Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0201 Study Session PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Monday, February 1, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 5: 30 p.m. Study Session 1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum) 2. Look Ahead review 3. Continued discussion of planning for City Hall replacement 4. Discussion of approaches to downtown behavior issues Immediately following the Study Session, the City Council will hold an Executive Session for labor negotiations and real property transactions pursuant to ORS 192.660(2) (d) and (e). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014, CHARTER CABLE, WILL, BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181. VISIT THE CITY OF ASIIL,AND'S WEB SITE A,I' WWW.ASHLAND.ORJJS 0 N N N N Lo Lu z u) O % U) M u) ''Wnn IC V N N U u) N L Z O c~ O n. Q Q O a U 0 O 2 O O N n N J ~ tm F- U) (n U) U) (n w z N N C U ~2 W z z Z z z W W W W W 0 0 d WM N a 0 0 0 0 0 j z z Z fj~ O O O x Of O W N O 0 0) ~ Z N n- O Q o U cm (5 (6 E m 'D U- > c a~ a)) aa)) o Q N C Q) O LL J J J O J O C C ❑ C C C_ c C_ C_ C_ C C- C O C C t 0 m E E m 'U w oaaaaa a o ~a a.~ o❑ ❑ a ❑ o a.~0 U Q Q d L.L Q Q. Q. Q' 0-10 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ J ¢ ¢ L.L J U U ¢ U d ¢ LL O - - U m w J J C T o U~ co oo m o N m co al m J m O v ❑ O o Y Q Q 00 -i co >m a ❑ 0) u) cz U O m Q) O c Y _ ❑ c o c to 71 o o > Y - _ U m co - E En a) c m > c O ° c,, = aNi ~ a t1 n N m ❑ ca co o p E 6 x o p - ca E T: Y ❑ ch o a~ m c° m ° ai T c C N a) Y> C O _j -,z a) m a) C i_ ° a > c 7 L m ° c J m > L) cu p d U C a m U Y O o d O m C O w > to > m o6 c g❑ c _ c c - a) c CT, CY c Q mat g c ° 34 m - (j) m o d o a c o- c w c e c o f to -F- 'r s o v co - m CO .cn Y to m r u7 Q) C a) C ~ N `v ° C O O a U) u) E Q X c a C r - 7 O C O o> > w - C m a) m e ¢ c ,C E m m . o U O E C O U s m i O Q Y 2 c¢ ° uE ° - u V c o m m N m E o r U ° m o a C w w U a) E m ° L c ° Y m N o U O c ° L c R} o U c ° y eo u) c c o m° ° e6 c j F- ° a 10 F- J C C c o C O m c D U U O N C 7 C a c N E w 3 f-- CN m m c .N F m m W a N c 9 W Y o O m C 3 ¢ O c o c U ❑ o m U1 c o y - m E a) o a F- CL S c m a D m m N c 'o 4, m ° m -2 tl c c o o c o c c¢ a' ° ° a) E a) .2 t coo m m° c Y N -O > c 3 c a m m w O a) - Co a) C Q) > m O a 0 0 m N O a) O r a C a) m w c: Cl U. C 'C -O O m ~p -c U O C M U a C c to C - U a s to m .20 a) c O a C c E 3 c ° a o ° a o c: r- -C o❑ c cca ° C m Q) O 0 fn m C C ..L.., O N O a) O C 0) > a) c U Q. U a) c U ¢ 3 o U C: a c m o o ° a) N x a 4) . 70 C: _ c o c _0 cu ca a~ o_ c 2 a a c 2 0 `D) LL o ccz aa)) _o c ami c: o E ~;c q a a m o m F o o r o ° m° _ a c E a) m O -O ,C C U .C 7 C C .C 4) u) a) a C U N 'C Q m m :.o m O 7 U o O c O 'C O O c o- a O E 7 7- O n N C CU C O O c c c w u U E N U m U 4 C fl_ - U O C C L m _p > CL 2 m w (D o a n a) 3 a) c m m_ L- c c m° o a) c 3 0 3 0 o ¢OUu.¢¢UU¢=~u~cn ALL mii Un0 C¢U) Un < -0 ~[J lp O N M V N O r M O 0. 1 N M V co r- O] N M V. I c. I~ M m ~ M N N ~ N N M N N N N N N N ~ ~ N w a N m N_ _N W 2 a v ~ LO `c v t< p W c ~ Z Q Q = Y U 0 0 J F a1 = U W d ~M C W N C O (n N Q a 3 Z IL U ~ -0 LL Q Q U U ~U u. O N y_ N n (D U ~ ~ L 3 c c E _ w _ o c C by C0 O AO .N ? o m cm ZM o ° o fl m O° 0) p d O d o o ° o 0) U Of ~6ei Gib U in a Y g' Y D 2 E Y Y N t0 w O O w ~ u O° m C C C m w~ o c (n o~> U c U C U o p V C V r E c 'm c o c c `o U O p v a 0 O a. m E o co o c m r W R N -O T- iq fA o E (n E N N .N .to U a w N N 3 W Vi C U c o ? E E_ s m o o a) a)M4) 01 m 0cco0 EOEE E ~~UY> to ~y to (3 tA cn~ N o a c oU o of°~CD C C N p a +C r N E U o U n U E u) (D Z +p. y a c U a'7., c 07 o E E L,m c c U o c ca LL lA (q m O N N O N E o- a ° Q =3 w a¢ o ` c C) U `m C a . c m ° c o a m U O O Jw Q_ c w C C o m C 7 (6 N dl N C O_ rn O F- N E U N `n L is N N (O co O i W H O O O0 0a o- ty/1 =i m LL O a N N c c y c = o o c ca E Cm isU m Eco ~°~rrnNE~EE o N'NO~ cl. D 2 O 92 O m c ~ o ° c c n c a~ c c c O o m cm O L) o w N E cr~ LL Qd Q U LL 2i< ~Q c40Z0 o00~~ V V N ~ ch t(] In ~ ~ M CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication February 1, 2016, Study Session Discussion of approaches to downtown behavior issues FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner(jr ashland.or.us Dave Lohman, city attorney, dave.lohman(~i ashland.or.us Tighe O'Meara, police chief, ti~zhe.omearanashland.or.us SUMMARY: This is a continuation of the study session discussion begun at the Council's January 19, 2016, meeting. The Council requested that staff compile information on various approaches to addressing the downtown behavior issues that plagued the City last summer. This report addresses six specific tactics that have budgetary implications. At the January 19 meeting, the Council decided to focus in the short-term on three of those tactics: hiring two additional police cadets; hiring social service outreach workers during the summer months; and creating a downtown host or ambassador program. In addition to these tactics, the City Attorney is seeking Council input on possible ordinance changes to address aggressive public misconduct, and the Police Chief has instituted operational changes to increase police presence downtown. Staff will also present potential funding options at this study session. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Prompted by reports last summer of increasingly aggressive behavior by people and dogs in downtown Ashland, the Council at its November 2 and November 16, 2015, study sessions, discussed steps the City might take to address these behavior issues. Tactics discussed by the Council fell into the following broad strategic categories: • Changes to the Municipal Code to provide additional tools to law enforcement; • Education and information to the community and visitors to change attitudes toward panhandling; • Enhanced law enforcement and/or uniformed presence; and • Community responses (not necessarily involving City government). Staff subsequently prepared for Council a list of actions that are recommended as priorities, primarily because they have budgetary implications and as such may require additional resources that should be identified as soon as possible in order to implement these in the upcoming tourist season should Council wish to do so. Those actions are as follows: • hiring two new police officers; • adding to cadet positions to the Police Department; • renting to jail beds from Jackson County; • hiring social service outreach workers to connect with homeless and transient individuals; • education and signage for visitors and residents; and • creating a downtown host or ambassador program; Page 1 of 3 Imo, CITY OF ASHLAND Each of these actions is discussed in greater detail below. 1. Hire two new police officers ($210,000). Operational changes in the Police Department can improve police presence downtown by assigning one officer per fully staffed shift to downtown, in addition to the CAP officer. However, this will come at the expense of having a school resource officer, participation in the Medford Area Gang and Drug Enforcement team, and the Jackson County High-Tech Crimes Task Force. Hiring two new officers significantly increases the likelihood that all shifts would be fully staffed, thus allowing additional officers to be assigned not only to the downtown area but to targeted patrols in south Ashland, which has also been a problem area. Note that, even if hired today, new officers would not be on the street in time for the start of the 2016 tourist season. 2. Add two cadet positions to the Police Department ($10,000). The Ashland Police Department has in each of the last two summers hired four college students enrolled in the criminal justice curriculum at SOU or RCC to work as cadets assigned to downtown. The cadets do not have full law enforcement authority, however they do receive law enforcement training and create a uniformed presence downtown. Adding two cadets would improve coverage. However, the department has struggled to find even the four qualified cadets it hires each summer. Two more cadets could probably be found by lifting the requirements that cadets be enrolled in a criminal justice curriculum. 3. Rent two jail beds from Jackson County ($73,000). The use of rented jail beds for pre-conviction lodging is problematic due to the legal requirement for arraignment within 36 hours. Jail beds may be useful for post-conviction sanction as a means of sending a firm message to offenders that conviction of criminal misbehavior in downtown Ashland will result in jail time. The logistical problems associated with renting and using jail beds is discussed in a separate attached memo. 4. Social service outreach workers downtown from May through September ($37,000). Two outreach workers (one man, one woman) would be assigned to work downtown during the summer months for the purpose of connecting homeless and transient individuals with social services. (Estimate provided by Community Works) 5. Education and signage downtown (<$5,000). Informational signs on City street lights and lampposts to remind residents and visitors of responsible ways to donate money to help the homeless and others in need and to reinforce other ordinances in effect in the downtown area. The Ashland Lodging Association and Chamber of Commerce are reportedly working on a "give responsibly" campaign and whatever the City does with regard to signage should be consistent with that campaign. A 12" x 18" metal street sign is $60. 6. Downtown ambassador program ($35,000). Ambassadors are uniformed non-law enforcement customer service liaisons who patrol downtown on foot, offering information to visitors and serving as eyes and ears on the street. This estimate covers the cost of hiring, training, outfitting and equipping two temporary employees from May through September at living wage with no benefits. This estimate provides 40 hours a week of coverage. The cost of providing additional coverage increases proportionately. It is recommended that ambassadors work in pairs. There are several ways to structure this type of program that are still being explored. Page 2 of 3 11FAW3 CITY OF -ASHLAND One is to have the City directly hire and supervise the ambassadors as temporary City employees. Or the City could contract with the Chamber of Commerce to offer this program and provide funding to the Chamber for it. Or the City could contract with one of any number of service providers who offer downtown ambassador or host services. This latter option is likely to increase the cost of the program however, as this Council communication is being written, we have not yet received any estimates. The Council discussed these actions at its January 19, 2016, meeting and agreed to focus on hiring police cadets, hiring social service outreach workers and creating a downtown ambassador program. The combined cost of these three tactics is estimated at $82,000. Funds have not been budgeted for this. As such, the Council must identify new revenues, cut programs elsewhere in the budget and re- direct the money to these programs, or take a one-time transfer from contingency. Each of these options is discussed in a separate memo, which is attached. Also attached is the City Attorney's table showing existing laws pertinent to the downtown behavior issues under discussion (on page 1) and possible new ordinance provisions addressing such behavior (on pages 2 and 3). COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED Public Safety 23. Support innovative programs that protect the community. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Described above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A. This item is for discussion and direction to staff. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: N/A. This item is for discussion and direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: Memo regarding funding options Memo from Chief Tighe O'Meara Spreadsheet of potential actions Table: Public Misconduct and Potentially Applicable Laws Page 3 of 3 IWALWA CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: January 27, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator RE: Funding options for downtown behavior tactics At the conclusion of the study session discussion at the January 19 meeting, the Council requested that I prepare for the February 1" study session options for funding three of the suggested actions for addressing the downtown behavior problems. Those actions are, 1. Hire two new police cadets; 2.Hire social service outreach workers to work downtown during the summer months; and 3.Create a downtown ambassador program. The total estimated cost of these tactics is $82,000 annually (to start). In general, funding for these actions must come from either increased revenues or by cutting other items in the adopted budget and redirecting those budgeted funds. A third option of simply taking the money out of General Fund contingency is discussed below but is not recommended. Option 1: New revenues Three proposals are presented here for your consideration. 1. Increase the city's property tax Levy within its permanent tax rate. 2. Impose a utility billing surcharge for public safety. 3. Refer a public safety serial levy to the voters. 1. Increase the city's property tax Levy within its permanent tax rate. Under Oregon's property tax system, every city has a permanent tax rate which constitutes the maximum rate it can assess for property taxes. Ashland is among a very small handful of cities that charges less than its maximum rate. The city charges 8.92 cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation less than is permitted by law. Levying the maximum tax rate would raise an additional $205,000 annually. Raising an additional $82,000 from property taxes would require raising the tax rate by approximately 3.6 cents. An increase of 3.6 cents would increase the tax bill of a house with a maximum assessed value of $300,000 by $10.80. However, the Council cannot unilaterally raise the tax rate. Under Oregon law, the Budget Committee sets the City's tax rate. The Budget Committee has already established the tax rate for the 2015-17 biennium. Therefore, the Budget Committee would have to convene this spring to reestablish the rate for fiscal year '17. If the Budget Committee declined to do so, this option would not be available to the Council. PROS • A reliable and predictable source of revenue. • The revenue grows annually at a relatively predictable rate. • Spreads the funding burden proportionately across all property taxpayers. ~r, CONS • Non-profits, government agencies and others who do not pay property taxes receive the benefit but pay nothing for it. • Dependent on Budget Committee concurrence in future budget cycles. 2. Impose a utility billing surcharge for public safety. As the Council did with the Ashland forest resiliency project, a utility billing surcharge could be imposed for these proposed downtown behavior actions. A surcharge starting at 62 cents for a 3/4 inch meter (96% of the water meters in Ashland) would raise $82,000 annually. PROS • A reliable and predictable source of revenue. • Spreads the cost-sharing burden to those properties that do not pay property taxes. • Can be imposed by Council action, without Budget Committee or voter concurrence. CONS • There is no nexus between water bills and public safety downtown. • Does not grow year-to-year (unless Council acts to raise the surcharge), as the number of new meters is not growing substantially. 3. Refer a public safety serial levy to the voters. Oregon law allows the city, with voter approval, to levy a property tax for a specific purpose for up to five years. In this case the Council could refer to the voters a tax Levy specifically for the purpose of supporting these downtown behavior actions and possibly other public safety functions. Currently in Ashland a tax of one cent per thousand dollars of assessed valuation raises about $23,000 a year. If a serial levy was approved by voters in the May primary election or a September special election, the revenue would be available to the city in the current biennium. However, if the levy was not approved until the November election the funds would not be available until the following biennium. PROS • A reliable and predictable source of revenue • Revenue grows annually at a relatively predictable rate • Revenue is restricted, so voters can be assured it will not be diverted to other uses. CONS • This is by nature a limited-duration source of revenue. A serial levy can be no longer than five years. • Voter approval is not assured. It is therefore hard to plan on the availability of the funds. • If voters say "no," are they saying no to the idea or are they supportive of the idea but opposed to this funding method? There are other revenue-raising ideas that staff discussed. These could be considered as part of a revenue-raising package, but probably could not stand alone as a revenue-raising measure. These include the following: ~r, • An increase in the parking ticket surcharge. The city applies a surcharge of $4 to all parking fines. The money is used for debt service on the parking garage and other parking related improvements in the downtown area. Increasing the surcharge to $6 would raise $15,000 annually. • A business license surcharge. A surcharge could be applied to businesses licensed in downtown Ashland. However, in order to raise a significant amount of money, the surcharge would likely have to be usuriously high. For this reason alone, staff would have difficulty supporting it. In addition it places a disproportionate burden for funding solutions on downtown businesses when this is in fact a communitywide problem. Even a business license surcharge on all of the 1700 business license holders with Ashland addresses would have to be relatively high in order to raise a significant amount of revenue. Option 2: Cut other items in the adopted budget and re-direct appropriations It is highly unlikely that anything can be cut in the budget that will not meet with stiff resistance from affected constituencies and virtually everything in the budget has a constituency. Having said that however, the first place to look for cuts would be in those areas that do not directly impact city operations. That would mean cutting the dollars available for social service grants, economic development grants, and economic development projects. Reducing the social service and economic development grants by 21 % in the second year of the biennium would produce $62,000. The budget for economic development projects could be reduced by $20,000, thus generating $82,000 to spend on these downtown behavior actions. The economic development budget typically contains an "immediate opportunity fund," which is unassigned money that can be used for projects and programs that were not anticipated at the time the budget was developed. There is $25,000 in the current biennium budget for this purpose. In the past, this money has been spent on such things as sponsorship of the SOREDI site selector tour, an enterprise zone promotional piece that went to all eligible businesses and property owners, Innovator Conference sponsorship, etc. Option 3: General Fund contingency transfer Staff does not recommend this option for several reasons. First, the contingency's true purpose is to cover unplanned deficiencies at the end of the budget cycle. Therefore, tapping into contingency this early in the budget cycle carries some considerable risk. (Bear in mind that the General Fund contingency may also have to cover deficiencies in the Parks Fund and as-yet undetermined increases in Police and Fire personnel costs resulting from union negotiations.) Second, the other primary purpose of a contingency fund is to cover the cost of emergencies when such emergencies arise. It is not to cover the cost of planned and potentially ongoing operational expenses. While this is certainly a worthy activity, it's not an emergency with no other potential source of funding. Third, because the Budget Committee was so generous with the General Fund add packages last spring, the City may end this biennium with a lower than recommended fund balance in the General Fund. It would thus be prudent to conserve our contingency to the greatest extent practical in order to maximize our beginning fund balance in the next biennium. ~r, CITY OF -ASHLAND Police Department Memo TO: Dave Kanner FROM: Tighe O'Meara SUBJECT: Proposals to Address Downtown issues DATE: January 14, 2016 As part of our on-going discussion on ways to address behavioral issues downtown I was tasked with exploring three items. Here is information on each of these and options for consideration. 1. Explore ways to deploy more uniformed resources downtown As you know, APD is starting the year off being operationally down five positions (one person is assigned to YHOP, three new officers are in training and one person is on light duty). The officer assigned to YHOP will be there at least through the end of the year and the three new officers will be coming out of training at various times throughout the year, with the first coming out in February or early March. The other two should be coming out in July. These three positons represent three important partnerships that we have had, both locally and regionally, that we are stepping back from, temporarily, in the interest of addressing downtown issues. Those tree partnerships are the SRO program, MADGE and the High Tech Crimes Task Force, which is still operating in a diminished capacity. The options discussed here are in addition to the cadet program, which, at full strength, deploys four part time non-sworn, uniformed people downtown to take enforcement action on low-level offenses. When the first person comes out I plan to assign her to one of the patrol teams. This will bring the teams up to full strength of a supervisor and three officers. The minimum staffing level for the teams to handle city wide police business is a supervisor and two officers. As soon as deemed necessary I will direct all patrol teams, when at full staffing, to assign one person to the downtown area. This will be in addition the CAP officer. This will give us more than double the downtown coverage, at times, than we currently have. It must be noted that this will be at the expense of the teams' ability to thoroughly handle city-wide policing needs. While a supervisor and two officers is minimum staffing, it is not an adequate level at which the teams can function long-term. When the next two officers come out of training in (approximately) July there will be two options. Both of these options allow the above temporary measure stop, and allow the teams to function with the supervisor and three model, giving much better city-wide policing ability. Ashland Police Department Office of the Chief of Police Tel: 541-482-5211 1155 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2154 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us/police The first option sees both of the new officers assigned to be additional CAP officers, on opposing 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. shifts. This would give 7 days a week CAP coverage with at least one officer, often two officers on duty downtown during peak hours. Of course none of this plan guarantees coverage given vacation days, sick days, and emergency situations arising. The second option is, I believe, the better one. When these two officers come out of training one of them becomes a secondary CAP officer, working a shift opposite the current CAP officer. This would allow for always one, sometimes two officers to be downtown. The second officer coming out of training would partner with a current detective and together they would make up a problem solving unit (PSU). This new PSU would work varying shifts, in varying clothing (uniform/plain clothes) using marked or unmarked cars as needed, to address problem areas wherever they appear. Clearly the most immediate need is the downtown area, and this new unit could be deployed there as extra uniformed officers, but could also operate as plain-clothed officers taking enforcement action as needed. This could have a tremendous impact on some community members' belief that they can act out and not face ramifications. This model also allows the PSU to re-focus as needed on other problem areas such as the south end problems we have seen, and other city-wide problems as they come up. Again, I fully appreciate the initial focus must be downtown, but this model allows for flexibility to address other issues. II. Explore the possibility of renting jail space Several communities in the area have addressed jail overcrowding/prisoner release issues by renting jail space, therefore assuring that some chronic offenders face some period of incarceration. This is a very appealing idea but is much more complicated than it first appeared. There are various aspects to this: Pre-conviction housing: The most immediate want in this is to have someone that commits a crime stay in jail until the person is tried. This may be possible, but it is very complicated. A person arrested and jailed must be arraigned within 36 hours by law. Ashland does not have a full-time prosecuting attorney, nor do we have a municipal court that is open every business day. This plan would require that we redefine the way the city attorney's office, the court employees and Judge operate and may require us to contract with another court to handle arraignments. This would also require that some additional video equipment be installed as well so people in our custody at the jail could be arraigned remotely. The cost of this may be as little as $1,000 but may be as high as $30,000. Post-conviction housing: Another possibility here is using rented jail space for post-conviction housing. This is much cleaner and much easier to accomplish. Currently a person who is convicted of a municipal court crime and sentenced to jail time is likely to be released without serving any of that sentence. Renting bed space for post-conviction housing would allow for some offenders to see some meaningful sanctions if convicted. This second option is the one that Medford uses most often, almost exclusively. Both of the above options carry another significant risk for which I cannot find a good answer. That is, who incurs the cost of medical care if the person in our rented jail space becomes ill? It may be as simple as releasing the person from our rented jail space and leaving him to be "matrixed out" according to the jail's system. However, there is no clear answer on this. Ashland Police Department Office of the Chief of Police Tel: 541-482-5211 1155 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2154 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us/police I want to touch on one more issue with pre-conviction housing in rented jail space. I am hesitant to put the police department in the de facto role of deciding who should be sentenced to a jail term. The person who should do this is the Judge after a conviction. I know that we can come up with a fair and objective system if directed to, but it strikes me as inappropriate for the police to decide who should take up this space, and I think it may open the city up to unneeded scrutiny. III. Explore which code violations should be considered for zero tolerance For various reasons the city attorney and I agree that "zero tolerance" or "no discretion" mandates should be avoided whenever possible. With that in mind I propose that we adopt, for now, a policy within the department that the following violations result in enforcement action whenever possible. Again, I would not call it "zero tolerance" but rather "strict enforcement" allowing the officers a slight amount of discretion if compelling circumstances exist. These codes cover: -drinking alcohol in public -possession of an open container of alcohol in public -smoking marijuana in public -urinating or defecating in public Ashland Police Department Office of the Chief of Police Tel: 541-482-5211 1155 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2154 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us/police s ° ° ct 3 ~ ~ v, ~ ~ ~ a) d -rs C U G' c l u ct un cC C.) CZ cz a C/) 3 , o cr s O a U > 3 -a zs Cc" k a) t+: s cC U C ca. cr ca C/) It -0 an o cn C7t 15 ¢ u ° n~ o a o i u j U. 75 -2 fn tf) r- C~3 ° cr o o u o = > o ° 3 0 o N o o ° y 40 In 0 0 0 0 H ° 0 0 0 o ° O ° o m t~ v, `n ~ L 4 ° o Q o L ° N v L = v v N "O L ' u bb O - 4J = v > R C C O 0 E CL 3 = O t CL L- 7A L Q O 0 3 c c m c = o U s 3 0 m O 3 v H a M Ln 4- 0 (U m 4' CA L- u L +1 O f° O O w Q Fo- a w PUBLIC MISCONDUCT AND POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE LAWS 1 /27/ 16 RECENT LAWS NOTES COMPLAINTS ABOUT PUBLIC MISCONDUCT EXISTING STATUTES/ORDINANCES Threatening passersby ORS 166.025: Disorderly Conduct • "Threatening behavior" is physical • Specifically prohibits engaging in conduct which is immediately likely to "threatening behavior." result in use of physical force and which is intended to create or recklessly creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. • 1984 Oregon Court of Appeals: "Threatening behavior" is not protected by the I st Amendment or Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, even if it is accompanied by constitutionally protected speech. Harassing passersby ORS 166.065: Harassment • Abusive words or gestures constitute • Specifically prohibits publicly insulting harassment only if they are intended to another by abusive words or gestures and likely to incite a reasonable person in a manner "intended and likely to to immediate violence and they are provoke a violent response." directed at a particular individual. • Specifically prohibits subjecting other person to offensive physical contact Public urination and AMC 9.08.110: Scattering Rubbish . This provision also prohibits deposit of defecation animal waste on public or private property. Dogs and gear AMC 10.64.010: Obstructing • See next page for proposed additions to hindering sidewalk Sidewalks and Passageways this ordinance. passage • Currently prohibits obstruction by "objects" only AMC 9.16.070: Nuisance - Dogs • Prohibits obstruction by dogs Dangerous dogs in AMC 9.16. 015-070 Nuisance -Dogs congested areas Requires rabies vaccinations • Requires leashes in public places • Prohibits menacing dogs Camping AMC 10.46 and 10.68.330: Prohibited Northern California Fed. Dist. Ct. Camping upheld provision banning camping: • Prohibits camping on public property, preventing other persons from using including parks public spaces is not an unavoidable life- sustaining activity; making enforcement dependent on availability of shelter beds is not required. (1994) • Oregon Fed. Dist. Ct. upheld Portland no-camping ordinance, rejecting argument based on 8th Amendment and Equal Protection. (2011) • Multnomah County Circuit Ct. upheld Page 1 of 3 Portland no-camping ordinance, rejecting arguments based on Eighth Amendment, Equal Protection, strict scrutiny, and overbreadth and vagueness. (2015) RECENT LAWS NOTES COMPLAINTS ABOUT PUBLIC MISCONDUCT POSSIBLE NEW ORDINANCES Tobacco and marijuana Possible addition of new provision to • First Reading of proposed ordinance smoke in congested Title 9 (Health and Sanitation): scheduled for February 2 Council Downtown areas and Smoking Prohibitions meeting. • Prohibits smoking on Downtown sidewalks/ Plaza. • Prohibits smoking in enclosed areas open to the public and in places of employment, with certain exceptions Stationary persons Possible addition to AMC 10.64.010: • Requires intent to disrupt; can be shown hindering sidewalk • Prohibit persons from blocking by failure to heed warning. passage Downtown public sidewalks for more . Prohibition permissible only on behavior than 3 continuous minutes by standing, (blockage) - not on expressive content sitting, or lying within pedestrian (such as words used). passageways or within 5' of a street . 1996 Ninth Circuit opinion said sitting, edge or corner lying, or sleeping on a public sidewalk is • Prohibit persons from blocking not a form of conduct integral to free entrances to public or private property expression. from public sidewalks by standing, . Dictum in 2014 Supreme Court case sitting, or lying thereon. suggests prohibition on blocking access • Require notice of prohibited conduct is permissible. and failure to comply before any arrest. • Should be limited to areas in which intentional interference with free passage is prevalent. Soliciting persons Possible addition of new provision to • 2006 Ninth Circuit opinion said that unable to readily walk Title 10 (Public Peace, Morals and solicitation is a form of expression away Safety) entitled to the same constitutional • Prohibit solicitation within 20' of ATM, protections ("strict scrutiny") as bank entrance, or sidewalk cafe. traditional speech. • Prohibit solicitation of persons in a • Must be narrowly tailored to prevent vehicle parked or stopped on a public intimidating solicitations which actually street or alley. have taken place in Ashland (not just • Require notice of prohibited conduct could take place). and failure to comply before any arrest. • Must identify prohibited activity with particularity. The list of situations in which solicitation is prohibited must be exhaustive; that is, enforcement officials should not have discretion to expand the list. • Must allow ample alternatives for exercise of 1st Amendment rights (e.g., should allow non-threatening solicitation outside prohibited specified areas). Page 2 of 3 • Must apply to all appeals for donations, including, for example, those by organized charities. Continuing to solicit See ORS 166.025 Disorderly Conduct and after negative response ORS 166.065 Harassment Crude remarks, generally Using profane or abusive language during solicitation or after negative response Solicitation without a Is soliciting donations a "business activity"? business license Page 3 of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication February 1, 2016, Study Session Continued discussion of planning for City Hall replacement FROM: Michael R. Faught, Director of Public Works, Public Works, Mike.Faught@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Council at its June 15, 2015, study session requested that the City conduct a seismic evaluation of City Hall to determine the cost of bringing the building up to current seismic codes. Necessary seismic upgrades would involve removing the roof, the floor on the second floor and all of the drywall on the interior of the north and west walls, then building a system of ties and braces to secure the building. The estimated cost (including contingency but excluding soft costs and temporary staff relocation) is $176/sq. ft., or $1,363,757. The seismic upgrades will require the relocation of city staff for approximately nine months at a cost of just under $157,000. Soft costs would be roughly $322,000. If the City did necessary and long-overdue HVAC and plumbing replacement as well as fire suppression and ADA improvements, the total cost of the project exceeds the cost of simply demolishing and rebuilding City Hall or building a new City Hall at a different location on City-owned property. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At the Council's June 15, 2015, Study Session, City Administrator Dave Kanner proposed a comprehensive examination of options for replacing City Hall using the $100,000 appropriated in the current budget for a long-term facilities master plan. To that end, Mr. Kanner provided background information on past plans to replace City Hall which included a detailed history of City Hall remodels, additions, spacing needs, and needed seismic mitigation based on a 1994 seismic evaluation (see attached June 15, 2015, council communication). Based on the age of the existing seismic report, Council directed staff to complete a new seismic study on City Hall and the Parks and Recreation building. The City Hall seismic evaluation has been completed by Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. (see attached report). The consultant's report outlines a plan with estimated costs to upgrade City Hall to allow occupants to safely exit the building after a major earthquake which, as he indicates in his executive summary, "may not be the case in its current state." The estimated cost to upgrade the existing facility to meet seismic requirements only (excluding soft and relocation costs) is estimated to be $176 per square foot or a total cost of $1,363,757. If the City Council were to choose this option, all employees in the existing building would have to be relocated for about nine months at an estimated cost of $17,426 per month or just under $157,000. Given that a seismic renovation of the existing facility requires a major rebuild to the building, Michael Morrison, Public Works Superintendent, recommended evaluating costs associated with modernizing all of the existing (aging) plumbing, HVAC systems and electrical systems. To assist with development of additional planning level cost estimates, staff hired Matt Small, Kistler Small + Page 1 of 3 11TAIR CITY OF -ASHLAND White Architects, and John Kennedy, chief estimator with Vitus Construction, to provide economy of scale cost estimates for the following four options (see attached estimate): 1. Include soft cost and Temporary relocations costs to the to the seismic estimate 2. Estimated square foot costs for mechanical, electrical and plumbing, egress, ADA, fire suppression and tenant improvements 3. Estimated square foot costs to rebuild on the current City Hall site, replacing everything except the existing north and west historic facades. 4. Total estimated square foot costs to construct a new building elsewhere on City-Owned property, including parking and other issues arising out of its location. These costs are shown in table 1. Table 1: Seismic Upgrades Additional cost for Total Remodel Rebuild on the New building on plus soft costs mechanical, Costs current City hall City Owned and relocation electrical and site replacing Property costs plumbing, egress, everything except ADA, Fire the existing north Suppression and and west wall Tenant Improvements $236 $338 $576 $405 $450 *All costs are per-square foot COUNCIL GOALS: Organization 4 Evaluate real property and City assets to strategically support city mission and goals 4.3 Examine city hall replacement and other facility needs. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The current budget includes $100,000 to fund a study for City Hall replacement. To date staff has expended $12,000 for the seismic upgrade analysis and an additional $1,000 for a building contractor to estimate cost for additional remodeling costs, rebuild in place costs and to build a new building in a different location on city owned property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Given the seismic report and the need for additional capital improvements at City Hall, staff recommends that the City move forward with a comprehensive examination of options for replacing or rebuilding City Hall. Staff seeks approval to issue an RFP to select a consultant team to examine options for replacing or rebuilding City Hall. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A Page 2 of 3 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: • March 3, 2014 Staff Report • June 15, 2015 Staff Report • Miller Consulting Engineers City Hall Seismic Upgrade Report • Vitus Construction Inc Cost estimates Page 3 of 3 11FAW, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication March 3, 2014, Study Session Seismic Structural Improvements to Existing Buildings FROM: Michael Grubbs, Building Official, Community Development Department, michael.grubbs@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Community Development staff is interested in developing an amendment to our local building code for City Council's consideration regarding the protection of one of the community's greatest resources, its buildings. Specifically, this would entail amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code, Buildings and Construction section, requiring seismic improvements when buildings undergo remodel or reconstruction. Many buildings within the City of Ashland are vulnerable to the destructive effects of an earthquake. Extreme damage or collapse will result, all due to their age and construction type. If an ordinance is in place, the survival rate of these buildings and the persons who occupy them will greatly be improved. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The major earthquake projected to take place in Oregon sometime in the not so distant future would have a devastating effect on older existing non-code-compliant buildings within the City of Ashland. To preserve Ashland's building stock and provide a safer environment for all, the Building Division proposes consideration of an ordinance which would require structural improvements to existing buildings when a planned alteration or remodel takes place. Such an ordinance reduces the likelihood of severe damage to Ashland's distinctive buildings. Currently, the cities of Medford and Portland have similar ordinances enacted and enforced. Stakeholder outreach would target local building owners, construction specialists, and interested parties through our local media, Ashland web page, mailings, open public meetings, and email messaging - all designed to inform and allow public input into the crafting of this ordinance. Facts: • Scientific studies have identified the Cascadia Subduction zone off the coast as the source of a long history of earthquakes and tsunamis that have affected the State of Oregon. • Building codes prior to 1976 did not contain adequate provisions for seismic structural safety for structures. • Older structures in Ashland, including its downtown core are constructed mainly of unreinforced masonry or concrete, which makes them very vulnerable to damage or collapse during an earthquake. Please note: Newer buildings and those currently under construction have been designed with appropriate seismic safeguards in place. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND • The current Oregon Structural Specialty Code does not require seismic improvements when a building is remodeled unless a more hazardous use is proposed; seismic upgrades are only voluntary. • This type of ordinance is endorsed by the State of Oregon Building Codes Division, Ashland Fire Department, the City of Medford and the City of Portland This new code could include the following triggers for seismic improvement requirements: • When renovation costs exceed $100,000 or $15.00 per square foot. • When re-roofing is planned, parapet walls need to be braced. • Change of Occupancy, for example a change from a retail outlet (M-Mercantile) to a restaurant or lounge (A-Assembly). • T-bar ceiling seismic upgrades required when any work is planned. • Tilt-up concrete buildings constructed prior to 1998 require the roof system to be evaluated for connection to the walls. • If interior ceiling materials are removed in single story buildings (thereby exposing the roof wood framing system), the roof system could be required to be evaluated for connection to the walls. • If interior ceiling materials are removed in multi-story buildings, upper floor systems and roof diaphragm systems required to be evaluated for connection to the walls. • Most single family homes would be exempt. Affected buildings that have undergone seismic improvements would provide a higher degree of safety for occupants through added structural strength, thereby greatly improving personal survival. The cities of Portland and Medford have such ordinances in place. In Portland, it is estimated that 20% of all remodeled commercial building stock have been seismically improved. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There would be minimal fiscal impact to the City of Ashland. Building/business owners would realize a increase in the cost of construction, depending on size and scope of work or size of the building when an alteration or renovation is planned. City of Ashland incentives will be explored and possibly offered to permit applicants. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Instruct staff to continue to research and draft an ordinance for Council consideration. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Link to the City of Medford Seismic Ordinance: www.ci.medford.or.us/Code.asp?CodeID=3643 Link to the City of Portland Seismic Ordinance: www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28673 Page 2 of 2 I`, CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication June 15, 2015, Study Session Discussion of planning for City Hall replacement FROM: Dave Kanner, City Administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The City has been discussing the reconstruction or relocation of City Hall for more than 20 years. As part of its 2014 strategic planning initiative, the City Council identified "Examine City Hall replacement and other facility needs" as a priority goal. The proposed BN 2015-17 budget included a request for $200,000 for a study of City Hall replacement, a long-term facilities master plan and a study of underutilized assets. However, the Budget Committee approved only $100,000. Staff proposes to use this money for a comprehensive examination of options for replacing City Hall and will use this study session for a discussion with the Council on how to proceed with that effort. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Ashland's City Hall building is more than 120 years old. It was originally built in 1891 as a fire station and expanded in 1913 to include the portion of the building that now houses Administration on the second floor and the Utility Billing lobby and City Recorder's Office on the first floor. The current stucco veneer was added to the building at that time, however the unreinforced brick masonry walls of the original building continue to form the "skeleton" of City Hall. The photo below left shows the original building. The photo at right is City Hall after it was expanded out to Main Street and the cement stucco exterior was added. At that time, a one-story addition to the east was constructed in the space between City Hall and the adjacent building (now occupied by Utility Billing). A partial second story added to this expansion at an unknown date. Two smaller additions were constructed out of concrete and concrete block at the south end of the building. Also, the interior of the building has been remodeled several times. Click here to view City Hall historical photos. The newer rear section of the building that now houses the Finance Department was built in two phases, with the second floor completed in 1998. CITY OF -ASH LAN D The City has been discussing the reconstruction or relocation of City Hall for more than 20 years. The building is seismically vulnerable, lacks meeting space and has no room for growth. However, it is the seismic vulnerability of the building that presents the most pressing problem. The interior of City Hall has been reconfigured a number of times since 1913 but has never has any structural improvements related to seismic mitigation. A history of recent discussions and planning efforts is as follows: October 1993 - new building approved In October 1993 the Planning Commission approved a site review for the construction of a 10,000 square foot City office building to be located to the rear of the City Council chambers. In November 1993, the Council sustained the Planning Commission's decision and approved a site review for the construction of the new City office building. Due to community opposition to moving city offices out of the downtown, the City Council withdrew the City's application in December of 1993 for a new building and agreed by resolution to the formation of an ad hoc committee to study the space needs of the City, and to recommend how and when the solutions should be implemented. 1993 -1994 ad hoc Space Needs Study Committee An ad hoc Space Needs Study Committee was formed by Resolution 93-41. In April 1994 the committee presented its report to the City Council. The Committee concluded that additional space is needed for city offices located downtown. They recommended that the funds earmarked for the construction of the proposed building at the rear of the City Council Chambers be earmarked for a fund to acquire, maximize and improve space for city offices in the downtown including: acquisition of the Hillah Temple as soon as possible, rehabilitation of the existing City Hall building as soon as possible to include at a minimum, compliance with all current applicable codes, ordinances and energy conservation standards. If acquisition of the Hillah Temple was delayed, the rehabilitation of the existing City Hall to include the addition of a third floor and expansion of the second floor to accommodate all current downtown city employees. The committee also recommended contracting for engineering and architectural services for the purpose of evaluating the existing City Hall building and making recommendations regarding cost and methods to accomplish the rehabilitation. Click here to read the 1994 ad hoc Space Needs Study Committee report to the City Council. 1994 Seismic Evaluation Report for City Hall In 1994, the City contracted with Miller-Gardner, Inc., Consulting Engineers to conduct a seismic evaluation of City Hall. The summary reads: Based on the findings of our field investigation and our preliminary calculations, the scope of seismic upgrade of the Ashland City Hall will include repairs or modification to five building components. These consist of bracing the exterior brick wall above the roof (parapet), exterior and interior brick wall lateral ties at the roof, ceiling and floor levels, adding interior shear walls, roof diaphragm reinforcement, and the addition of a braced steel frame inside at the north wall. The estimated total cost of the upgrade including the second floor addition is $330,000. Click here to read the 1994 Seismic Report. (Note: None of this recommended work has been done, although the parapet bracing and roof strapping are planned for this summer.) 1996-1997 Space Needs at City Hall In 1996 the City was unable to reach a mutually acceptable price for the Hillah Temple. The City Council directed staff to pursue the addition of a third story to City Hall and to downsize the proposed building at the East Main site. Click here to read the ALI,USt 1997 report to City Council. CITY OF -ASH LAN D In December of 1997 the City Council authorized a Sire Review for the construction of a 7800 square foot City office located at 1175 E. Main Street (behind the City Council Chambers). 1998 -1999 In October of 1998 the City purchased the Hillah Temple for $650,360. In September of 1999, the City Council held a public hearing to consider design alternatives for the Hillah Temple building. Click here to read the Council minutes of September 1999. A second story was added over the earlier addition at the south end of City Hall. This is now part of Finance and the corner conference room. Use the link to City Hall historical photos to view this addition. 2002 The City contracted with Architectural Design Works to develop a conceptual study for the long term use of City Hall. The study identified the employee space needs, current floor plans and proposed future floor plans. Click here to view the conceptual designs. 2008 In 2008 the City Council formed the Facilities Master Plan Committee (read purpose of committee here) and contracted with OgdenRoemerWilkerson to develop a Facilities Master Plan with a long- term vision. Click here to read the report. The committee recommended Option 2 which is a combination of existing remodel and new construction, including City Hall. The report did not address the seismic needs of the building. Option 3 identified possible locations to build a new City Hall in the downtown core. The Council deferred action on the 2008 final report pending completion of a new Fire Station #2 and expansion of the Police Station. In light of the 20+ year history of City Hall replacement discussions and the Council's priority goal, this communication takes it as a given that the City must move forward with addressing its current and future City Hall needs, both in terms of safety and space. To that end, staff proposes using the $100,000 budgeted in BN 2015-17 to hire a consultant team for a planning and public involvement process that would - in broad terms encompass the following steps: 1. Through a public engagement process, determine the key criteria the community would want us to consider when planning for a new City Hall. These criteria could include: civic identity; energy/sustainability; public space; accessibility; reinforce history; mixed uses, etc. 2. Identify locations where those criteria could be met. 3. Analyze the feasibility and pros/cons of each location. 4. Determine the costs and potential financing mechanisms for each option. 5. Council, with community input, selects a preferred alternative. Staff seeks Council concurrence with this broad process outline and approval to move forward with an RFP to select a consultant team for this project. CITY OF -ASHLAND COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: OrIjanization 4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals. 4.3 Examine city hall replacement and other facility needs. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The approved BN 2015-17 budget includes $100,000 in one-time money that staff proposes to use for this City Hall study. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff seeks approval to move forward with an RFP to select a consultant team for this project. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None January 27, 2016 MILLER CONSULTING Mr. Pieter Smeenk E N G I N E E R S City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Ashland City Hall Seismic Upgrade 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR MCE Project No. 150899 Dear Mr. Smeenk: Thank you for the opportunity to provide seismic evaluation services for the City of Ashland. The purpose of this update is to provide a schematic design for the upgrade of the building that meets the current code, as well as an engineer's preliminary estimate of probable construction costs to upgrade the building based on our review. Based on this review, the following is our preliminary estimate of probable construction cost to upgrade the building: Performance Objective Construction Cost Engineering Fee Total Cost Cost per s q. foot OSSC Code Upgrade $1,345,757 $80,000 $1,425,757 $184 Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. would also like to extend our knowledge, expertise, and passion of structural engineering to the City of Ashland for the work proposed within the seismic evaluation report. Since our inception in 1978, Miller Consulting Engineers has been providing practical, diverse structural solutions with a history of providing inventive results that save time and money. MCE's team has extensive experience in providing seismic evaluations and code upgrades for a variety of buildings that include essential facilities and historic structures. Our past experience and current technology will be very beneficial in the performance of the seismic upgrade of City Hall. These benefits include: • Skilled staff in seismic upgrades of historic and essential structures • Construction cost and engineering cost estimating expertise • Past experience working closely with the State of Oregon Building Codes • Knowledge and experience utilizing the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code • Experienced staff with the "Partnering/Teaming" process • Economical and innovative solutions to field problems • Historic preservation practice • Outstanding narrative reporting • AUTOCAD "Standardized Details" for common seismic evaluations/REVIT If you have any questions about the contents enclosed, you may contact me. I am reachable by phone at 503-246-1250; facsimile at 503-246-1395; or by email at eric(a~miller-se.com. Respectfully submitted, Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. G~. GUrGc__ Eric Watson, S.E., P.E. Principal Engineering Practical, Diverse Structural Solutions Since 1978 9570 S W Barbur Blvd., Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97219-5412 Phone: (503) 246-1250 Fax: (503) 246-1395 www.miller-se.com Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 4- I t `'x1 Prepared for The City of Ashland Co ?,\JCTURq< GD PROF~s 1043 OREGQN o /G'RV 2' WPB C R.. EXPIRES: 06-30-2016 Prepared by MILLER CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 9570 SW Barbur Boulevard, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97219 Ph.: 503-246-1250 NICE Project Number: 150899 December 7, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary - Photo Plan - Photos ...........................................................................................................................6 - 12 Structural plans 13- 14 Background ................................................................................................................15 - 18 Definitions ..................................................................................................................19-20 Appendix Cost Tables .........................................................................................APPENDIX - A Supporting Calculations APPENDIX - B ASHLAND CITY HALL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview The City of Ashland has hired Miller Consulting Engineers (MCE) to update our previous seismic evaluation report for the Ashland City Hall building dated August 5, 1994, considering the current state building code, which is the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). The purpose and goal of this facility seismic evaluation is to provide a schematic design for the upgrade of the building that meets the current code, as well as an engineer's preliminary estimate of probable construction costs to upgrade the building based on our review. This evaluation develops a plan to upgrade the facility to allow the occupants to safely exit the structure after a major earthquake, which may not be the case in its current state. The evaluation identified the following items that need to be addressed as part of the proposed seismic upgrade. • Strengthening the roof and floor diaphragms to transfer lateral loads to the walls • The connections between the walls and the diaphragm for in-plane and out-of-plane loads • Addressing the connections at the roof diaphragm to account for the plan irregularities • Providing shear walls in the east-west direction to support the diaphragm loading • Providing bonded shear walls to reinforce the unreinforced masonry walls for in-plane loads • Providing special concentric braced frames on the north and west walls on the main level to resist the required lateral loading of the building Based on the above items, we anticipate that the proposed upgrade work will take approximately seven months to complete and will require at a minimum the second floor to be vacated during construction. The following is our preliminary estimate of probable construction cost to upgrade the building: Performance Construction Contingency Total Cost Cost per sq. foot Objective Cost Cost OSSC Code Upgrade $1,136,464 $227,293 $1,363,757 $176 The above costs only consider the structural upgrades and corresponding work as required by the structural upgrades; the other concerns with the building such HVAC, plumbing, ADA access or other non-structural costs such as bracing the suspended ceilings are not included in this cost. Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 2 Furthermore, these estimates are limited to the repairs of the detailed items and do not include relocation costs of staff or other soft costs. Within our opinion of probable construction cost estimate, we have included the contractor's overhead and profit, as well as a 25% construction contingency to account for some differences in the field during construction. The structural cost is less than constructing a new facility, but when you add in the other costs, the upgrade cost may be more than the replacement cost. Background The Ashland City Hall building is located at 20 East Main Street in Ashland, Oregon. The building was originally constructed around 1891 with two additions added since that time. One addition was added around 1913 that expanded the building to the north on both stories and to the south on the first story only. Another addition was added in 1995 that extended the second floor on the south to be in line with the south wall of the 1913 addition. The current size of the building is approximately 7,745 square feet. Original construction documents were not available for our review, but documents from 1982 (Savikko), 1991 (Marquess and Associates) and 1996 (Afseth) were used in our evaluation. The building is comprised of two primary areas. One area is the main building area that is a two- story structure that has unreinforced masonry exterior walls on the east and west sides of the area, as well as an unreinforced masonry wall toward the south side of the building that was originally an exterior wall of the 1891 building. The other exterior walls of the main building area are cast-in-place concrete walls that were placed during the 1913 addition. The other area is the infill area that is between the main building area and the 1880 Pioneer Building to the east. The infill area is supported by the east wall of the main building area on the west and on the east by post-and-beam supports that are adjacent to the Pioneer Building. The infill area is approximately 18' wide by 75' long on the main floor. The upper floor is 14' wide by 45' long that has cast-in-place concrete exterior walls that are supported by the wood-framed diaphragm on the main level. The infill area does not have an apparent lateral force-resisting element on the main floor east side. The building houses several city offices including the mayor's office and support staff, as well as the water department. Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 3 0291 I I I I I I 0224 0217 I i 0264 0263 0285 0256 ~-0254 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I 1 I UPPER FLOOR PHOTO PLAN \_0234 Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 4 Z-0291 0236 0244 <0235 0242 MAIN FLOOR PHOTO PLAN V0234 Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 5 iF l 1 1 1« i i r ~ PHOTO 0234 - North elevation of the building looking toward the northwest corner ~ ft I f' 4 ~i PHOTO 0291- West elevation of the building looking toward the southwest corner Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation MCE Project No. 150899 Ashland City Hall 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 6 ~~~lp a"yN d V A 4 f. Z a4 T~. PHOTO 0224 -Exposed east upper wall of the main building area looking toward the northeast y• PHOTO 0217 - Main building area roof looking toward the south Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 7 ~i. PHOTO 0256 - Main building area roof framing looking west :thy lr ...Y yN'b ,~!L7yt tk .kM iSi'ti) ~ S `TI PHOTO 0264 - Main building area roof framing looking south Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 8 x r. P~~MIh° Il r PHOTO 0254 -Joint at the east wall between the 1891 building to the south and the 1913 addition c 1 PHOTO 02t: 1 H`; access in the upper floor ceiling cavity through the east wall Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 9 ran ~ i r. 'f PHOTO 0263 - Upper floor ceiling cavity looking toward the southwest Ri WOW' it ~i. PHOTO 0285 - Exposed unreinforced masonry wall in the mayor's office vestibule Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 10 :9r a 41- sec rrrrr PHOTO 0236 - Upper floor framing visible in the main floor ceiling cavity adjacent to a vault Sw xa y 21 WNW PHOTO 0242 - Upper floor connection at the east URM wall of the main building area Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 11 1 t#r~l ~ y I 44 u _s J PHOTO 0244-Main floor ceiling cavity in the nn, in building area f a j s 'Y PHOTO 0235 - Access opening through the east URM wall in the main building area Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 12 A M rr~ ~ e S6 S3 S1 S2 S5 S4 S1 Strengthen the roof diaphragm Strengthen the upper floor ceiling diaphragm $3 S3 Add bonded shear walls to strengthen the URM walls S4 Add east-west shear walls to support the wood framed diaphragm Add drag-struts at the end of the infill roof SS area as required 56 Add drag-struts to connect the 1995 addition SECOND STRUCTURAL PLAN to the main building area Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 13 S7 S6 S1 S2 S8 S5 S4 S3 S3 S1 0 Strengthen the upper floor diaphragm S2 Add bonded shear walls to strengthen the URM walls S3 Add east-west shear walls to support the wood framed diaphragm S8 Add a shear wall along the east edge of the S4 0 S2 infill area as required 55 Add drag-struts at the end of the infill area roof diaphragm as required 56 Add drag-struts at the end of the infill area floor diaphragm as required S~ Add drag-struts to connect the 1995 addition to the main building area MAIN STRUCTURAL PLAN ss Add Special Concentric Braced Frame (SCBF) to the main building area Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 14 Background The Ashland City Hall building is comprised of two primary building areas described below. The building was originally constructed around 1891 as an unreinforced masonry building that has had two major additions added since that time, along with several interior remodels over the life of the building. One addition was added around 1913, which expanded the building to the north on both stories and to the south on the first story only. Another addition was added in 1995 that extended the second floor to the south so to be in line with the south wall of the 1913 main floor addition. The building houses several city offices including the mayor's office and support staff, as well as the water department. One area is the main building area that is a two-story structure that has unreinforced masonry walls on the east and west sides of the area, as well as an unreinforced masonry wall from the original building toward the south side of the building. The other exterior walls of the main building area are cast-in-place concrete walls that were placed during the 1913 addition. The other area of the building is the infill area that is between the main building area and the 1880 Pioneer Building to the East. The infill area is supported by the main building area on the west and on the east by post-and-beam supports that are adjacent to the 1880 Pioneer Building. The infill area is approximately 18' wide by 75' long on the main floor that does not have an apparent lateral force-resisting element on the east side. The upper floor is 14' wide by 45' long that has cast-in-place concrete exterior walls that are supported by the wood-framed diaphragm of the main level. Main Building Area The main building section is a two-story area that is constructed of three different wall materials including unreinforced masonry walls, cast-in-place concrete walls and light wood-framed walls along the exterior of the 1995 addition. The roof is built with straight sheathing that spans in the north and south direction and is perpendicular to the roof framing. In addition, there are several interior partition walls on the main floor that may be seismic hazards, including the unreinforced masonry wall at the south office area and the cell block area. The main building area can be evaluated in three different conditions. One condition is as the building exists today, where it appears that none of the previous recommendations have been considered. Another condition would be if the building had been seismically upgraded in 1994 when the report was originally generated; the last condition is if the work that is being proposed today is considered. Currently, the existing main building area roof diaphragm has a demand-to- capacity ratio (DCR) of 29 and the main floor diaphragm has a DCR of 19. The unreinforced masonry walls on the upper floor have a DCR of up to 5.4 and on the main floor the unreinforced masonry walls have a DCR of 4.8 in the north-south direction and a DCR of 21 in the east-west Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluation Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 15 direction. Typically, when reporting DCR numbers that are greater than 10, the number is capped at 10 to demonstrate that the element has no capacity, but, in this case, we have not done that in order to demonstrate the deficiencies of the building. If the upgrade work was completed following the 1994 report, there would be some concerns today based on the changes to the OSSC, which in this case the seismic base loading has increased by 52% (the seismic coefficient increased from 0.17 g to 0.26 g). There have also been some changes in the way designers address seismic loads and how materials are used in resisting the seismic loading. In addition, the roof diaphragm would also be a concern based on the fact that straight sheathing is not recommended for use in masonry buildings based on the lack of stiffness of the diaphragm. The unreinforced masonry walls on the upper floor would have a DCR of up to 2.5 and on the main floor the unreinforced masonry walls would have a DCR of 4.8 in the north-south direction. The plywood shear walls on the upper floor would have a DCR of up to 1.2 and on the main floor the plywood shear walls would have a DCR of 2.5 in the east- west direction. The fact that the 1994 renovation is deficient is a result of. As part of the third condition, there are a number of structural concerns that will need to be addressed including the following: the lack of parapet bracing for the parapet walls that are taller than 12" above the roof diaphragm; the need to strengthen the roof, upper floor ceiling and floor diaphragms for the imposed lateral loads; the need to provide lateral force resisting elements to support the in-plane unreinforced masonry wall loading; the lack of anchorage between the diaphragms and the unreinforced masonry walls; and the lack of drag struts at the end of the infill area on the upper and main floors. It is assumed that the exterior unreinforced masonry walls have adequate strength to resist the out-of-plane loading, but this assumption will need to be verified in the field prior to commencing the seismic strengthening of the building. Main Building Area Recommendations For the lack of parapet bracing, use custom brackets to connect the parapet walls back to the roof diaphragm. For the inadequate diaphragms, add plywood sheathing at the diaphragm level, as well as additional in-plane shear walls on the upper and main floors to reduce the loading on the diaphragm as well as the exterior shear walls lines. In addition, bonded shear walls may be used in the attic area to transfer loads between the roof diaphragm and the ceiling diaphragm of the upper level. For the inadequate lateral force-resisting elements (the unreinforced masonry walls), add bonded shear walls to resist the in-plane loading as required by code. For the lack of drag strut connections between the infill area and the main building area, use custom brackets to connect the areas together. Infill Area It appears that the infill area existed before the 1913 addition was built, but it was most likely significantly remodeled during the 1913 addition. Consequently, we considered the infill portion Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 16 of the building to be part of the 1913 addition. The infill area is supported on the west by the east unreinforced masonry wall of the main building area and on the east by post-and-beam supports that are adjacent to the Pioneer Building. The infill area is approximately 18' wide by 75' long on the main floor, which does not have an apparent lateral force resisting element on the east side adjacent to the Pioneer Building. The upper floor is 14' wide by 45' long that has cast-in-place concrete exterior walls that are supported by the wood-framed diaphragm of the main level. The concrete walls that are supported by the wood-framed floor diaphragm are of some concern, because the infill area does not have an apparent lateral force resisting element on the main floor east side. There is also some concern with the north wall of the infill area and how the diaphragms are connected to the exterior walls. Lastly, there is not an isolation joist between the north wall or the floor diaphragm of the infill area and the adjacent Pioneer Building. During a seismic event pounding of these two buildings may occur that could cause additional damage to the City Hall building, as well as to the Pioneer Building. In order to address pounding, the buildings can either be separated by a seismic isolation joint or tied together so that the two buildings work together. Infill Area Recommendations Most of the repairs at the infill area are similar to the repairs as required at the main building area, including the addition of connections between the walls and the diaphragm for in-plane and out-of-plane loads. For the potential pounding concern, a seismic isolation joist should be added between the infill area and the adjacent Pioneer Building. Due to the existing concrete vaults, the bonded shear walls that are being added to strengthen the east unreinforced masonry wall of the main building area will need to be built on the east side of the unreinforced masonry wall in the infill area. Limitations The information contained in this report is for the exclusive use of the City of Ashland. Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for any use of this report by other parties. This report relates solely to the stated purpose of this investigation; and no representations concerning other aspects (if any) of the circumstance, structure or site are included. The conclusions (if any) are based on the above stated visual structural observations, and no destructive testing or monitoring was performed. Specific construction details exceed the scope of this report. No guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is provided. Opinions of Probable Construction Cost In providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Consultant has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions of the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Consultant's opinions of probable Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 17 construction costs are made on the basis of the Consultant's professional judgment and experience. Within our opinion of probable construction cost estimate, we have included the contractor's overhead and profit, as well as a 25% construction contingency to account for some differences in the field during construction. The Consultant makes no warranty, express or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from the Consultant's opinion of probable construction cost. Opinions of probable construction cost only include the cost to perform the retrofit work, cost to provide temporary storage for displaced material, removal of contents, a contained work environment with ventilation, and protection of fragile finishes. Items excluded from the opinions of probable construction cost that should also be considered include, but are not limited to, staff relocation, bonding, insurance, and permits. Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 18 A list of definitions is included below to assist the reader with the technical terms used throughout this report. Definitions Clerestory: A vertical step in the roof containing windows. CMU Wall: A Concrete Masonry Unit wall is constructed of modular hollow concrete blocks that are attached together with mortar. Collector: A component that transfers lateral load from the building diaphragm to the lateral force-resisting system. Concrete Tilt Panel: A concrete wall that was constructed flat on the ground and then tilted into place. Continuity Tie: A structural tie, such as a strap, to ensure transfer of loads from one member to another aligned member. Diagonal Sheathing: A type of roof sheathing where lx wood members are nailed at a 45 degree angle across roof or wall framing. Diaphragm: A roof or floor that supports walls. Dynamic Landslide: A landslide caused by an earthquake. Essential Facilities (2012 IBC): Buildings and other structures that are intended to remain operational in the event of extreme environmental loading from flood, wind, snow, or earthquakes. The word operational in this definition is the distinguishing link between the ASCE 41-13 and the 2012 IBC. Glazing: The glass portion of a window. Glulam Beam: An engineered wood beam constructed of many layers of wood glued together. Immediate Occupancy (ASCE 41-13): Overall damage is light; no permanent drift; the structure substantially retains original strength and stiffness; and continued occupancy is likely. Equipment is generally secure but might not operate due to mechanical failure or lack of utilities. There may be some cracking of facades, partitions, and ceilings, as well as structural elements. All systems important to normal operation may not be functional. Life-Safety Structural Performance (ASCE 41-13): Postearthquake damage to a structure is such that the building retains capacity against onset of partial or full collapse. Liquefaction: The rapid shaking of the soil during an earthquake, which results in the soil acting like a liquid rather than a solid, reducing the ability of the soil to carry the weight of the above structure. Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 19 Load Path: A path through which seismic forces travel through the building to the foundation. Non-Structural Component: A permanently installed covering, mechanical or electrical component that does not support the primary structure. Open Web Joist: A structural steel member composed of a top and bottom component with diagonal and vertical members linked in between. Operational (ASCE 41-13): Overall damage is very light; no permanent drift; the structure retains substantial original strength and stiffness. The occupancy is continuous and use of the structure is highly likely. Negligible damage occurs to the equipment and power and other utilities are available, possibly from standby sources. There is minor cracking of facades, partitions, ceilings, and structural elements. All systems important to normal operation are functional. Out-of-plane (forces/wall): Loads that act on a wall that typically are trying to push or pull the wall away from the floor or roof. Performance Objective: One or more pairings of the selected hazard level with the acceptable or desirable structural and non-structural performance level. Pilaster: A supporting column whose partial girth protrudes from the wall. Post-Installed Anchor: A bolt that is installed in hardened concrete. Primary Structure: A portion of a structure that is used to support gravity, snow, rain or wind and earthquake loads. R&R: Remove and replace. Seismic Evaluation: A study to evaluate a building's capacity to resist loads from an earthquake. Shear Wall: A wall that resists seismic forces applied to it that are transferred from the roof and/or floor levels. Ship-lap: A type of roof sheathing where 1 x wood members are spaced over roof framing and overlap with adjoining members. Special Concentrically Braced Frame: A steel frame that resists lateral loads through its diagonal members. Straight Sheathing: A type of roof sheathing where lx wood members are nailed perpendicular to roof or wall framing. Surface Fault Rupture: Where a fault line opens up creating a crack in the soil. Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations Ashland City Hall MCE Project No. 150899 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Page 20 APPENDIX - A ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST STRUCTURAL PROJECT: Owner Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations JOB NO.: 150799 LOCATION: Ashland City Hall CLIENT: City of Ashland DATE: 7-Dec-15 TAKE-OFF BY: ERW CHECKED BY: RGV SEISMIC UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE SUBTOTALS Mobilization Job Trailer 7 Month $500 $3,500 Supervisor 30 Week $4,125 $123,750 Construction Aids Lift 5004 capacity Provide scissor lifts 7 Month $4,300 $30,100 Temporary Storage Provide (2) 40' container 7 Month $1,000 $7,000 for storage as required Ventalation Negative Air Equipment 30 Week $2,000 $60,000 per (4) zones $224,350 Strengthen Roof Remove (E) TPO roofing 2880 S.F. $2 $5,760 Diaphragm Add Plywood 2520 S.F. $4 $10,080 Add parapet bracing @ 4' 120 L.F. $400 $48,000 o.c. for walls > 16" tall Add Blocking between 228 L.F. $25 $5,700 rafters@ anchors Build bonded shear walls in attic for IP and OOP 798 S.F. $15 $11,970 (using 3.5' tall attic walls) New Roofing New TPO Roofing with 2880 S.F. $20 $57,600 rigid insulation Strengthen Upper Floor Remove all contents on 2880 S.F. $15 $43,200 Ceiling Diaphragm upper floor Temporary work area 2880 S.F. $2 $4,320 Add Plywood 2520 S.F. $8 $20,160 Out of plane ties @ T o.c. 24 Ea. $400 $9,527 (excluding bonded walls) Add Blocking between 228 L, F. $25 $5,700 rafters@ anchors Add perimeter angle and 228 L. F. $50 $11,400 anchors in masonry ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST STRUCTURAL SEISMIC UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE SUBTOTALS Drag-strut and Custom drab strut at 1 Ea. $2,000 $2,000 continuity ties Gridline 3 Install strap atGridline 3 1 Ea. $1,000 $1,000 Install Simpson HD at 7-A 2 Ea. $500 $1,000 and 7-B Strengthen the east Repoint exterior masonry 600 S.F. $20 $12,000 exterior masonry wall walls Strengthen upper floor Add Plywood 2520 S.F. $4 $10,080 diaphragm Add ties @ T o.c. for the 41 Ea. $400 $16,500 (E) parallel walls Out of plane ties @ 4' o.c. 36 Ea. $400 $14,250 (excluding bonded walls) Add Blocking between 228 L. F. $25 $5,700 rafters@ anchors Add perimeter angle and 228 L. F. $50 $11,400 anchors in masonry Drag-strut and Custom drab strut at 2 Ea. $2,000 $4,000 continuity ties Gridline 3 and 6 Install strap at Gridline 3 2 Ea. $1,000 $2,000 Install Simpson HD at 7-A 2 Ea. $500 $1,000 and 7-B Strengthen main floor Out of plane ties @ 4' o.c. 36 Ea. $400 $14,250 diaphragm (excluding bonded walls) Add Blocking between 228 L.F. $25 $5,700 rafters@ anchors Add perimeter angle and 228 L. F. $50 $11,400 anchors in masonry Second floor shear wall Demo (E) wall finishes 336 S. F. $4 $1,344 at Grid I Build 5'-4" and T-6" 336 S.F. $25 $8,400 bonded shear walls Holdown at each wall end 4 Ea. $400 $1,600 (N) gypsum and finish 336 S. F. $12 $4,032 ES,riMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST STRUCTURAL SEISMIC UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE SUBTOTALS Second floor shear wall Demo (E) wall finishes 228 S.F. $4 $912 at Grid 2(N) Build 19'-0" shear wall 228 S.F. $8 $1,824 Holdown at each wall end 2 Ea. $400 $800 (N) gypsum and finish 228 S.F. $12 $2,736 Second floor shear wal I Demo (E) wall finishes 279 S.F. $4 $1,116 at Grid 2(S) Build 23'-3" shear wall 279 S.F. $8 $2,232 Holdown at each wall end 2 Ea. $400 $800 (N) gypsum and finish 279 S.F. $12 $3,348 Second floor shear wall Demo (E) wall finishes 243 S.F. $4 $972 at Grid 4 Build 6'-3" and 14'-0" 243 S.F. $10 $2,430 shear walls Holdown at each wall end 4 Ea. $400 $1,600 (N) gypsum and finish 243 S.F. $12 $2,916 Second floor shear wall Demo (E) wall finishes 154 S.F. $4 $616 at Grid 7 Build 12'-10" bonded shear 154 S.F. $25 $3,852 walls (N) gypsum and finish 154 S.F. $12 $1,849 Second floor shear wall Demo (E) wall finishes 243 S. F. $4 $972 at Grid 8 Holdown at each wall end 6 Ea. $400 $2,400 (N) gypsum and finish 243 S. F. $12 $2,916 Second floor shear wall Demo (E) wall finishes 568 S.F. $4 $2,272 at Grid A Build 13'-3", 15'-10" and 568 S. F. $25 $14,200 18'-3" bonded shear walls (N) gypsum and finish 568 S.F. $12 $6,816 Second floor shear wall Demo (E) wall finishes 581 S. F. $4 $2,324 at Grid B Build 13'-4", l4'-10" and 581 S.F. $25 $14,524 20'-3" bonded shear walls (N) gypsum and finish 581 S, F. $12 $6,971 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST STRUCTURAL SEISMIC UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE SUBTOTALS Second floor shear wall Demo (E) wall finishes 408 S.F. $4 $1,632 at Grid C Build 6-0", 7-0" and 21'- 408 S.F. $25 $10,200 0" bonded shear walls (N) gypsum and finish 408 S.F. $12 $4,896 Main floor braced frame Demo (E) wall finishes 306 S.F. $4 $1,224 at Grid I Demo floor to build 96 S.F. $10 $960 footing Excavate for new footing 24 L.F. $60 $1,440 New concrete foundation 24 L.F. $200 $4,800 Build 20' SCBF frame 1 Ea. $30,000 $30,000 Connections at SCBF 1 Ea. $5,000 $5,000 Rebuild floor with finish 96 S.F. $20 $1,920 (N) gypsum and finish 306 S.F. $12 $3,672 Main floor shear wall at Demo (E) wall finishes 183 S.F. $4 $731 Grid 2(N) Demo floor to build 64 S.F. $10 $640 footing Excavate for new footing 16 L.F. $60 $960 Add concrete foundation 16 L.F. $200 $3,200 Build 14'-4" shear wall 183 S.F. $8 $1,462 Holdown at each wall end 2 Ea. $1,000 $2,000 Rebuild floor with finish 64 S.F. $20 $1,280 (N) gypsum and finish 183 S. F. $12 $2,192 Main floor shear wall at Demo (E) wall finishes 314 S.F. $4 $1,258 Grid 2(S) Demo floor to build 99 S.F. $10 $986 footing Excavate for new footing 25 L.F. $60 $1,480 Add concrete foundation 25 L.F. $200 $4,932 Build 10'-4" and 14'-4" 314 S. F. $8 $2,515 shear walls Holdown at each wall end 4 Ea. $1,000 $4,000 Rebuild floor with finish 99 S.F. $20 $1,973 (N) gypsum and finish 314 S.F. $12 $3,773 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST STRUCTURAL SEISMIC UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE SUBTOTALS Main floor shear wall at Demo (E) wall finishes 314 S.F. $4 $1,258 Grid 5 Demo floor to build 99 S.F. $10 $986 footing Excavate for new footing 25 L.F. $60 $1,480 Add concrete foundation 25 L.F. $200 $4,932 Build 10'-4" and 14'-4" 314 S.F. $8 $2,515 shear walls Holdown at each wall end 4 Ea. $1,000 $4,000 Rebuild floor with finish 99 S.F. $20 $1,973 (N) gypsum and finish 314 S.F. $12 $3,773 Main floor shear wall at Demo (E) wall finishes 351 S.F. $4 $1,403 Grid 7 Build 13'-0" and 14'-6" 351 S.F. $25 $8,766 bonded shear walls (N) gypsum and finish 351 S.F. $12 $4,208 Main floor shear wall at Demo (E) wall finishes 132 S.F. $4 $527 Grid 8 Build 10'-4" bonded shear 132 S.F. $25 $3,293 wall Holdown at each wall end 2 Ea. $1,000 $2,000 (N) gypsum and finish 132 S.F. $12 $1,580 Main floor shear wall at Demo (E) wall finishes 306 S.F. $4 $1,224 Grid A Demo floor to build 96 S.F. $10 $960 footing Excavate for new footing 24 L.F. $60 $1,440 New concrete foundation 24 L. F. $200 $4,800 Build 20' SCBF frame I Ea. $30,000 $30,000 Connections at SCBF 1 Ea. $5,000 $5,000 Rebuild floor with finish 96 S.F. $20 $1,920 (N) gypsum and finish 306 S.F. $12 $3,672 Main floor shear wall at Demo (E) wall finishes 861 S. F. $4 $3,443 Grid B Build 1 P-0", 12'-0", 20'-0" and 24'-6" bonded shear 861 S.F. $25 $21,516 walls (N) gypsum and finish 861 S.F. $12 $10,328 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST STRUCTURAL SEISMIC UNIT TOTAL DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE SUBTOTALS Main floor shear wall at Demo (E) wall finishes 255 S.F. $4 $1,020 Grid D Demo floor to build 80 S.F. $10 $800 footing Excavate for new footing 20 L.F. $60 $1,200 Add concrete foundation 20 L.F. $200 $4,000 Build 20'-0" shear wall 255 S.F. $10 $2,550 Holdown at each wall end 2 Ea. $1,000 $2,000 Rebuild floor with finish 80 S.F. $20 $1,600 (N) gypsum and finish 255 S.F. $12 $3,060 $684,821 Sub-total $909,171 Contractor Overhead and Profit (25%) $227,293 Construction Contingency (25%) $227,293 Total Seismic Construction Cost $1,363,757 APPENDIX - B Building Code: 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code Soils Report: No Soils Report by: N/A Dated: N/A Soil Bearing: 1500 PSF Retaining Walls: No Equivalent Fluid Pressure (active): N/A PCF Passive bearing: N/A PCF Friction: NIA Structural System: Building Structure Vertical System: Wood framed roof/ masonry walls Lateral Sys: Flexible Diaphragm I Concrete or Masonry Shearwalls Element Roof Floor Corridor Wood Wall Load Type Dead Dead Dead Dead Basic Design Value (PSF) 15 15 15 8 Loads: Load Type Snow Floor Live Corridor Live Brick Wall Value(PSF) 25 40 100 Dead Deflection Criteria L/240 11360 L/360 120 Lateral Design Parameters: Wind Design: ASCE 7-10 Wind Speed (3 sec Gust): 120 MPH Exposure B Importance Factors Iw = 1.00 IE = 1.00 IS = 1.00 I; = 1.00 Risk Cat: It (ice w/ wind) (seismic) (snow) (ice) Seismic Design Seismic design parameters are based on published values from the USGS web site. Design Summary: The following calculations are schematic analysis of the existing URM building located in Ashland, Oregon considering current code loading with proposed shear wall upgrade design concepts. The braced frame analysis and design is not included in this scope of work. 9570 SW BarburBlvd , Project Name: Ashland City Hall Seismic Evaluation Project 150899 Suite One Hundred Portland, OR 97219 Location: 20 E Main Street, Ashland, Oregon j MILLER (503)246-1250 Client: City of Ashland CONSULTING FAX: 246-1395 l ENGINEERS BY: ERW Ck'd. Date: 12/08/15 Pagel `USGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Report Title Ashland City Hall Evaluation Wed October 14, 2015 00:21:1.5 UTC Building Code Reference Document 2012 International Building Code (vvhich utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2003) Site Coordinates 42.196730N, 122.714531W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/II/III 2mi sooom . Talent ishl, H I I -1 maPquest 02015 M11ai~Quert So~iieilata©2015'~D t; plai►Quesx USGS-Provided Output SS = 0.619 g S,,S = 0.808 g SpS = 0.538 g S1 = 0.318 g SM = 0.561 g Sol = 0.374 g For information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. MCER Response Spectrum Design Response Spectrum Q. 54 n r__ 11,42 11,54 O.c n 4c, i1, 2i1 IQ ~ il, 11.24 1 I, 2 , 111 2 11, 1)fl i i), I if1 {--i ~ I f), fjl1 il, 2i1 fj,4n il, 1: 1_I `0 1.011 1.20 1.40 1.C0 1.01" 2.01" lti! 0,211 i1,40 i1. l;i1 1.00 1.2U 1.40 1.lEO 1,110 Period, T (sec) Period, T (sec) Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, vde provide no wananty, expressed or irnplied, as to the I I I~ i I I - -j Q Q~ n I 1 1 O ) W EDI MII - d j c0 I I I 1 1 I ~ I 1 I I I I I 1 I i i 1 ' Ll CSa - Z J J ~ I o Q O Z D ~ _J o T-~ IF i is - LA U i Building Geometries and Weights: Roofs: East Upper Section East -F--11500 Ib Width = 14.25 ft West = 51800 Ib Length = 45.00 ft Sub Total = 63300 Ib 2nd Floor Height = 12.00 ft Second Floor: East = 24500 Ib East Main Section West = 51800 Ib Width = t64.00 00 ft Sub Total = 76300 Ib Length = ft 1st Floor Height = 75 ft Upper East-West Walls: (starting at north wall) GL 1 = 97200 lb West Section GL 2(N) = 0 lb Width = 30.00 ft GL 2(S) = 0 lb Length = 96.00 ft GL 3 = 7840 lb 2nd Floor Height = 12.00 ft GL 4 = 0 lb 1st Floor Height = 12.75 ft GL 5 = 0 lb GL 6 = 0 lb Roof Weight = 18 psf GL 7 = 36000 lb 8" Concrete Wall = 80 psf GL 8 = 0 lb 13.5" Concrete Wall = 168.75 psf Sub Total = 141040 lb 2 Wythe Wall = 80 psf Upper North-South Walls: (starting at west wall) 3 Wythe Wall = 120 psf GL A = 101000 lb Second floor = 18 psf GLB = 101000 lb GLC= 24750 lb GL D = 0 lb Sub Total = 226750 lb Total= 431090 lb Main East-West Walls: (starting at north wall) GL 1 = 100400 lb GL 2(N) = 0 lb GL 2(S) = 0 lb GL 3 = 7840 lb GL 4 = 0 lb GL 5 = 0 lb GL 6 = 11480 lb G L 7= 44600 lb GL 8 = 15300 lb Sub Total = 179620 lb Main North-South Walls: (starting at west wall) GL A = 130850 lb GLB = 130850 lb GLC = 24750 lb GL D = 0 lb Sub Total = 286450 lb Total= 542370 lb ASCE 7-10 Seismic Design S: = 61.90% Risk Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (Figure 22-1, 22-3, 22-5, and 22-6)(pages 158 through 165) S, = 31.80% Risk Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (Figure 22-2, 22-4, 22-5, and 22-6)(pages 159 through 165) Fa= 1.30 Table 11.4-1, page 55 Fv- 1.76 Table 11.4-1, page 55 S-= Fa Ss = D.81 eqn. 11.4-1 page 55 Sh„ = F„ S, = 0.56 eqn. 11.4-2 page 55 SoS= (2) S,s/(3) = 0.54 eqn. 11.4-3 page 55 Se, _ (2) Suli'(3) = 0.37 eqn. 11.4-4 page 55 Site Class D Table 20.3-1, page 152 Risk Category II Table 1,5-1, page 2 Seismic Force Resisting System A. Bearing Wall System 10. Ordinary plain masonry shear walls Seismic Design Category (short per.) D Table 11.6-1, page 56 Seismic Design Category (1 sec) D Table 11.6-2, page 56 Seismic Design Category D (Controls) R = 1.50 Table 12.2-1, pages 60-62 = 2.50 Table 12.2-1, pages 60-62 Cd= 1.25 Table 12.2-1, pages 60-62 1, = 1.00 Importance factor, Table 1.5-2, page 4 Cr = 0.02 Table 12.8-2, page 72 X = 0.75 Table 12.8-2, page 72 h, = 24.75 k, defined in section 12.8.2.1, page 72 T = 0.222 Eqn. 12.8-7, page 72 k= 1.00 Section 12.8.3, page 73 Cu = 1.4 Table 12.8-1, page 72 Ta = 0.311 section 12.8 2, page 72 Cs = 0.359 Eqn. 12.8-2,pg 72 T, = 16 Fig. 22-12 through 22-16, page 170-173 Cs = 1.123 need not exceed - Eq. 12.8-3 & 12.8-4, page 71-72 C, = 0.024 shall not be less than -Eq. 12.8-5 & 12.8-6, page 72 C, = 0.251 (control) ' 0.7 (for allowable loads) to Wwr= Mlb W= Redundancy Factor p: Section 12.3.4, pg 67 Vmof = CsW = 0.251(W) = 108322 Ib, Eq. 12.8-1, pg 71 V2nd = CsW = 0.251(W) = 135460 Ib, Eq. 12.8-1, pg 71 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces: Eqn. 12.8-11 & Eq. 12.8-12, pg 72-73 Level h, (ft.) w,(lb) w; h,k Cv Force (lbs) with Roof 24.75 431090 10669477,5 0.61 148271 148271 2nd 12.75 539170 6874417.5 0.39 95532 95532 17543895 Total Base Shear 243803 A Shear load from Vertical Distribution: Roof Load = 148271 lb Main Load =F--95532 lb 243803 Shear Wall Distribution: Roof-Long Roof-Trans Main-Long Main-Trans East= 19340 36250 43820 49250 West= 185000 253800 212100 313500 Total= 204340 290050 255920 362750 Shear Wall Loading/Diaphragm Loads: Seismic (lb) Roof Roof 5W Shear (PLF) Second 2nd SW Shear (PLF) Gridline 1 27848 20 1370 46158 9 5130 GL 2(N) = 22299 19 1174 36489 14 2546 GL 2(S) = 28569 23 1229 54153 14 3779 GL 3 = To GL2 & 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A GL 4 = 36951 20 1825 N/A N/A GL 5 = N/A N/A N/A 53359 25 2164 GL 6 = N/A N/A N/A To GL5 &7 N/A GL 7 = 23313 13 1817 37759 28 1373 GL8 = 8953 21 426 14185 21 675 147933 242104 GLA = 67119 56 1206 106706 31 3442 GL B = 74136 66 1131 123104 77 1597 GL C = 7017 37 190 N/A N/A GL D = N/A N/A N/A 13993 20 700 148271 243803 1 1 r 1 ASCE 7-10 Seismic Design ~G' t=1`~./v~ll Ss = 61.90 % Risk Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (Figure 22-1, 22-3, 22-5, and 22-6)(pages 158 through 165) S, = 31.80 % Risk Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (Figure 22-2, 22-4, 22-5, and 22-6)(pages 158 through 165) Fa= 1.30 Table 11,4-1, page 55 Fv= 1.76 Table 11.4-1, page 55 Sus = Fa S~ = 0.81 eqn. 11.4-1 page 55 S., = F~ S•, = 0.56 eqn. 11.4-2 page 55 Sos= (2) SA+s/(3) = 0.54 eqn. 11.4-3 page 55 So, _ (2) SM,/(3) = 0.37 eqn. 11.4-4 page 5.5 Site Class D Table 20.3-1, page 152 Risk Category II Table 1.5-1, page 2 Seismic Force Resisting System A. Bearing Wall System 15. Light framed (wood) walls sheathed with wood structural panels rated for shear resistance Seismic Design Category (short per.) D Table 11.6-1, page 56 Seismic Design Category (1 sec) D Table 11.6-2, page 56 Seismic Design Category D (Controls) R = 6.50 Table 12.2-1, pages 60-62 = 3.00 Table 12.2-1, pages 60-62 Cd= 4.00 Table 12.2- 1, pages 60-62 IE = 1.00 Importance factor, Table 1-5-2, page 4 CT = 0.02 Table 12.8-2, page 72 X = 0,75 Table 12.8-2, page 72 h, = 24,75 ft, defined in section 12.8.2.1, page 72 T = 0.222 Eqn. 12.8-7, page 72 k = 1.00 Section 12.8.3, page 73 Cu = 1.4 Table 12.8-1, page 72 Ta,,,,,,= 0.311 section 12.8.2, page 72 Cs= 0.083 Ego. 12.8-2,pg 72 T, = 16 Fig. 22-12 through 22-16, page 170-173 Cs = 0.259 need not exceed - Eq, 12.8-3 8 12.8-4, page 71-72 C, = 0.024 shall not be less than -Eq. 12.8-5 8 12.8-6, page 72 Cs = 0.058 (control) ' 0.7 (for allowable loads) W,~- 431090 Ib Wsna= 542370 to Redundancy Factor p: 1.00 Section 12.3.4, pg 67 Vroof = CsW = 0.058(W) = 24997 lb, Eq. 12.8-1, pg 71 V2nd = CsW = 0.058(W) = 31450 lb, Eq. 12.8-1, pg 71 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces: Eqn. 12.8-11 8 Eq. 12.8-12, pg 72-73 Level h, (ft.) w,(Ib) w; h„k Cv Force (Ibs) with r..: Roof 24.75 431090 10669477.5 0.61 34250 34250 2nd 12.75 542370 6915217.5 0.39 22198 22198 17584695 Total Base Shear 56448 Shear Load from Vertical Distribution: ,N f,~, t", Roof Load = 34250 lb Main Load = 22198 11b 56448 Shear Wall Distribution: Roof-Long Roof-Trans Main-Long Main-Trans East= 19340 36250 43820 49250 West= 185000 253800 212100 313500 Total= 204340 290050 255920 362750 Shear Wall Loading/Diaphragm Loads: Seismic (lb) Roof Roof SW Shear (PLF) Second 2nd SW Shear (PLF) Gridline 1 6433 20 316 10687 4 3054 GL 2(N) = 5151 19 271 8448 14 590 GL2(S)= 6599 23 284 12534 14 875 GL 3 = To GL2 & 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A GL 4 = 8535 20 422 N/A N/A GL 5 = N/A N/A N/A 12359 25 501 GL 6 = N/A N/A N/A To GL5 &7 N/A GL 7 = 5385 13 420 8742 28 318 GL 8 = 2068 21 98 3284 10 318 34172 56054 GLA = 15504 47 327 24703 23 1066 GL B = 17125 48 354 28502 77 370 GL C = 1621 37 44 N/A N/A GL D = N/A N/A N/A 3243 20 162 34250 56448 SEISMIC DESIGN FORCE, Section 13.3: (1 C1 `B f z)r V ,r"r-'t ~ P~ g t Elements of Structures, Nonstructural Components, and Equipment Supported by Structures Site Class: D ASCE 7-10, Sec. 20.3, Table 20.3-1, pg. 152 Seismic Design Category: D ASCE7-10, Sec. 11. 6, pg 56 Risk Category: II IBC 2012 Sec 1604.5, pg 336 SS = 61.90% ASCE 7-10, Figure 22-1 page 158 Fa= 1.30 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.4-1 pg 55 (Linear interpolation is used) SMS = 0.81 ASCE 7-10 eqn. 11.4-1 pg 55 Sos = 0.54 ASCE 7-10 eqn. 11.4-3 pg 55 IC= 1.00 ASCE 7-10 Sec 13.1.3, pg 87 a,= 1.0 ASCE 7-10 Table 13.6-1, pg 93 RP= 2.50 ASCE 7-10 Table 13.6-1, pg 93 z (ft)= 26.75 Component attachment elevation w/respect to grade h (ft)= 26.75 Structure roof elevation with respect to grade FP= 0.258 WP ASCE7-10 Eq. 13.3-1, pg 88 OR 0.862 Wp ASCE7-10 Eq. 13.3-2,pg 89 Not less than 0.162 WP ASCE7-10 Eq. 13.3-3, pg 89 I F,= 0.181 ` W x 0.7 (Allowable Loading) 0.2SpsWp = 0.108 *WP (ASCE7-10 Sec. 13.3, pg 88) 4 z g l~ -j J ct: -gyp S e t t f>~ f G age. Checked: Date Date: L-rIoj' Reactions - kips, kip ft Shear - kips 058000 - -0.072500 Moment - kip Et n nnnnnn -0.1160D0 ~ l Rotation - radians ____Q-A 00322 <D ao049 Deflection - inches `ys t ~J 7t. In nnn464 -0.013029' Win-, 3.30 - Reg_stered to Miller Consulting Engrs. I Project: By: Date. Checked: Date: Page: Analysis Data: Ream Length = 6. feet Number of Nodes = 201 Number of Elements = 200 Number of Decrees of Freedom = 402 Reactions: X Vert Rot feet _kips kip ft- 0 -0.043500 2.000 0.130500 Equilibrium: Force Reaction Diff Vert -0.087000 0.087000-0.000000 kips Rot 0.261000 -0.261000 0.000000 kip ft Min & Max values: Min Shear = -0.072500 kips at 2.000 feet Max Shear = 0.058000 kips at 2.000 feet Min Moment = -0.116000 kip ft at 2.000 feet Max Moment :-4 1.42le-014 kip it at 6.000 feet Min Rotation .B72e-005 radians at 0 feet Max Rotation = 0.0003271 radians at 6.000 feet Min Deflection = -0.013029 in at 6.000 feet M. Deflection = 0.0004638 in at ?.164 feet Hine_am 3.30 - Eeyisttrfd co F:i filer con salting Ell.- SEISMIC DESIGN FORCE, Section 13.3: 6 ~ V tl~- I,_ upfc*_,. vljhy.-. Elements of Structures, Nonstructural Components, and Equipment Supported by Structures Site Class: D ASCE 7-10, Sec. 20.3, Table 20.3-1, pg. 152 Seismic Design Category: D ASCE 7-10, Sec. 11.6, pg 56 Risk Category: II IBC 2012 Sec 1604.5, pg 336 SS = 61.90% ASCE 7-10, Figure 22-1 page 158 Fa= 1.30 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.4-1 pg 55 (Linear interpolation is used) Svs = 0.81 ASCE 7-10 eqn. 11.4-1 pg 55 SDS = 0.54 ASCE 7-10 eqn. 11.4-3 pg 55 IE= 1.00 ASCE 7-10 Sec 13.1.3, pg 87 aP= 1.0 ASCE 7-10 Table 13.6-1, pg 93 RP= 2.50 ASCE 7-10 Table 13.6-1, pg 93 z (ft)= 18.75 Component attachment elevation w/respect to grade h (ft)= 26.75 Structure roof elevation with respect to grade FP= 0.207 *WP ASCE 7-10 Eq. 13.3-1, pg 88 OR 0.862 ' Wp ASCE 7-10 Eq. 13.3-2, pg 89 Not less than 0.162 WP ASCE 7-10 Eq. 13.3-3, pg 89 F,,= 0.145 " W x 0.7 (Allowable Loading) 0.2SDSWp = 0.108 Wp (ASCE7-10 Sec. 13.3, pg 88) t V..f SEISMIC DESIGN FORCE, Section 13.3: Elements of Structures, Nonstructural Components, and Equipment Supported by Structures Site Class: D ASCE 7-10, Sec. 20.3, Table 20.3-1, pg. 152 Seismic Design Category: D ASCE7-10, Sec. 116, pg56 Risk Category: II IBC 2012 Sec 1604.5, pg 336 SS = 61.90% ASCE 7-10, Figure 22-1 page 158 Fa= 1.30 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.4-1 pg 55 (Linear interpolation is used) SMS = 0.81 ASCE 7-10 eqn. 11.4-1 pg 55 Sos = 0.54 ASCE 7-10 eqn. 11.4-3 pg 55 IF= 1.00 ASCE 7-10 Sec 13.1.3, pg 87 aP 1.0 ASCE 7-10 Table 13.6-1, pg 93 RP= 2.50 ASCE 7-10 Table 13.6-1, pg 93 z (ft)= 6.375 Component attachment elevation w/respect to grade h (ft)= 26.75 Structure roofelevation with respect to grade FP= 0.127 ' Wp ASCE 7-10 Eq. 13.3-1, pg 88 OR 0.862 ' Wp ASCE 7-10 Eq. 13.3-2, pg 89 Not less than 0.162 ' Wp ASCE7-10Eq, 13.3-3, pg 89 F,,= 0.113 W x 0,7 (Allowable Loading) 0.2SDSWP = 0.108 * WP (ASCE7-10 Sec. 13.3, pg 88) w. y n. C(am)"~ ~~IIV j V7 8y: Date. Checked: Date Page: Reactions - kips, kip ft T T Shear - kips .680000 1.680000 Moment - kip Et 35. 279999 Rotation - radians ,1L D 249E 0 0 d-6Eb-' Deflection - inches non "-~='TS 8 518 9 'fiinaeam 3.36 - Registe-ed to Culler Consulting F."rs. i wrld [P,ojecl: Date: Checked: Date: Page: Analysis Data: fo Beam Length = 84. feet Number of Nodes = 201 L Ofd fi1 4. Number of Elements = 200 Number of Degrees cf Freedom = 402 Reactions:-1~°~ X Vert Rot feet kips kip Et 0 1.680 84.000 1.680 Equilibrium: Force Reaction Diff Vert -3.360 3.360 -0.000 kips Rot 141.120 -141.120 0.000 kip ft Min & Max values: Min Shear - -1.680 kips at 84.000 feet Shear = 7.680 kips at 0 feet taaxMin Moment - 1.828e-013 kip ft at 0 feet Max Moment = 35.280 kip ft at 42.000 feet tdin Rotation = -0.024086 radians at 84.000 feet Max Rotation = 0.024086 radians at 0 feet Min Deflection = -7.587 in at 42.000 feet !.lax Deflection - 0 in at 0 feet PlinBean Sao - Y.egis[e [e~ to P!tiler consulting Fang rs. Project By Date Checked: Date: Page: Reactions - kips, kip ft ,b A+ T T T T Shear - kips .539573 -`ter - p 4~~' ~ ~ ~l -7.235427 Moment - kip ft .,35,.262407 52.698676 Rotation - radians ~GA06844 0.006182 Deflection - inches _--~.-_03.9_5 71 - `=6.953457 WinEedm 3.30 - Registered to t4i1'_er Consulting Engrs. Project: - ey: Date: Checked: Date: Page: Analysis Data: 11)4``7 `-3" " Beam Length = 84. feet ant` , Number of Nodes = 203 Number of Elements = 202 f4l Number of Degrees of Freedom = 406 r---0 R ' Reactions: l C~ 3 X Vert Rot - feet kips kip Et 0 3938 44 _G' 26.500 1..307 32.500 15.896 67.500 12.487 84.000 0.638818 Equilibrium: Force Reaction Di.ff Vert -34.268 34.268 0.000 kips Rot 1447.816 -1447.816 -0.000 kip ft Min k Max valves: Min Shear = -7.235 kips at 67.500 feet Max Shear = 9.540 kips at 32.500 feet Min Moment = -52.699 kip ft at 32.500 feet Max Moment = 35.262 kin ft at 47.357 feet Min Rotation - -0.006182 radians at 61.205 feet Max Rotation = 0.006844 radians at 38.661 feet Min Deflection = -0.953457 in at 49.455 feet Max Deflection = 0.099571 in at 73.275 feet .11 nR- 3 .30 - Reg. cC rren Mi tier C~n.,t~lting F.ng rs. Project: . ee t ~ "'G,.~it<.1 of zJ _ fi•~~"°.-' By: Date: Checked: Date: Page: Reactions - kips, kip ft Shear - kips 7351 21 Moment - kip ft -.._.-105.792119 -U UUUUUU Rotation - radians <n_BSls1~_----_ 7070 nl= Deflection - inches -TS.701642 ' winseam 2.30 - Registered [o miller Consulting Engrs. ProJect: By: Date: Checked: Date: Page: 'a Analysis Data: 6 Beam Length = 75.5 feet Number of Nodes = 201 A ~"+y 2`"~`r Number of Elements = 200 Number of Degrees of Freedom = 402 0 P Reactions: X Vert Rot feet kips kip ft 0 3.267 75.500 4.033 Equilibrium: Force Reaction Diff Vert -7.300 7.300 0.000 kips Rot 304.465 -304.465 -0.000 kip ft Min & Max values: Min Shear = -4.033 kips at 75.500 feet Max Shear = 3.267 kips at 0 feet Min Moment =-8.577e-013 kip ft at 75.500 feet Max Moment = 105.792 kip ft at 44.500 feet Min Rotation = -0.055625 radians at 75.500 feet Max Rotation = 0.051335 radians at 0 feet. Min Deflection = -15.702 in at 39.220 feet Max Deflection = 0 in at 0 feet winse- 3- - Heg:s[ered Lo -11ei' Cons.lt-g Project: -°t. 00`6-_11~~r-;~c l .9 By: Date. Checked: Date: Page: Reactions - kips, kip £t P- T T ? T T T Shear - k'_os 4.521601 t red t, 1 3.568644 Moment - kip ft _ ..,.72.039820 '-20.116028 Rotation - radians 1)._002363 ~_J -0. 002134 Deflection - inches -S!.018268 ~ 6.312252 xir.eeam 3.30 - F.egist-d to i,iller consulting Engrs. Project: By: Date: Checked: Date: Page: - Analysis Data: a ll j„ l oar , , cyn~ eam Length = 96. feet B Number of Nodes = 202 Number of Elements = 201 Number of Degrees of Freedom = 404 Reactions: X Vert Rot feet kips _ kip_ ft 0 2.140 26.500 3.089 32.500 4,568 67.500 8.090 84.000 4.523 96.000 0,628220 Equilibrium: Force Reaction Diff Vert -23.038 23.038 0.000 kips Rot 1216.649 -1216.649 -o.00o kip ft min & Max values: Min Shear = -3.569 kips at 67.500 feet Max Shear = 4.522 kips at 67.500 feet Min Moment = -20.116 kip ft at 67,500 feet Max Moment 12.040 kip ft at 49.281 feet Min Rotation = -0.002134 radians at 60.308 feet Max Rotation = 0.002363 radians at 0 feet Min Deflection _ -0.312252 in at 49.760 feet Max Deflection = 0.018268 in at 29.731 feet :linneam 3.30 - Registered to :Illler Ccnsulr"9 Engrs. Shearwall Design # of Shearwall Levels: 2 Sheathing Thickness: 15132 Typical Sheathing Nailing: 8d Nails (uno) Wall (IBC 2306.3) Shearwalls in Use Capacity full) Load Combination: Wall Type A: 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing wl8d At 6" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field 260 Basic Load Combination: 0.6D10.7E{ 0.601W Wall Type B. 15/32' APA Rated Sheathing vdad At 4" o,c, edges, 12" o.c. field 380 Wall Type C' 15132' Al Rated Sheathing w18d At 3' o.c. edges, 12' o.c. field 490 Structure Information: Wall Type D: 15/32' APA Rated Sheathing w/Btl At 2" o, edges, 12" o.c field 640 Wall WL(Wvr)= 120.00 psl Roof Wt. (Ryl) = 18.00 psf Roof Wall Height = 1200 it Upper 71oor Depth= 100 h Upper Floor Wt. (U,v) = 15.00 psf Upper Floor Wall Height = 11.75 fl 'loor Depth = NIA it Wt. (Mw) ' N/A "If Wall Height= NIA ft W nd Uplift (U) = 10.00 pat 0.2Sds = 0.11 (ultimate) Roof Wall Line Marks Wind (to) Mln. Wind gb Seismic (Ib) Stacks on: R1 6433 SI Seismic Wind R2 (N) 5151 32 (N) Simpson Holdowns and Anchors In Use; (Verify Fdn. Carl w/ Loads Listed in Catalog for Anchor Bolt Types) Capacity (Ib) Capacity (lb) R2 (S) 6599 S2 (S) 90 (No HoldeWn Required) 0 0 R4 8535 S4 #1 Holdown Type MSTC28 w/ (6) 16d sinkers at each end 1155 1155 R5 0 #2 Holdovm Type MSTC40 vd (14) 16d sinkers at each and 2695 2695 R7 5385 S7 R8 2068 _ S8 #4 Holdown Type MSTC6ena w/ (38) 16d sinkers at each end 5860 5860 RA 15504 SA RB 17125 SB 96 Holdown Type HDU2-S DS2.5 w/ (6) 1/4' dia. x 2 112' SOS Screws and SST816 Anchor Bolt 2550 3075 RC 1621 Upper Floor Wall Line Mark Wind (Ib) Min. Wind (Ib Seismic fib) #9 Holdown Type HDUB-SDS25 w/ (20) 1/4' dia. x 2 112' SDS Screws and SSTB28 Anchor Bolt 5980 5980 S1 4254 52 (N) 3297 S2 (S) 5935 #12 Holdown Type HDU14-SDS2.5 w/ (36) 1/4" dia. x 2 V2" SDS Screws and PABBx30 Anchor Bolt 14375 14375 S4 0 65 12359 Sill Plate to Concrete Anchorage: 2x plate 3x in. plate = 860 1070 S7 3357 5/8 ' dia. anchor capacity ill SB 1216 Wall Type A: 0.625' dia. anchors spaced at 48' c.c. 48' o.c. SA 9199 Wall Type 8: 0.625" dia. anchors spaced at 43" o.c. 48' o.c. SB 11377 Wall Type C: 0,625"dia. anchors spaced at 34' o.c. 42'. c. SD 3243 Wall Type D: 0.625" die. anchors spaced at 3x req. 32' o c. (anchor spacing based from values from NDS using hemfir and a 1,6 duration increase) Roof Level Holdown to floor below (PL 1/4x3x0'-3' required) pper Floor Level Holdown lo: cencrete Roof Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), Ib Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb R1 0 0 6433 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L, it Overall Seg. (Lo), fl: 3.50 4.00 5.33 7.50 2033 .R1 Wall Height (Ht), it 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Trib. 1, ft: 2.00 2.00 2.00 Rtn. Load (RL), lb: 200 200 200 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 Seismic, plf: 316 316 316 316 = 6433 lb / 20.33' w/ H/W, plf: 542 474 356 (includes h/,/ ratio increases) MOT (Seismic), ft-lb: 13290 15189 20239 28479 =(64 33 16 120.33' Lo'Hl) Mr (Seismic), ft-Ib: 9741 12608 22032 42000 =(Trib. 1'Rw+Hl*Ww)'(Lo)^2/2+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), Ib: 2336 2142 1627 857 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr) /Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: 2695 2695 2695 1155 HD Type: 2 2 2 1 15132" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, plf: 542 474 356 316 Seg_ 1: V= 8d At 2" o.c. edges, 12" ox. field HD critical, lb: 2336 2142 1627 857 Seg. 2: Bid At 3" o.c. edges, 12" ox. field 40% increase for wind?: No No No No Seg. 3: '8'= Bid At 4" o.c. edges, 12" o.c, field Sheathing Layers: Single Single Single Single Seg. 4: B'= 8d At 4" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field Concrete Anch.7 No No No No Wall Type: D C B B Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, plf: 640 490 380 380 Seg. 1: '2' = MSTC40 with (14) 16d sinkers at each end Controlling HD Type: 2 2 2 1 Seg. 2: '2' = MSTC40 with (14) 16d sinkers at each end Holdown Capacity, Ile 2695 2695 2695 1155 Seg. 3: '2'= MSTC40 with (14) 16d sinkers at each end 3x Members req.: Yes No No No Seg. 4: '1'= MSTC28 with (6) 16d sinkers at each end Roof Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), lb Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), )b R2 (N) 0 0 5151 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L: Overall Seg. (Lo), ft, 19.00 19.00 (N) Wall Height (1-11), ft: 12.00 Trib. 1, ft 2.00 Rtn. Load (RL), lb: 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 8.00 Seismic, plf: 271 = 5151 lb / 19' MOT (Seismic), ft-lb: 61812 = (5151 lb / 19' ' Lo'H 1) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb. 27626 = (Trib. 1'Rw +Hf'Ww)'(Lo)4212+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), lb: 2490 = (Mot - (O.E-0.075)'Mr)/Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: 2695 HD Type: 2 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pit: 271 Seg. 1: 'B'= Bid At 4" ox, edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 2490 40% increase for wind?: No Sheathing Layers: Single Concrete Anch.? No Wall Type: B Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, plf: 380 Seg. 1: '2' = MSTC40 with (14) 16d sinkers at each end Controlling HD Type: 2 Holdown Capacity, Ib: 2695 3x Members req.: No Roof Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), Ib Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), In R2 (S) 0 0 6599 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L: Overall Seg_ (Lo), ft 2125 23.25 (S) Wall Height (H1), it 12.00 Trib. 11 fC 2.00 Rtn. Load (RL), lb: 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 Wail Weight (Ww), psf: 8.00 Seismic, plf: 284 = 6599 lb / 23.25' Mel (Seismic), ft-lb: 79188 = (6599 Ib / 23.25' 'Lo-HI) 327 = (Trib. 1'Rw+HI *Ww)'(Lo)1212+RL'Lo Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: q95 HD (Seismic), Ib: 95 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr) / Lo Holdown Capacity, ib: HD Type: 2 15132" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, plf: 284 Seg. 1: 'B' = Bd At 4" ox. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 2495 40% increase for wind?: No Sheathing Layers: Single Concrete Anch.? No Wall Type: 8 Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, pit: 380 Seg. 1: '2'= MSTC40 with (14) 16d sinkers at each end Controlling HD Type: 2 Holdown Capacity, Ib: 2695 3x Members req.: No Roof Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 r Wall Line Wind (W), Ito Min. Wind, In Seismic (E), lb I - R4 0 0 8535 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L: Overall Seg. (Lo), it, 6.25 14.00 20.25 R4 Wall Height (Ht ft: 12.00 12.00 Trib. 1, it, 4.00 4.00 Rtn. Load (RL), lb: 200 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 18.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 6.00 8.00 Seismic, plf: 421 421 = 8535 Ib /20.25' MoT (Seismic), ft-lb: 31611 70809 = (8535 16 /20.25' To 1) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: 4531 19264 = (Trib. f'Rw +Hf'Ww)'(Lo)^212+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), Ib: 4677 4335 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr) /Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: 5860 5860 HD Type: 4 4 15132' APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, plf: 421 421 Seg. 1: 'C'= 8d At 3" o,c, edges, 12" o.c, field HD critical, lb: 4677 4335 Seg- 2: 'G'= 8d At 3" o.c. edges, 12" o.c, field 40% increase for wind?: No No Sheathing Layers: Single Single Concrete Anch.? No No Wall Type: C C Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, off: 490 490 Seg. 1: '4'= MSTC66178 with (38) 16d sinkers at each end Controlling HD Type: 4 4 Seg. 2: '4' = MSTC66/78 with (38) 16d sinkers at each end Holdown Capacity, lb: 5860 5860 3x Members req.: Yes Yes Roof Level 0.2Sds - 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), Ile Min- Wind, Ib Seismic (E), lb R7 0 0 5385 Wind uplift (U) = 10 psf Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L: Overall Seg, (Lo), ff. 12.83 12.83 R7 Wall Height (H1), ff. 12.00 Trib, 1, fit 4.00 Rm. Load (RL), lb: 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf, 18.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 120.00 _ Seismic, plf: 420 = 5365 lb / 12.83' MoT (Seismic), ft-lb'. 64635 = (53851b 7 12.83' ' LO'H1) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: 127069 = (Trib. 1'Rw +H1'Ww)'(Lo)^272+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), ib. -162 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr) /Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: 0 HD Type 0 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, plf: 420 Seg. 1: 'C' = 8d At 3" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 0 40% increase for wind?: No Sheathing Layers: Single Concrete Anch.? No Wall Type: C Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, plf: 490 Seg. 1: '0' no holdown required Controlling HD Type: 0 Holdown Capacity, lb: 0 3x Members req.: Yes Roof Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), to Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb R8 0 0 2066 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L: Overall Seg_ (Lo), ft: 4.50 6.00 10.50 21.00 R8 Wall Height (1-11), ft: 12.00 12.00 12.00 Trib. 1, ft, 4.00 4.00 4.00 Rio. Load (RL), Ib: 200 200 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 18.00 18.00 Wall Weight(Ww), psf: 8.00 8.00 800 Seismic,plC 98 98 98 =2066 lb 21' w/ HAN, pit: 131 (includes hAv ratio increases) MoT (Seismic), ft-lb: E531 7090 12408 = (2068 lb/21"Lo'Hl) Mr (Seismic), fl-lb: 4224 11361 = (Trib. 1 'R w +H1 'Ww)'(Lo)^272+RL'L0 HD (Seismic), lb: 812 614 = (Mot - (6.6-0.075)'Mr) /Lo Holdown Capacity, Ib: 1155 1155 HD Type: 1 1 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pif: 98 98 Seg. 1: 'A' = 8d At 6" o,c. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 812 614 Seg. 2: 'A'= 8d At 6" ox. edges, 12" o.c. field 40% increase for wind?: N260 No No Seg. 3: 'A'= 8d At 6" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field Sheathing Layers: Single Single Concrete Anch.? No No Wall Type: A A Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, pit: 260 260 Seg. 1: '1' = MSTC28 with (6) led sinkers at each end Controlling HD Type: 1 1 Seg. 2: 'V= MSTC28 with (6) 16d sinkers at each end Holdown Capacity, Ib: 1155 1155 1155 Seg. 3: V= MSTC28 with (6) 16d sinkers at each end 3x Members req.: No No No Roof Level 0.2Sds = 0,075 Wall Line Wind (W), lb Min, Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb RA 0 0 15504 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L Overall Seg. (Lo), ft: 13.25 15.83 18.33 47.41 RA Wall Height (1-11), ft, 12.00 12.00 12.00 Trib. 1, ft: 4.00 4.00 4.00 Rtn. Load(RL), ib: 200 200 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 18.00 18.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 120.00 120.00 120.00 Seismic, plf: 327 327 327 = 15504 Ib /47.41' MoT(Seismic), ft-lb: 51996 62132 71931 =(1550416!47.41"LOH1) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb 135375 192684 257674 = (Tnb. 1'Rw +HI'Ww)'(Lo)^2/2+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), Ib: -1440 -2465 -3456 = (Mot - (0.E-0.075)'Mr)7Lc Holdown Capacity, lb. 0 0 0 Ell HD Type: 0 0 0 15132" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pit: 327 327 327 Seg. 1: 'B'= 8d At 4" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 0 0 0 Seg. 2: 'B'= 8d At 4" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field 40% increase for wind?: No No No Seg. 3: 'B'= 8d At 4" ox. edges, 12" o.c. field Sheathing Layers: Single Single Single Concrete Anch.? No No No Wall Type: B B B Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, plf: 380 380 380 Seg. 1: '0' no holdown required Controlling HD Type: 0 0 0 Seg. 2: '0' no holdown required Holdown Capacity, lb: 0 0 0 Seg. 3: '0' no holdown required 3x Members req.: No No No Roof Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), to Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), Ib RB 0 0 17125 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L: Overall Seg. (Lo), ft: 13.33 14.83 20.25 48,41 RB Wall Height (H1), ft: 12.00 12.00 12.00 Trib. 1, ft: 4.00 4.00 4.00 Rtn.Load (RL),lb: 200 200 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 16.00 18.00 18.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 120.00 120.00 120.00 Seismic, plf: 354 354 354 = 17125 lb /48.41' WT (Seismic),fl-lb: 56586 62966 85961 =(17125 16 14 8.41"Lo`Hl) Mr (Seismic), fl-lb: 136999 169300 314057 = (Trib. 1'Rw +HI *Ww)'(Lo)A212+RL'Lo HD (Seismic),Ib: -1151 -1747 -3897 =(Mot -(o,6-0.075)'Mr)7Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: 0 0 0 HD Type: 0 0 0 15132" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pit: 354 354 354 Seg, 1: 'B'= 8d At 4" o.c, edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, In: 0 0 0 Seg. 2: 'B'= 8d At 4" ox. edges, 12" ox. field 40% increase for wind?: No No No Seg. 3: 'B'= 8d At 4" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field Sheathing Layers: Single Single Single Concrete Anch.? No No No Wall Type: B B B Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, pit. 380 380 380 Seg. 1: '0' no holdown required Controlling HD Type: 0 0 0 Seg. 2: '0' no holdown required Holdown Capacity, lb: 0 0 0 Seg. 3: '0' no holdown required 3x Members req.: Yes Yes Yes Roof Level D,2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), lb Min, Wind, Ib Seismic (E), lb RC 0 D 1621 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psi Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total L'. Overall Seg. (Lo), ft. 6.00 7.00 21.00 34.00 RC Wall Height (Hi), ft. 1200 .12.00 12.00 Trib. 1, ft 4.00 4.00 4.00 Rtn. Load (RL), Ile: 200 200 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 18.00 18.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 80.00 80.00 80.00 Seismic, plf: 48 48 48 = 162116 /34' MOT (Seismic), ft-lb: 3433 4005 12014 =(1621 16 /34"Lo'H1) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: 19776 26684 231756 =(Trib. 1'Rw +Hi'Ww)'(Lo)^2/2+RL'La HD(Seismic),lb: -1158 -1429 -5222 =(Mot -(0.6-O.075)*Mr)7Lo Holdown Capacity, Ib: 0 0 0 HD Type: 0 0 0 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, plf: 48 48 48 Seg. 1: 'A' = 8d At 6" ox. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 0 0 0 Seg. 2: 'A'= 8d At 6" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field 40% increase for wind?: No No No Seg. 3: 'A'= 8d At 6" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field Sheathing Layers: Single Single Single Concrete Anch.? No No No Wall Type: A A A Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, plf: 260 260 260 Seg. 1: '0' no holdown required Controlling HD Type: 0 0 0 Seg, 2: '0' no holdown required Holdown Capacity, lb: 0 0 0 Seg. 3: '0' no holdown required 3x Members req.: No No No Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), to Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb 51 0 0 4254 Wind Uplift (U) = 10.00 psf Load from R1, lb: 0 0 6433 Upper Fir Depth (Fd) = 7 00 it Total, lbt 0 0 10687 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total Lo: Overall Seg. (LO), ft: 3.50 3.50 R1 Wall Height (1-11), it 12.00 St Wall Height (1-12), ft: 1175 Trib. 1, ft 2.00 Trib. 2, ft: 4.00 Rm Load (RL), lb: 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 Trib_ 2 Weight (Uw), psf: 15.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 120.00 Seismic, pif: 3053 = (425416 + 6433 lb) / 3.5' w/ HM/, pif: 5125 (includes My ratio increases) MOT (Seismic), ft-lb: 209201 = (4254 Ib / 3.5 'Lo'H2)+(6433 Ib / 3.5"Lo'(H1 +H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: 18744 = (Rw'Trib. 1 + Uw 'Trib. 2+ Ww '(Hf +H2))'(Lo) ^212+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), lb 56960 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr) /Lo Holdown Capacity, IIb HD Type: NG 15/32'' APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pit: 5125 HD critical, lb: 66960 40% increase for wind?: No Sheathing Layers: Single Concrete Anch.? Yes Wall Type: Dbl. Req. Hold own Types: Wall Capacity, plf: Seg. 1: 'NG' larger holdown required Controlling HD Type: NG Holdown Capacity, lb: 3x Members req.: Yes Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), lb Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb 52 (N) 0 0 3297 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Load from R2 (N), lb: 0 0 5151 Upper Fir Depth (Fd) = 1.00 ft Total, lb: 0 0 8448 Segment I Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total Lo: Overall Seg. (Lo), h: 14.33 14.33 ! (N) Wall Height (1-11), ft: 12.00 ! (N) Wall Height (1-12), ft: 11.75 Trib- 1, it 2.00 Trib. 2, it: 4 Rln. Load (RL), Ib: 200 Trib. i Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 Trib_ 2 Weight (Uw), psL 15.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psL 8.00 Seismic, plf: 590 = (3297 lb + 5151 !b) / 14.33' MOT (Seismic), I'l 166227 = (32971b / 14.33 'Lo'H2)+(5151 lb / 14.33"Lo'(H1 +H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), If lb* 32231 = (Rw 'Trib. 1, Uw 'Trib. 2+ Ww '(H7+H2))'(Lo)^2/2+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), lb: 10419 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr) / Lo Hoidown Capacity, lb: 14375 HD Type: 12 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pit; 690 Seg. 1: 'D' = 9d At 2" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 10419 40% increase fornvind?: No Sheathing Layers: Single Concrete Anch.? Yes Wall Type: D Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, piC 640 Seg. 1: A 2' = HDU14-SDS2.6 and PAB8x30 Anchor Bolt Controlling HD Type: 12 Holdown Capacity, Ib. 14375 3x Members req.: Yes Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wnd (W), lb Min. Wind, Ib Seismic (E), to S2 (S) 0 0 5935 Windup lift (U) = t0 psf Load from R2 (S), lb: 0 0 6599 Upper Fir Depth (Fd) = 1.00 it Total, lb: 0 0 12534 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total Lo: Overall Seg. (Lo), it R2.00 _ 14.33 24.66 (S) Wall Height (Ht), ft: 12.00 (S) Wall Height (H2), ft: 11.75 Trib. 1, ft: 2.00 Tdb. 2, ft4 Rln. Load (RL), lb: 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf18.00 Trip. 2 Weight (Uw), psf: 15.00 15.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 8.00 8.00 Seismic, plf: 508 508 = (59351b + 6599 Ib) 124.66' Mar (Seismic), ft-lb: 97629 135433 = (59351b / 24.66 'Lo'H2)+(6599 )b / 24.66"Lo'(H l +H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb. 17325 32231 =(Rw'Trib.I+Uw'Tnb. 2+Ww'(H1+H2))'(Lo)^272+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), lb: 8571 8270 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075, *Mr) / Lo Holdown Capacity, Ib: 14375 8315 _ HD Type: 12 11 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, plf: 508 508 Seg. 1: 'D'= ild At 2" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 8571 8270 Seg. 2: 'D'= 8d At 2" o.c, edges, 12' o.c. field 40% increase for wind?: No No Sheathing Layers: Single Single Concrete Anch.? Yes Yes Wall Type: D D Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, plf. 640 640 Seg, 1: '12' = HDU14-SDS2.5 and PAB8x30 Anchor Bolt Controlling HD Type: 12 11 Seg. 2: IV= HHDQ11-SDS2.5 and SB1x30 Anchor Bolt Holdown Capacity, lb: 14375 8315 3x Members req.: Yes Yes Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wail Line Wind (W), lb Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb S5 0 0 12359 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Load from R5, Ib: 0 0 0 Upper Fir Depth (Fd) = 1,00 ft Total, lb: 0 0 12359 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total Lo: Overall Seg. (Lc), ft: U4.00 14.33 24.66 RS Wall Height (H7), ft: 12.00 S5 Wall Height (H2), ft: 11.75 Trip. 1, ft 0.00 Trib. 2, ft: 4.00 Rtn. Load (RL), lb200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 Trib_ 2 Weight (Uw), psf: 15.00 15.00 Wall Weight (WM), psf: 8.00 8,00 Seismic, plf: 501 501 = (12359 lb + 01b) /24.66' MoT (Seismic), ft-lb: 60831 84387 = (12359 11,124.66 'Lo'H2)+(O lb / 24.66"LO'(Hf+H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), ft-to: 15405 28535 =(Rw'Tnb. 1+Uw'Tnb.2+Ww '(Hl+H2))'(Lo)^2/2+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), to: 5106 4843 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mt)/Lo Holdown Capacity, to, 5980 5980 HD Type: 9 9 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, plf: 501 501 Seg. 1: 'D' = 8d At 2" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 5106 4843 Seg. 2: 'D'= 8d At 2" o.c. edges, 12" ox. field 40% increase for wind?: No No Sheathing Layers: Single Single Concrete Anch.? Yes Yes Wall Type: D D Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, pit: 640 640 Seg. 1: '9' = HDU8-SDS2.5 and SSTS28 Anchor Bolt Controlling HD Type: 9 9 Seg. 2: '9'= HDU8-SDS2.5 and SSTB28 Anchor Bolt Holdown Capacity, Ib: 5980 5980 3x Members req.: Yes Yes Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds =L_0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), lb Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), to S7 0 0 3357 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Load from R7, lb: 0 0 5385 Upper Fir Depth (Fd) = 1.00 it Total, lb: 0 0 8742 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total Lo'. Overall Seg. (Lo), if D4OO 14.50 27.50 R7 Wall Height (H1), ft: 10.33 S7 Wall Height (H2), ft 11.75 Trib. t, ft: 4.00 Trib. 2, ft: 4.00 Rtn. Load (RL), Ib: 200 Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 Trib. 2 Weight (Uw), psf 15.00 15.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 120.00 120.00 Seismic, plf: 318 318 = (33571b + 53851b) / 27.5' Mor (Seismic), ft-lb: 81651 86331 = (33571b / 27.5 'Lo'H2)+(5385 Ib / 27.5"Lo'(H1 +H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: 254579 295316 = (Rw `Trib_ 1+ UW'Tnb. 2+Ww'(H1+H2))'(Lo)^212+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), It : -4000 -4739 = (Mot- (0.6-0.075)'Mr) I Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: 0 0 HDType: 0 0 15/32"APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pit: 31B 318 Seg. 1: 'B'= Bd At 4" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 0 0 Seg. 2: B'= 8d At 4" o.c. edges, 12" o.c, field 40% increase for wind?: No No Sheathing Layers: Single Single Concrete Anch.? Yes Yes Wall Type: 180 8 Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, pit J380 Seg. 1: Wine holdown required Controlling HD Type: 0 Seg. 2: '0' no holdown required Holdown Capacity, Ib0 3x Members req.: No Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), Ib Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb S8 0 0 1216 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 psf Load from R8, lb: 0 D 2068 Upper Fir Depth (Pd) = 1.00 ft Total, lb: 0 0 3284 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total Lo: 10.33 Overall Seg. (Lo), ft: V200 R8 Wall Height (H1), ft: SS Wall Height (H2), ft: Trib. 1, ft- Trib. 2, it Rio. Load (RL), lb: Trib. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: Trib. 2 Weight (Uw), psf 15.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 80.00 Seismic, plf: 318 = (12161b + 206816) / 10.33' Mor (Seismic), ft-[b: 65471 =021611,110.33 'Lo'H2)+(206 8 16 1 10.33"Lo'(H1+H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: N72 = (Rw 'Trib. 1+ Uw 'Tnb. 2+ Ww '(H 1 +H2))'(Lo)^212+RL `Lo HD (Seismic), It : = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr)1 Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: HD Type 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pit: Seg. 1: 'B' = 8d At 4" ox. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 40% increase for wind?: No _ Sheathing Layers: Single Concrete Anch.? Yes Wall Type: B Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, plf: 380 Seg. 1: V= HDU2-SDS2.5 and SSTB16 Anchor Bolt Controlling HD Type: 6 Holdown Capacity, lb: 2550 3x Members req.: No Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), Ile Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb SA 0 D 9199 Wind Uplift (U) = 10 _ psf Load from RA, Ib: 0 0 15504 Upper Fir Depth (Fd) = 1.00 it Total, Ib: 0 0 24703 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total Lo: Overall Seg. (Lo), ft: J83 5.00 6.50 6.83 23,17 RA Wall Height (H1), ft: .00 12.00 F4.00 12.00 SA Wall Height (H2), ft: .75 11,75 11.75 Trib. 1, ft : 4.00 4.00 4,00 Tnb. 2, ft: 4.00 4.00 4.00 Rm. Load (RL), to: 2C0 200 200 Tnb. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 1800 1800 18Co Tnb. 2 Weight (Uw), psf: 15.00 15.00 15.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 Seismic, plf: 1066 1066 1066 1066 = (9199)b + 15504 Ib)123, 17' w/ HM, pit: 1296 1253 (includes hhv ratio increases) Mc, (Seismic), ft-11b: 102586 106131 137971 145039 =(91991b/ 23.17'Lo'H2)+(155041b/23.17"LO'(HI+H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: 35793 36275 64295 70981 =(Rw'Trib. l+Uw'Tnb. 2+Ww'(111412))'(Lo)^212+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), lb: 17338 17207 16033 15773 =(Mot -(0.6-0.075,1'Mq/Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: HD Type' NG NG NG NG 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pif: 1296 1253 1066 1066 HD critical, lb: 17338 17207 16033 15773 40% increase for wind?: No No No No Sheathing Layers: Single Single Single Single Concrete Anch.? Yes Yes Yes Yes Wall Type: Dbl. Req. Dbl. Req, Dbl. Req. Dbl. Req. Holdown Types: Wail Capacity, plf Seg. L 'NG' larger holdown required Controlling HD Type: NG NG NG NG Seg. 2: 'NG' larger holdown required Holdown Capacity, lb. Seg. 3: 'NG' larger holdown required 3x Members reqYes Yes Yes Yes Seg. 4: 'NG' larger holdown required Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 Wall Line Wind (W), Ile Min. Wind, lb Seismic (E), lb S13 0 0 11377 Wind Uplift (U) - 10 psf Load from RB, Ib: 0 0 17125 Upper Fir Depth (Fd) = 1.00 it Total, lb: 0 0 28502 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Total Lo: Overall Seg. (LO), ft: 11.00 1200 20.00 24.50 67.50 RB Wall Height (111), ft: 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 SB Wall Height (H2), ft: 11.75 11.75 11.75 1135 Tnb. 1, it 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Tnb. 2, ft: 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 RM. Load (RL), lb: 200 200 200 200 Tnb, 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 16.00 18.00 18.00 Trib. 2 Weight (Uw), psf: 15.00 15,00 15.00 15,00 Wall Weight (Wv+), psf: 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 Seismic, pit: 422 422 422 422 =(113771b+1712516)/67.5' Mor(Seismic),ft-lb: 90856 99115 165192 202360 =(113771b167.5'Lo'H2)+(1 7125 16 7 6 7.5"Lo'(H1+H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: 182611 217104 600400 699873 =(Rw'Tnb. 1+Uw'Tnb.2+Ww'(H1+H2))'(Lo)^2/2+RL'Lo HD (Seismic), lb: -456 -1239 -7501 -11023 (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr) /Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: 0 0 0 0 HD Type: 0 0 0 0 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, pit: 422 422 422 422 Seg. 1: 'C' = 8d At 3" o.c, edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 0 0 0 0 Seg- 2: 'C' = 8d At 3" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field 40% increase for wind?: No No No No _ Seg. 3: 'C'= 8d At 3" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field Sheathing Layers: Single Single Single Single Seg. 4: 'C' = 8d At 3" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field Concrete Anch.? Yes Yes Yes Yes Wall Type: C C C C Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, pit: 490 490 490 490 Seg. 1: '0' no holdown required Controlling HD Type: 0 0 0 0 Seg. 2: '0' no holdown required Holdown Capacity, Ib: 0 0 0 0 Seg- 3: '0' no holdown required 3x Members req.: Yes Yes Yes Yes Seg. 4: '0' no holdown required Upper Floor Level 0.2Sds = 0.075 _ all Line Wind (W), Ito Min. Wind, Ib Seismic (E), to SD 0 0 3243 Wnd Uplift (U)= 10 psf Load from RC, lb: 0 0 0 Upper Fir Depth (Fd) = 1.00 it Total, Ib: 0 0 3243 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segmenl4 Segment 5 Total Lo: Overall Seg. (Lo), ft: 20.00 20.00 RC Wall Height (Ht), it 12.00 SD Wall Height (H2), ft: 11.75 Trib. 1, it 4.00 Thb. 2, fL 4.00 Rtn. Load (FILL In 200 Thb. 1 Weight (Rw), psf: 18.00 Tnb. 2 Weight (Uw), psf: 15.00 Wall Weight (Ww), psf: 8.00 Seismic, plf: 162 = (32431b + 0!b) / 20' Mor (Seismic), it In: 38105 = (3243 Ib / 20 'Lo"H2)+(0 lb / 20' 'Lo'(Hf +H2+Fd)) Mr (Seismic), ft-lb: 68400 = (Rw 'Trio. 1+ Uw'Tnb. 2+ Wtv '(H1+H2))'(Lo)4212+RCLo HD (Seismic), lb: 110 = (Mot - (0.6-0.075)'Mr) I Lo Holdown Capacity, lb: 2550 HD Type: 6 15/32" APA Rated Sheathing Shear critical, plf: 162 Seg_ 1: W= fid At 6" o.c. edges, 12" o.c. field HD critical, lb: 110 40% Increase for wind?: No Sheathing Layers: Single Concrete Anch.? Yes Wall Type: A Holdown Types: Wall Capacity, plf: 260 Seg. 1: '6' = HDU2-SDS2.6 and SSTB76 Anchor Bolt Controlling HD Type: 6 Holdown Capacity, Ib: 2550 3x Members req.: No FOR REFERENCE ONLY Western Woods Use Book 10.11 Designing for Lat"Mil ".arses 4 l m Bolts Solid Blocking 1!: -1 A.) Plan B.) Plan C.) Plan \ m =-JL Ir TT - -n---~-- II II II II o 0 I _111 Double Plates Steel Plate A.1) Section B.1) Section C.1) Section Figure 10.14 Typical corner details TRANSVERSELY SHEATHED DIAPHRAGMS (Douglas Fir-Larch Lumber) Table 10.1 i Maximum Span-Width or Number of 8d Height-Width Ratio Common Nails per Board per Allowable Lateral Shear Load Horizontal Diaphragms Nominal Width Crossing of Stud, lbs. per lineal ft. Restraining: _ of Sheathing Joist, or Perimeter for Stud or Joist Spacing Masonry or Wood or Vertical Boards Member and at in inches of Concrete Walls Similar Walls Diaphragms (inches) Butted Ends 12 16 24 Not Limited by Limited by 6 2 100 75. 50 recommended acceptable acceptable 8 2 114 86 57 deflection deflection 10 2 124 93 62 of wall DIAGONALLY SHEATHED DIAPHRAGMS Maximum Span-Width Number of 8d Common Nails or per Board per Height-Width Ratio Crossing at: Horizontal Diaphragms Nominal Width Perimeter Restraining: _ of Sheathing Members and Stud Allowable Lateral Masonry or Wood or Vertical Boards Butted Ends or Shear Load Concrete Walls Similar Walls Diaphragms (inches) of Boards Joist lbs. per lineal ft. 3:1 4:1 2:1 6 2 2 345 8 2 2 262 3 2 393 continued AAJITUSONSTRUCTION INC. January 27, 2o16 Mr. Pieter Smeenk City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 SUBJECT: Preliminary Seismic Upgrade, Relocation and Temporary Facilities Construction Budget for Ashland City Hall Dear Mr. Smeenk: Vitus Construction, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide a preliminary seismic upgrade, relocation and temporary facilities budget for the existing Ashland City Hall. The budget is based on site meetings, Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. Report (dated 12/07/15) and drawings from Marquess & Associates (dated May 1991) and Savikko Engineering (dated 4/14/85)• The following preliminary scope and per square foot cost is being provided to the City of Ashland for budgeting purposes only. Preliminary Budgeting Items 1. Additional per square foot costs for new roofing, non-structural bracing of suspended ceilings and anchorage of equipment, and piping anchorages to add to the Miller Consulting Engineer's estimate. Also please specifically include temporary relocation costs and soft costs not included in the engineer's estimate. a. Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. published cost $184.00 Sq Ft b. Flashing, bracing, weatherproofing and sealants .$18.oo Sq Ft c. Temporary operational facilities $20.00 Sq Ft i. Includes relocation, lease I rental of storage, offices, meeting rooms and restrooms occupied by city staff and the public during the construction period (9 months $156,834.00). d. Soft Costs $42.00 Sq Ft L Includes temporary signage, safety protection, parking and structural J architectural drawings for roof and bracing e. Total $264.00 Sq Ft 2. Additional per square foot mechanical, electrical, plumbing, egress, ADA, Fire Suppression, and Tenant Improvements costs in total. a. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing $11o.oo Sq Ft b. ADA upgrades and modifications $28.oo Sq Ft P.O. Box 1097 • Gold Hill, OR 97525 Phone: 541.855.7177 • Fax: 541.855.7520 • E-mail: corey@vitusconsbuction.com • CCB #63643 c. Fire suppression $15.00 Sq Ft d. Tenant improvements $185.00 Sq Ft e. Total $338.oo Sq Ft 3. Total per square foot cost to construct a new building on the current City Hall site, replacing everything except the existing north and west, historic facades. If the per square foot costs for space added as a new third or fourth floor, please indicate the additional per square foot space cost for that, but if it is not significantly different, please indicate that. a. Rebuild building keeping exterior walls (10,595 Sq Ft) $405.00 Sq FT 4. Total per square foot cost to construct anew building on anew site on city-owned property, including the cost of parking, site development, building costs and associated elements to relocate. a. Site Development $125.00 Sq Ft b. Construction of Building $325.00 Sq ft c. Total $450.00 Sq Ft fS Drawing is for informational use only r Vitus Construction, Inc. does not k represent value associated with the 1' E site or building illustration. T The above budget proposal will be updated as the project develops. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Vitus Construction, Inc. Sincerely, Corey E. Vitus, President Vitus Construction, Inc.