1. Kamran Marashi, P.E., S.E. Jim Schettler, P.E., S.E.
Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Preliminary Condition Assessment and Evaluation of Army Wharves 6 ½ and 7 Overview
Kamran Marashi, P.E., S.E.
Jim Schettler, P.E., S.E.
December 1, 2011

2. Agenda ITEM TOPICS Introduction J. Schettler
Design Criteria J. Schettler
Evaluation and Methodology K. Marashi
Findings and Recommendations K. Marashi
ROM Cost Estimate Summary J. Schettler
Path Forward / Questions J. Schettler / K. Marashi 2

3. Location: Wharf 6 ½ (Berth 8) & Wharf 7 (Berth 7)
1. Introduction
Location: Wharf 6 ½ (Berth 8) & Wharf 7 (Berth 7) 3

4. Location: Wharf 6 ½ (Berth 8) & Wharf 7 (Berth 7)
1. Introduction
Location: Wharf 6 ½ (Berth 8) & Wharf 7 (Berth 7) 4

5. 1. Introduction
Wharf 6 ½ (Berth 8) 5

6. 1. Introduction
Wharf 7 (Berth 7) 6

7. 2. Design Criteria Future Uses Option #1 – Limited Action
Current Condition w/ Limited Capital Cost
10 year expected live with annual maintenance
Option #2 – Original Capacity
Rehabilitate to original capacities
25 year expected life
Option #3 – Upgrade to Modern Facility
Break-bulk Facility (1000 psf live load)
30 year expected life
Option #4 – Wharf Replacement
Modern Wharf
50+ year expected life 7

8. 3. Evaluation and Methodology
Wharf 6 ½
Wharf 6 ½ Deck Plan
Condition Assessment Ratings:
SOFFIT 4
TOP
PILES 5
PILE 6
BULKHEAD
CONNECTIONS
SLOPE PROTECTION
EXPANSION JOINTS
BACKFILL
Ca Bldg Code Chapter 31F 8

9. 3. Evaluation and Methodology
Wharf 7
Wharf 7 Deck Plan
Condition Assessment Ratings:
SOFFIT 4
TOP
PILES 3
PILE 5
BULKHEAD
CONNECTIONS
SLOPE PROTECTION
EXPANSION JOINTS
BACKFILL
Ca Bldg Code Chapter 31F 9

10. 3. Evaluation and Methodology
Past Retrofits
Typical Pile Jacketing & Splicing 10

11. 3. Evaluation and Methodology
Subsurface Profiles
Wharf 6 ½ Soils Profile 11

12. 3. Evaluation and Methodology
Subsurface Profiles
Wharf 7 Soils Profile 12

13. 4. Findings and Recommendations
Wharf 6 ½
Option #1:
Limited Action, 350 PSF
Option #2:
Original Capacity, 400 PSF
Option #3:
Upgrade to Modern
Facility, 1,000 PSF
Option #4:
Wharf Replacement, 1,000 PSF 13

14. 4. Findings and Recommendations
Wharf 7
Option 1:
Limited Action, 200 PSF
Option 2:
Original Capacity, 400 PSF
400 PSF
Option 3:
Upgrade to Modern
Facility, 1,000 PSF
Option 4:
Wharf Replacement, 1,000 PSF 14

15. Cost Estimate Assumptions
5. ROM Cost Estimate Summary
Cost Estimate Assumptions
Condition Assessment
Above Water Visual Inspection
Limited Assessment to “Typical Area”
Does not include:
Buildings and infrastructure (i.e. rails)
Fire protection
Utilities
Mechanical
Electrical
Dredging
Engineering
Permitting
Hazardous materials 15

16. 5. ROM Cost Estimate Summary
Rough Order of Magnitude Total Estimated Marine Structures Capital Costs
Wharf 6 ½
Wharf 7
Total
Option 1 *
Limited Action
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
Option 2
Original Capacity
$4,000,000
$21,000,000
$25,000,000
Option 3
Upgrade to Modern Fac.
$28,000,000
$57,000,000
$85,000,000
Option 4
Wharf Replacement
$35,000,000
$70,000,000
$105,000,000
* - Does not include berthing and mooring hardware costs 16

17. 6. Path Forward / Questions
Piers 6 ½ & 7
Prelim Condition Assessment & Evaluation on Existing Rails
Bulkhead Wall Evaluation for Surcharge - Scope Development
Select a Future Use Consistent with Program Goals
Create a Work Plan to Achieve the Goals
Piers 6
Preliminary Condition Assessment & Evaluation for Future Uses
Piers 5
Preliminary Condition Assessment & Evaluation for Future Rail Use 17

18. 6. Path Forward / Questions18