10' multi-use path base compaction 10' multi-use path concrete retaining wall (8') 10' multi-use path concrete retaining wall (4') with railing 10' multi-use concrete path 10' multi-use path striping 10' multi-use path lighting (Small pole fixtures) 10' multi-use path crossing 10' multi-use path signage and crossing markings 10' multi-use path: Concrete Protective Barrier (K-rail) 10' multi-use path protective barrier (wood barrier)

6. Identity Signage 6.1 District markers 6.2 District Monumentation signage

7. Bridge Cantilevers 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Preliminary Cost Estimate

OPTION 1

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%) 15%

Full Program Budget

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the Quantity of Unit of plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has been completed.

Units Measure

Unit Price (Installed) Non-ROW 1: NASSCO Parking Lots (32nd Street to Sampson Street) 1. Parking Lot Construction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16

Existing parking lot demolition Mass grading, compaction and final grading Drainage improvements including bio-swales Asphaltic concrete with 6" base Parking lot striping Curb and gutter Belt Street intersection grading, compaction and base Parking lot entry/exit signage Irrigation meter Irrigation backflow preventer New planting area irrigation Parking lot/ street trees (36" box) Slope native plantings Parking lot stream course rock and cobble Parking lot bark mulch or decomposed granite Parking lot edge native plantings

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

159,400 159,400 1 159,400 508 10,100 2,135 11 4 4 22,140 116 5,769 68 84 16,371

SF SF LS SF Spaces LF SF LS EA EA SF EA SF CY CY SF

$2.50 $2.50 $60,000.00 $8.50 $25.00 $20.00 $5.00 $500.00 20,000.00 2,500.00 $3.00 $800.00 $3.00 $50.00 $65.00 $3.70

Sub-total Cost

$398,500 $398,500 $60,000 $1,354,900 $12,700 $202,000 $10,675 $5,500 $80,000 $10,000 $66,420 $92,800 $17,307 $3,400 $5,460 $60,543

$59,775 $59,775 $9,000 $203,235 $1,905 $30,300 $1,601 $825 $12,000 $1,500 $9,963 $13,920 $2,596 $510 $819 $9,081 Subtotal Permit and inspection fees (2%): Design, Engineering, Management & Environmental Review (15%): As-built record drawings (1%): 90 day landscape, graffiti and trash maintenance period (2%): Bond - Payment and performance (1%): Contingency (25%): Total

$458,275 $458,275 $69,000 $1,558,135 $14,605 $232,300 $12,276 $6,325 $92,000 $11,500 $76,383 $106,720 $19,903 $3,910 $6,279 $69,624 $3,195,511 $63,910 $479,327 $31,955 $63,910 $31,955 $798,878 $4,665,446

Chollas Creek bridge cantilever Harbor Drive Bridge cantilever Lane Restriping Northbound sidewalk expansion w / k-rail Move existing center divide k-rail Northbound sidewalk expansion w/ class 2 added & k-rail

8. Landscape and Irrigation 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14

Median Irrigation meter Median irrigation backflow preventer New median planting area irrigation Median stream course rock and cobble Median native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas Median native plantings Median 36" box trees Parkway Irrigation meter Parkway irrigation backflow preventer New parkway planting area irrigation Parkway 36" box trees Parkway native plantings Parkway stream course rock and cobble Parkway native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas

9. Utility Connections & Relocations 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6

New electrical point of connection Relocate below ground utilities in the way Relocate major drainage facilities in the way Install subsurface trench, perforated piping & stand pipe Remove existing street lighting and cap off utilities New potable water point of connection

72

Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Table 5: Option 2 (Bridge and Roadway Reconfigurations) Initial Cost Estimates Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Unit Price (Installed)

Sub-total Cost

OPTION 2

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%)

Full Program Budget

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%)

OPTION 2

Full Program Budget

SUMMARY Non-ROW 1: NASSCO Parking Lots (32nd Street to Sampson Street) 1. Parking Lot Construction

$3,195,511

Project fees / Contingency

$1,469,935 $4,665,446

Option 2: Moderate Roadway Improvements (Add on Lane with Median Rebuild) 2. Roadway Reconstruction (NORTHEAST LANE ONLY)

$1,602,438

3. Median Improvements

$1,173,216

4. Roadway Infrastructure

$457,126

5. Bike / Pedestrian Facilities

$3,189,742

6. Identity Signage

$396,750

7. Bridge Cantilevers

$715,875

8. Landscape and Irrigation

$1,099,291

9. Utility Connections & Relocations

$885,500

Project fees / Contingency

$2,951,181

Option 2: total:

$12,471,118

Grand Total Estimated Construction Costs:

$17,136,564

Unit Price (Installed)

Sub-total Cost

Option 2: Moderate Roadway Improvements (Add on Lane with Median Rebuild) 2. Roadway Reconstruction (NORTHEAST LANE ONLY) 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

Demolition of roadway pavements Roadway grinding (10%) Roadway asphalt patching (5%) Roadway concrete patching (5%) Roadway grading Base compaction Roadway asphalt paving Roadway concrete paving Roadway concrete dowelling and expansion joints Roadway striping & botts dots

0 31,271 15,636 15,636 0 312,712 312,712 0 0 1

SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF LS LS

$2.50 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $5.00 $0.71 $2.50 $3.50 $25,000.00 $30,000.00

$0 $156,356 $93,814 $109,449 $0 $222,026 $781,780 $0 $0 $30,000

$0 $23,453 $14,072 $16,417 $0 $33,304 $117,267 $0 $0 $4,500

$0 $179,809 $107,886 $125,867 $0 $255,329 $899,047 $0 $0 $34,500

6,579 20,661 0 70 11,853

LF LF LF EA SF

$5.00 $15.00 $5.00 $2,425.00 $16.00

$32,895 $309,915 $317,980 $169,750 $189,648

$4,934 $46,487 $47,697 $25,463 $28,447

$37,829 $356,402 $365,677 $195,213 $218,095

1 8 1 1 1

LS EA LS LS LS

$175,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $175,001.00

$175,000 $40,000 $2,500 $5,000 $175,001

$26,250 $6,000 $375 $750 $26,250

$201,250 $46,000 $2,875 $5,750 $201,251

141,861 141,861 231 85 141,861 1 60 1 1 1 7,635

SF SF CY CY SF LS EA LS LS LS LF

$5.00 $0.71 $864.00 $864.00 $8.00 $6,000.00 $1,800.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $50.00

$709,305 $100,721 $199,584 $73,440 $1,134,888 $6,000 $108,000 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 $381,750

$106,396 $15,108 $29,938 $11,016 $170,233 $900 $16,200 $4,500 $1,500 $3,000 $57,263

$815,701 $115,830 $229,522 $84,456 $1,305,121 $6,900 $124,200 $34,500 $11,500 $23,000 $439,013

6 60 1

EA EA LS

$15,000.00 $3,000.00 $75,000.00

$90,000 $180,000 $75,000

$13,500 $27,000 $11,250

$103,500 $207,000 $86,250

1 0 1 1 1 0

LS LS LS LS LS LS

$350,000.00 $800,000.00 $2,500.00 $250,000.00 $20,000.00 $650,000.00

$350,000 $0 $2,500 $250,000 $20,000 $0

$52,500 $0 $375 $37,500 $3,000 $0

$402,500 $0 $2,875 $287,500 $23,000 $0

4 4 87,263 176 435 47,130 130 4 4 34,785 252 18,992 146 177

EA EA SF CY CY SF EA EA EA SF EA SF CY CY

$20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $50.00 $65.00 $1.54 $800.00 $20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $800.00 $1.93 $50.00 $65.00

$80,000 $10,000 $218,158 $8,800 $28,275 $72,621 $104,000 $80,000 $10,000 $86,963 $201,600 $36,684 $7,300 $11,505

$12,000 $1,500 $32,724 $1,320 $4,241 $10,893 $15,600 $12,000 $1,500 $13,044 $30,240 $5,503 $1,095 $1,726

$92,000 $11,500 $250,881 $10,120 $32,516 $83,514 $119,600 $92,000 $11,500 $100,007 $231,840 $42,187 $8,395 $13,231

1 1 1 3,000 1 8

LS LS LS LF LS EA

$20,000.00 $100,000.00 $200,000.00 $50.00 $100,000.00 $25,000.00

$20,000 $100,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $200,000

$3,000 $15,000 $30,000 $22,500 $15,000 $30,000

$23,000 $115,000 $230,000 $172,500 $115,000 $230,000

Option 2 Subtotal Design, Engineering, Management & Environmental Review (15%): Permit and inspection fees (2%): As-built record drawings(1%): 90 day landscape, graffiti and trash maintenance period (2%): Bond - Payment and performance (1%): Contingency (25%): Option 2 Total

$9,519,938 $1,427,991 $190,399 $95,199 $190,399 $95,199 $2,379,984 $13,899,109

3. Median Improvements 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Median drainage swales & subsurface excess piping Median concrete curb with stormwater cut throughs Median concrete gutter (where required) with stormwater cut throughs Median lighting (Large pole fixtures) Enhanced paving

4. Roadway Infrastructure 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

New traffic signal at Sicard Street Pedestrian crossing signals Class 2 bike lane signage and crossing markings Roadway delineators New traffic signage, stops signs & other regulatory signs

5. Bike / Pedestrian Facilities 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11

12' multi-use path grading 12' multi-use path base compaction 12' multi-use path concrete retaining wall (8') 12' multi-use path concrete retaining wall (4') with railing 12' multi-use concrete path 12' multi-use path striping 12' multi-use path lighting (Small pole fixtures) 12' multi-use path crossing 12' multi-use path signage and crossing markings 12' multi-use path: Concrete Protective Barrier (K-Rail) Class 2 Bike Lane: 6" concrete curb & gutter

6. Identity Signage 6.1 District markers 6.2 Light pole based artwork 6.3 District Monumentation signage

7. Bridge Cantilevers

Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Unit Price (Installed) Non-ROW 1: NASSCO Parking Lots (32nd Street to Sampson Street) 1. Parking Lot Construction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16

Existing parking lot demolition Mass grading, compaction and final grading Drainage improvements including bio-swales Asphaltic concrete with 6" base Parking lot striping Curb and gutter Belt Street intersection grading, compaction and base Parking lot entry/exit signage Irrigation meter Irrigation backflow preventer New planting area irrigation Parking lot/ street trees (36" box) Slope native plantings Parking lot stream course rock and cobble Parking lot bark mulch or decomposed granite Parking lot edge native plantings

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

159,400 159,400 1 159,400 508 10,100 2,135 11 4 4 22,140 116 5,769 68 84 16,371

SF SF LS SF Spaces LF SF LS EA EA SF EA SF CY CY SF

$2.50 $2.50 $60,000.00 $8.50 $25.00 $20.00 $5.00 $500.00 20,000.00 2,500.00 $3.00 $800.00 $3.00 $50.00 $65.00 $3.70

Sub-total Cost

$398,500 $398,500 $60,000 $1,354,900 $12,700 $202,000 $10,675 $5,500 $80,000 $10,000 $66,420 $92,800 $17,307 $3,400 $5,460 $60,543

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%) 15%

$59,775 $59,775 $9,000 $203,235 $1,905 $30,300 $1,601 $825 $12,000 $1,500 $9,963 $13,920 $2,596 $510 $819 $9,081 Subtotal Permit and inspection fees (2%): Design, Engineering, Management & Environmental Review (15%): As-built record drawings (1%): 90 day landscape, graffiti and trash maintenance period (2%): Bond - Payment and performance (1%): Contingency (25%): Total

OPTION 2

Full Program Budget

$458,275 $458,275 $69,000 $1,558,135 $14,605 $232,300 $12,276 $6,325 $92,000 $11,500 $76,383 $106,720 $19,903 $3,910 $6,279 $69,624 $3,195,511 $63,910 $479,327 $31,955 $63,910 $31,955 $798,878 $4,665,446

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

Chollas Creek bridge cantilever Harbor Drive Bridge cantilever Lane Restriping Northbound sidewalk expansion w / k-rail Move existing center divide k-rail Northbound sidewalk expansion w/ class 2 added & k-rail

8. Landscape and Irrigation 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14

Median Irrigation meter Median irrigation backflow preventer New median planting area irrigation Median stream course rock and cobble Median native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas Median native plantings Median 36" box trees Parkway Irrigation meter Parkway irrigation backflow preventer New parkway planting area irrigation Parkway 36" box trees Parkway native plantings Parkway stream course rock and cobble Parkway native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas

9. Utility Connections & Relocations 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6

New electrical point of connection Relocate below ground utilities in the way Relocate major drainage facilities in the way Install subsurface trench, perforated piping & stand pipe Remove existing street lighting and cap off utilities New potable water point of connection

73

Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Table 6: Option 3 (Bridge and Roadway Reconfigurations) Initial Cost Estimates Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Unit Price (Installed)

Sub-total Cost

OPTION 3

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%)

Full Program Budget

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%)

OPTION 3

Full Program Budget

SUMMARY $3,195,511

Project fees / Contingency

$1,469,935 $4,665,446

Option 3: Partial Roadway Rebuild (Full Surface Overlay, Add on Lane with Median Rebuild) 2. Roadway Reconstruction

$3,662,315

3. Median Improvements

$1,173,216

4. Roadway Infrastructure

$457,126

5. Bike / Pedestrian Facilities

$3,189,742

6. Identity Signage

$396,750

7. Bridge Cantilevers

$1,267,875

8. Landscape and Irrigation

$1,096,237

9. Utility Connections & Relocations

$885,500

Project fees / Contingency

$3,759,916

Option 3: total:

$15,888,678

Grand Total Estimated Construction Costs:

Sub-total Cost

Option 3: Partial Roadway Rebuild (Full Surface Overlay, Add on Lane with Median Rebuild)

2. Roadway Reconstruction

Non-ROW 1: NASSCO Parking Lots (32nd Street to Sampson Street) 1. Parking Lot Construction

Unit Price (Installed)

$20,554,123

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

Demolition of roadway pavements Roadway grinding (10%) Roadway asphalt patching (5%) Roadway concrete patching (5%) Roadway grading Base compaction Roadway asphalt paving Roadway concrete paving (30%) Roadway concrete dowelling and expansion joints Roadway striping & botts dots

0 65,949 32,975 32,975 0 0 659,494 197,848 1 1

SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF LS LS

$2.50 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $5.00 $0.71 $2.50 $3.50 $25,000.00 $60,000.00

$0 $329,747 $197,848 $230,823 $0 $0 $1,648,735 $692,469 $25,000 $60,000

$0 $49,462 $29,677 $34,623 $0 $0 $247,310 $103,870 $3,750 $9,000

$0 $379,209 $227,525 $265,446 $0 $0 $1,896,045 $796,339 $28,750 $69,000

6,579 20,661 0 70 11,853

LF LF LF EA SF

$5.00 $15.00 $5.00 $2,425.00 $16.00

$32,895 $309,915 $317,980 $169,750 $189,648

$4,934 $46,487 $47,697 $25,463 $28,447

$37,829 $356,402 $365,677 $195,213 $218,095

1 8 1 1 1

LS EA LS LS LS

$175,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $175,001.00

$175,000 $40,000 $2,500 $5,000 $175,001

$26,250 $6,000 $375 $750 $26,250

$201,250 $46,000 $2,875 $5,750 $201,251

141,861 141,861 231 85 141,861 1 60 1 1 1 7,635

SF SF CY CY SF LS EA LS LS LS LF

$5.00 $0.71 $864.00 $864.00 $8.00 $6,000.00 $1,800.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $50.00

$709,305 $100,721 $199,584 $73,440 $1,134,888 $6,000 $108,000 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 $381,750

$106,396 $15,108 $29,938 $11,016 $170,233 $900 $16,200 $4,500 $1,500 $3,000 $57,263

$815,701 $115,830 $229,522 $84,456 $1,305,121 $6,900 $124,200 $34,500 $11,500 $23,000 $439,013

6 60 2

EA EA EA

$15,000.00 $3,000.00 $50,000.00

$90,000 $180,000 $100,000

$13,500 $27,000 $11,250

$103,500 $207,000 $86,250

1 0 1 0 0 1

LS LS LS LS LS LS

$350,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $2,500.00 $250,000.00 $20,000.00 $750,000.00

$350,000 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $750,000

$52,500 $0 $375 $0 $0 $112,500

$402,500 $0 $2,875 $0 $0 $862,500

4 4 87,263 176 435 47,130 130 4 4 34,785 252 18,992 146 177

EA EA SF CY CY SF EA EA EA SF EA SF CY CY

$20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $50.00 $65.00 $1.54 $800.00 $20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $800.00 $1.93 $50.00 $50.00

$80,000 $10,000 $218,158 $8,800 $28,275 $72,621 $104,000 $80,000 $10,000 $86,963 $201,600 $36,684 $7,300 $8,850

$12,000 $1,500 $32,724 $1,320 $4,241 $10,893 $15,600 $12,000 $1,500 $13,044 $30,240 $5,503 $1,095 $1,328

$92,000 $11,500 $250,881 $10,120 $32,516 $83,514 $119,600 $92,000 $11,500 $100,007 $231,840 $42,187 $8,395 $10,178

1 1 1 3,000 1 8

LS LS LS LF LS EA

$20,000.00 $100,000.00 $200,000.00 $50.00 $100,000.00 $25,000.00

$20,000 $3,000 $100,000 $15,000 $200,000 $30,000 $150,000 $22,500 $100,000 $15,000 $200,000 $30,000 Option 3 Subtotal Permit and inspection fees (2%): Design, Engineering, Management & Environmental Review (15%): As-built record drawings(1%): 90 day landscape, graffiti and trash maintenance period (2%): Bond - Payment and performance (1%): Contingency (25%): Option 3 Total

$23,000 $115,000 $230,000 $172,500 $115,000 $230,000 $12,128,761 $242,575 $1,819,314 $121,288 $242,575 $121,288 $3,032,190 $17,707,992

3. Median Improvements 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Median drainage swales & subsurface excess piping Median concrete curb with stormwater cut throughs Median concrete gutter (where required) with stormwater cut throughs Median lighting (Large pole fixtures) Enhanced paving

4. Roadway Infrastructure 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

New traffic signal at Sicard Street Pedestrian crossing signals Class 2 bike lane signage and crossing markings Roadway delineators New traffic signage, stops signs & other regulatory signs

5. Bike / Pedestrian Facilities 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11

12' multi-use path grading 12' multi-use path base compaction 12' multi-use path concrete retaining wall (8') 12' multi-use path concrete retaining wall (4') with railing 12' multi-use concrete path 12' multi-use path striping 12' multi-use path lighting (Small pole fixtures) 12' multi-use path crossing 12' multi-use path signage and crossing markings 12' multi-use path: Concrete Protective Barrier (K-Rail) Class 2 Bike Lane: 6" concrete curb & gutter

6. Identity Signage 6.1 District markers 6.2 Light pole based artwork 6.3 District Monumentation signage

7. Bridge Cantilevers

Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Unit Price (Installed) Non-ROW 1: NASSCO Parking Lots (32nd Street to Sampson Street) 1. Parking Lot Construction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16

Existing parking lot demolition Mass grading, compaction and final grading Drainage improvements including bio-swales Asphaltic concrete with 6" base Parking lot striping Curb and gutter Belt Street intersection grading, compaction and base Parking lot entry/exit signage Irrigation meter Irrigation backflow preventer New planting area irrigation Parking lot/ street trees (36" box) Parking lot stream course rock and cobble Parking lot bark mulch or decomposed granite Slope native plantings Parking lot edge native plantings

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

159,400 159,400 1 159,400 508 10,100 2,135 11 4 4 22,140 116 68 84 5,769 16,371

SF SF LS SF Spaces LF SF LS EA EA SF EA CY CY SF SF

$2.50 $2.50 $60,000.00 $8.50 $25.00 $20.00 $5.00 $500.00 20,000.00 2,500.00 $3.00 $800.00 $50.00 $65.00 $3.00 $3.70

Sub-total Cost

$398,500 $398,500 $60,000 $1,354,900 $12,700 $202,000 $10,675 $5,500 $80,000 $10,000 $66,420 $92,800 $3,400 $5,460 $17,307 $60,543

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%) 15%

$59,775 $59,775 $9,000 $203,235 $1,905 $30,300 $1,601 $825 $12,000 $1,500 $9,963 $13,920 $510 $819 $2,596 $9,081 Subtotal Permit and inspection fees (2%): Design, Engineering, Management & Environmental Review (15%): As-built record drawings (1%): 90 day landscape, graffiti and trash maintenance period (2%): Bond - Payment and performance (1%): Contingency (25%): Total

OPTION 3

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

Chollas Creek bridge cantilever Harbor Drive Bridge cantilever Lane Restriping Northbound sidewalk expansion w / k-rail Move existing center divide k-rail Northbound sidewalk expansion w/ class 2 added & k-rail

8. Landscape and Irrigation Full Program Budget

$458,275 $458,275 $69,000 $1,558,135 $14,605 $232,300 $12,276 $6,325 $92,000 $11,500 $76,383 $106,720 $3,910 $6,279 $19,903 $69,624 $3,195,511 $63,910 $479,327 $31,955 $63,910 $31,955 $798,878 $4,665,446

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14

Median Irrigation meter Median irrigation backflow preventer New median planting area irrigation Median stream course rock and cobble Median native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas Median native plantings Median 36" box trees Parkway Irrigation meter Parkway irrigation backflow preventer New parkway planting area irrigation Parkway 36" box trees Parkway native plantings Parkway stream course rock and cobble Parkway native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas

9. Utility Connections & Relocations 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6

New electrical point of connection Relocate below ground utilities in the way Relocate major drainage facilities in the way Install subsurface trench, perforated piping & stand pipe Remove existing street lighting and cap off utilities New potable water point of connection

74

Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Table 7: Option 4 (Bridge and Roadway Reconfigurations) Initial Cost Estimates Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Unit Price (Installed)

Sub-total Cost

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%)

OPTION 4

Full Program Budget

SUMMARY Non-ROW 1: NASSCO Parking Lots (32nd Street to Sampson Street) 1. Parking Lot Construction

$3,195,511

Project fees / Contingency

$1,469,935 $4,665,446

Option 4: Full Roadway Rebuild (Full Roadway Rebuild & Drainage Improvements) 2. Roadway Reconstruction

$10,903,621

3. Median Improvements

$1,173,216

4. Roadway Infrastructure

$457,126

5. Bike / Pedestrian Facilities

$3,309,802

6. Identity Signage

$421,750

7. Bridge Cantilevers

$1,555,375

8. Landscape and Irrigation

$1,096,237

9. Utility Connections & Relocations

$885,500

Project fees / Contingency

$6,138,815

Option 4: total:

$25,941,442

Grand Total Estimated Construction Costs:

$30,606,888

Unit Price (Installed)

Sub-total Cost

OPTION 4

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%)

Full Program Budget

Option 4: Full Roadway Rebuild (Full Roadway Rebuild & Drainage Improvements) 2. Roadway Reconstruction 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

Demolition of roadway pavements Roadway grinding Roadway asphalt patching Roadway concrete patching Roadway grading Base compaction Roadway asphalt paving Roadway concrete paving Roadway concrete dowelling and expansion joints Roadway striping & botts dots

659,494 0 0 0 659,494 659,494 659,494 659,494 1 1

SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF LS LS

$2.50 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $5.00 $0.71 $2.50 $3.50 $50,000.00 $60,000.00

$1,648,735 $0 $0 $0 $3,297,470 $468,241 $1,648,735 $2,308,229 $50,000 $60,000

$247,310 $0 $0 $0 $494,621 $70,236 $247,310 $346,234 $7,500 $9,000

$1,896,045 $0 $0 $0 $3,792,091 $538,477 $1,896,045 $2,654,463 $57,500 $69,000

6,579 20,661 0 70 11,853

LF LF LF EA SF

$5.00 $15.00 $5.00 $2,425.00 $16.00

$32,895 $309,915 $317,980 $169,750 $189,648

$4,934 $46,487 $47,697 $25,463 $28,447

$37,829 $356,402 $365,677 $195,213 $218,095

1 8 1 1 1

LS EA LS LS LS

$175,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $175,001.00

$175,000 $40,000 $2,500 $5,000 $175,001

$26,250 $6,000 $375 $750 $26,250

$201,250 $46,000 $2,875 $5,750 $201,251

141,861 141,861 231 85 141,861 1 118 1 1 1 7,635

SF SF CY CY SF LS EA LS LS LS LF

$5.00 $0.71 $864.00 $864.00 $8.00 $6,000.00 $1,800.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $50.00

$709,305 $100,721 $199,584 $73,440 $1,134,888 $6,000 $212,400 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 $381,750

$106,396 $15,108 $29,938 $11,016 $170,233 $900 $31,860 $4,500 $1,500 $3,000 $57,263

$815,701 $115,830 $229,522 $84,456 $1,305,121 $6,900 $244,260 $34,500 $11,500 $23,000 $439,013

6 60 2

EA EA EA

$17,000.00 $5,000.00 $50,000.00

$90,000 $180,000 $100,000

$13,500 $27,000 $11,250

$103,500 $207,000 $111,250

1 1 1 0 0 0

LS LS LS LS LS LS

$350,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $2,500.00 $250,000.00 $20,000.00 $650,000.00

$350,000 $1,000,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $0

$52,500 $150,000 $375 $0 $0 $0

$402,500 $1,150,000 $2,875 $0 $0 $0

4 4 87,263 176 435 47,130 130 4 4 34,785 252 18,992 146 177

EA EA SF CY CY SF EA EA EA SF EA SF CY CY

$20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $50.00 $65.00 $1.54 $800.00 $20,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $800.00 $1.93 $50.00 $50.00

$80,000 $10,000 $218,158 $8,800 $28,275 $72,621 $104,000 $80,000 $10,000 $86,963 $201,600 $36,684 $7,300 $8,850

$12,000 $1,500 $32,724 $1,320 $4,241 $10,893 $15,600 $12,000 $1,500 $13,044 $30,240 $5,503 $1,095 $1,328

$92,000 $11,500 $250,881 $10,120 $32,516 $83,514 $119,600 $92,000 $11,500 $100,007 $231,840 $42,187 $8,395 $10,178

1 1 1 3,000 1 8

LS LS LS LF LS EA

$20,000.00 $100,000.00 $200,000.00 $50.00 $100,000.00 $25,000.00

$20,000 $3,000 $100,000 $15,000 $200,000 $30,000 $150,000 $22,500 $100,000 $15,000 $200,000 $30,000 Option 1 Subtotal Permit and inspection fees (2%): Design, Engineering, Management & Environmental Review (15%): As-built record drawings(1%): 90 day landscape, graffiti and trash maintenance period (2%): Bond - Payment and performance (1%): Contingency (25%): Option 1 Total

$23,000 $115,000 $230,000 $172,500 $115,000 $230,000 $19,802,628 $396,053 $2,970,394 $198,026 $396,053 $198,026 $4,950,657 $28,911,836

3. Median Improvements 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Median drainage swales & subsurface excess piping Median concrete curb with stormwater cut throughs Median concrete gutter (where required) with stormwater cut throughs Median lighting (Large pole fixtures) Enhanced paving

4. Roadway Infrastructure 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

New traffic signal at Sicard Street Pedestrian crossing signals Class 2 bike lane signage and crossing markings Roadway delineators New traffic signage, stops signs & other regulatory signs

5. Bike / Pedestrian Facilities 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11

12' multi-use path grading 12' multi-use path base compaction 12' multi-use path concrete retaining wall (8') 12' multi-use path concrete retaining wall (4') with railing 12' multi-use concrete path 12' multi-use path striping 12' multi-use path lighting (Small pole fixtures) 12' multi-use path crossing 12' multi-use path signage and crossing markings 12' multi-use path: Concrete Protective Barrier (K-Rail) Class 2 Bike Lane: 6" concrete curb & gutter

6. Identity Signage 6.1 District markers 6.2 Light pole based artwork 6.3 District Monumentation signage

7. Bridge Cantilevers

Bayshore Bikeway: Harbor Drive Segment

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Note: These costs are preliminary and do not reflect the level of refinement the plan will be adjusted to once more detailed design, engineering and utility research has Quantity of Unit of been completed.

Units Measure

Unit Price (Installed) Non-ROW 1: NASSCO Parking Lots (32nd Street to Sampson Street) 1. Parking Lot Construction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16

Existing parking lot demolition Mass grading, compaction and final grading Drainage improvements including bio-swales Asphaltic concrete with 6" base Parking lot striping Curb and gutter Belt Street intersection grading, compaction and base Parking lot entry/exit signage Irrigation meter Irrigation backflow preventer New planting area irrigation Parking lot/ street trees (36" box) Slope native plantings Parking lot stream course rock and cobble Parking lot bark mulch or decomposed granite Parking lot edge native plantings

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

159,400 159,400 1 159,400 508 10,100 2,135 11 4 4 22,140 116 5,769 68 84 16,371

SF SF LS SF Spaces LF SF LS EA EA SF EA SF CY CY SF

$2.50 $2.50 $60,000.00 $8.50 $25.00 $20.00 $5.00 $500.00 20,000.00 2,500.00 $3.00 $800.00 $3.00 $50.00 $65.00 $3.70

Sub-total Cost

$398,500 $398,500 $60,000 $1,354,900 $12,700 $202,000 $10,675 $5,500 $80,000 $10,000 $66,420 $92,800 $17,307 $3,400 $5,460 $60,543

Contractor Profit and Markup (15%) 15%

$59,775 $59,775 $9,000 $203,235 $1,905 $30,300 $1,601 $825 $12,000 $1,500 $9,963 $13,920 $2,596 $510 $819 $9,081 Subtotal Permit and inspection fees (2%): Design, Engineering, Management & Environmental Review (15%): As-built record drawings (1%): 90 day landscape, graffiti and trash maintenance period (2%): Bond - Payment and performance (1%): Contingency (25%): Total

OPTION 4

Full Program Budget

$458,275 $458,275 $69,000 $1,558,135 $14,605 $232,300 $12,276 $6,325 $92,000 $11,500 $76,383 $106,720 $19,903 $3,910 $6,279 $69,624 $3,195,511 $63,910 $479,327 $31,955 $63,910 $31,955 $798,878 $4,665,446

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

Chollas Creek bridge cantilever Harbor Drive Bridge cantilever Lane Restriping Northbound sidewalk expansion w / k-rail Move existing center divide k-rail Northbound sidewalk expansion w/ class 2 added & k-rail

8. Landscape and Irrigation 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14

Median Irrigation meter Median irrigation backflow preventer New median planting area irrigation Median stream course rock and cobble Median native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas Median native plantings Median 36" box trees Parkway Irrigation meter Parkway irrigation backflow preventer New parkway planting area irrigation Parkway 36" box trees Parkway native plantings Parkway stream course rock and cobble Parkway native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas

9. Utility Connections & Relocations 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6

New electrical point of connection Relocate below ground utilities in the way Relocate major drainage facilities in the way Install subsurface trench, perforated piping & stand pipe Remove existing street lighting and cap off utilities New potable water point of connection

75

Table 8: Summary of Cost Estimates for all Options POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY OF ALL OPTIONS OPTION 1 1. Parking Lot Construction Project fees / Contingency

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Roadway Reconstruction Median Improvements Roadway Infrastructure Bike / Pedestrian Facilities Identity Signage Bridge Cantilevers Landscape and Irrigation Utility Connections & Relocations Project fees / Contingency

OPTION GRAND TOTALS:

OPTION 2

OPTION 3

OPTION 4

$3,195,511

$3,195,511

$3,195,511

$3,195,511

$1,469,935

$1,469,935

$1,469,935

$1,469,935

$4,665,446

$4,665,446

$4,665,446

$4,665,446

$369,828 $1,173,216 $457,126 $2,653,773 $0 $692,875 $1,099,291 $770,500 $3,175,308

$1,602,438 $1,173,216 $457,126 $3,189,742 $396,750 $715,875 $1,099,291 $885,500 $2,951,181

$3,662,315 $1,173,216 $457,126 $3,189,742 $396,750 $1,267,875 $1,096,237 $885,500 $3,759,916

$10,903,621 $1,173,216 $457,126 $3,309,802 $421,750 $1,555,375 $1,096,237 $885,500 $6,138,815

$10,391,918

$12,471,118

$15,888,678

$25,941,442

$15,057,364

$17,136,564

$20,554,123

$30,606,888

Table 9: Maintenance Schedule and Quantities

Maintenance Quantities Monthly Quarterly Annually 15,768

Parkway stream course rock and cobble Parkway native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas

18,992 4,076

Count of plants in parkway native planting area

19,146

Median stream course rock and cobble Median native planting areas with significant mulch or DG areas

47,130 20,679

Median Concrete Maintenance Strip

Maintenance Type and Frequency

SF

Annual inspection for loose rocks and weeding

SF

Monthly inspection of irrigation and trash clean up

Plants

Quarterly inspection for plant replacement, disease control & weeding

SF

Annual inspection for loose rocks and weeding

SF

Monthly inspection of irrigation and trash clean up

SF

Very low maintenance, maybe some inspection for damage annually

Plants

Quarterly inspection for plant replacement, disease control & weeding

Turn lane stream course rock and cobble mortar set

5,405

SF

Annual inspection for loose rocks and weeding

Turn lane Concrete Maintenance Strip

6,448

SF

Very low maintenance, maybe some inspection for damage annually

Median 36" box trees

130

EA

Annual inspection for disease and pruning / shaping

Parkway 36" box trees

252

EA

Annual inspection for disease and pruning / shaping

8,069

Count of plants in median native planting area

Total Monthly Square Footage (all areas)

66,122

Total Shrub, Groundcover Plant Count (all areas)

Harbor Drive • Bayshore Bikeway

Unit

12,145

Total Annual Square Footage (all areas)

67,446

Total Tree Count (all areas)

382

76