The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-0814 Study Session CI'T'Y OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Monday, August 14, 2017 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 5:30 p.m. 1. Public Input (15 minutes, maximum) II. Look Ahead review III. Discussion of Prioritization and Designation of Essential Routes and Structures IV. Creation of Alan Bates Service Award (request of Councilor Rosenthal) 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 1). 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 ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US 1 j 1 1 It/lb itiIt 111b III 9I4 _1 Stud _Session = Canceled due to Labor Da .'Ho'li04Y - ' 9/4`_.7 9/5 Regular Council Meeting 9/5 1 Presentation by Margie Moulin regarding Emergency Communications Police Tighe O'Meara PRES of Southern Oregon ECSO operations 2 Road Diet update PW Mike Fau ht PRES 3 Approval of the ad hoc CEAP Committee scope of work Admin Adam Hanks CONS 4 Selection of Theater Corridor art Admin Ann Seltzer CONS 5 Ordinance re: CEAP Goals and Targets Legal David Lohman ORD-1 ORD-2 9/18 Stud Session (in Siski ou Room) 9/18 6 Overview of the cottage housing ordinance Com Dev Bill Molnar SS 7 Discussion of Emergency Winter Shelter (request of Mayor Stromberg) Admin John Karns SS 9/19 Regular Council Meeting 9/19 8 Annual presentation b the Airport Commission PW Mike Fau ht PRES 9 Annual City of Peace proclamation NAdmin Diana Shi let PROC 10 Resolution creatin the herita a tree list Dev Bill Molnar CONS 11 U date on water treatment lant sitin Mike Fau ht NEW 12 Ordinance re: CEAP Goals and Tar ets al David Lohman ORD-2 1012 Study Session (in-Siski ou Room) 1012 1,0/3 Regular Council Meeting 10/3 13 Presentation b the City Hall ad hoc Committee Admin Ann Seltzer PRES 14 Appointments to ad hoc CEAP Committee Admin Adam Hanks CONS 1,0116 Stud Session (in Siski ou Room) . 1.0/16 15 Future projects overlay ma PW Mike Fau ht SS 10/17 Regular Council Meeting 10117 16 Annual presentation b the Public Art Commission Admin Ann Seltzer PRES 17 Follow u to city hall options Admin Ann Seltzer NEW 1116 Study Session (in Siskiyou Room) 1116 ; 11/7 Regular Council Meeting 1117, 11/20 Study, Session (in Siskiyou Room) - 11121 Regular Council Meeting 18 Annual Presentation b H&HS Commission Com Dev Bill Molnar r 12/4 Study Session (in Siskiyou Room) 12/5 Regular Council Meeting 19 Annual Presentation b the Planning Commission Com Dev Bill Molnar 12118° Study Session (in Sis,ki ou Room) 12/19 Regular Council Meeting Page 1 of 2 nesponsime °-z C"`. _ 1/1 Sfiud :;S.essio,n"cam;ce'Ie44N'ew a rs Da 1/2 Regular Council Meeting S;tudy,.Session_`cance'led._;(1MLK, Jr'Day):_ i, 1/16 Regular Council Meeting ..:'Commission Presentation-Dates - 2017 February 21 - Transportation Commission March 21 - Tree Commission -April 18 - Historic Commission May 16 - Wildfire Mitigation Commission June 6 - Band Board Jul 18 - Forest Lands Commission August 15 - Conservation Commission September 19 - Airport Commission October 17 - Public Arts Commission November 21 - Housing and Human Services Commission December 5 - Planning Commission To Be Scheduled Discussion of potential solutions to deer problems (re q. of Councilor Seffin er Discussion regarding the seismic code Update on internal controls policy Senior issues (re q. of Mayor Stromber Report on Eugene homeless and shelter infrastructure, including car camping (re q. of Mayor Stromber Continued discussion/approval of Lithia Way/Pioneer St. beautification project Waterline Road LID disillusion Polic regarding civic donations Role of Council liaisons Discussion of AFN Governance Committee recommendation re: new AFN Commission Page 2 of 2 Council Study Session August 14, ~201-A Discussion of Prioritization and Designation of Essential Title: Routes and Structures Item Type: Request for Direction Requested by Council? Yes From: Michael R. Faught Public Works Director mike.faught@ashland.or.us Discussion Questions: Councilor Rosenthal requested a study session to discuss the prioritization and designation of essential routes and structures for potential Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) seismic retrofit funding. The Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments met to discuss and create appropriate, essential routes for the City that prioritizes essential structures. Does the City Council agree with staff recommended essential route strategy or does Council recommend changes to the proposed route? Does Council agree that constructing a new 12' bike and pedestrian bridge on East Nevada Street would provide sufficient evacuation and emergency services to the Mountain Meadows area in the event of a Cascadia event? Resource Requirements: Staff recently entered into a contract with Oregon Bridge Engineering Consultants (OBEC) and began the process of completing a required two-year bridge inspection process. This includes seismic evaluations of all City owned bridges at a cost not to exceed $30,931. If the strategy is approved staff will develop seismic upgrade costs for those bridges and culverts located along the essential routes. Suggested Next Steps: Staff is recommending Council adopt the essential route/structure so that staff can pursue potential state and federal funds that may be needed to complete a seismic upgrade bridges and culverts on those routes in preparation for a Cascadia event sometime in the future. If Council agrees with this strategy staff will bring the recommendation to a Council business meeting for approval. If approved, develop seismic upgrade costs for bridges on the essential routes and subsequently submit grant application for seismic upgrades. If Council agrees with staff recommendation to construct the new bike/pedestrian bridge on East Nevada Street staff will move forward with that project. Pagel of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND s Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Energy and Infrastructure - Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization. Background and Additional Information: Councilor Rosenthal requested a study session about prioritization and designation of essential structures for potential ODOT seismic retrofit funding in May 2017. Following this request, the Public Works, Fire and Police Departments cooperatively developed an essential route strategy (see attached) which if approved, identifies associated essential structures (bridges, culverts and rail trestle). Staff believes it is important to develop a triage strategy or in our case an essential route strategy. We have 34 bridges, 16 culverts, and 1 Railroad Trestle in Ashland and'the surrounding area. The proposed essential routes prioritize essential'structures within the routes and identifies 6 bridges (two of which are on Lithia and East Main thought the downtown), 4 culverts and the remaining railroad trestle as high essential structures. This approach is similar to ODOT's Southern Oregon bridge triage strategy which lead to a $35 million allocation in the recently approved transportation package. This strategy was developed by ODOT staff with a goal to seismically upgrade strategic bridges that will ensure freight transport in an out of Southern Oregon in the event of a Cascadia event. It's important to note this essential route strategy does not include the North Mountain Bridge over I-5. While it would not serve as a primary route, there has been concerns expressed by Councilor Rosenthal, Ted Hall and Mountain Meadows Owners' Association (see attached). Councilor Rosenthal wanted to know if it was possible to request that ODOT designate the North Mountain Bridge over I-5 as an essential structure. The concern is that if this structure fails during a Cascadia event Mountain Meadows residents will be isolated and cut off from evacuation and emergency services (see attached State Bridge Engineer's bridge report). The suggested remedy was to request ODOT to add this North Mountain bridge over I-5 to their essential bridge list; however subsequent conversation with ODOT show that this bridge did not meet the triage criteria to be added to their project list. To that end, Art Anderson, ODOT Region 3 Area Manager is planning on attending the meeting to describe ODOT bridge triage program. Staff believes the best course of action to provide evacuation and emergency access to the Mountain Meadows area during a Cascadia event is to construct a new $12' bike/pedestrian bridge could serve as an emergency evacuation/emergency response in the event of a Cascadia event. Attachments: Proposed Essential Route Map Mountain Meadows Owners' Association Letter Ted Hall Email N Mountain Ave OC Page 2 of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND ODOT Email from Albert Nako, N Mountain Ave OC Shear Wall ODOT Seismic Bridge Vulnerability Assessment Ashland OR Jackson County e-mail County Bridge @ Oak & Eagle Mill Page 3 of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND w. FM,P° Ashland Street Network 99 d with Bridges and Culverts •Q~~~~.~ WNENADAST TT' ADS'` r - Legend m MAPLE ST iZ r 4Z Bridges and Culverts Bridge NT WIMERvS,T HFRyFYSq~ ° L, Z a~-~ Q Culvert r F Z Z rt" E HERSEY ST c q- ® Trestle ' z~ y x w} Essential Routes ~ °o , ~°^,.st C q-S.r ~ any ~ ~ : City Limit P RD_ 4 I~RAWBF~ NUTLEY 10 A ST HOLLY ST < y t - aq w v w EXIT _ ■ w i ~ z ~ _~r¢ i ■ ~ `14 ~ ~ • ASHLAND ST ( / ~p : l ■ ' r~,l ~ ~ ~*ASHLAN~ 9 ~~4~r+ 0 r t p2 J 0 ■ Z w ~iir~ N~ J/J o ~k .~ar~r~.,.~.~r~ ,•rr~.y ,a.,r~r,ri ~ S/S~/Y T~ it mil; o ■ o } C I(/ r ri■ a ~ ~ 7~ m/ ~ OR GG ' ~ MOHAWK ST ''~A~N O CITY OF n, '~.i ■ ;,°~oya ASHLAND 0 0.25 0.5 1 MI ~ 4, r, ~ AAA 9 - Mountain Meadows Owners' Association Ashland City Council 20 East Main St. D 15 Ashland, OR 97520 JUL 1 3 2017 12 July 2017 Dear Honorable Mayor John Stromberg Esteemed Council Members, I am writing to you as the President of the Board of Directors for the Mountain Meadows ' Owners Association (MMOA). The MMOA is very concerned about the seismic safety of the North Mountain Avenue overcrossing of I-5. Our community is acutely'aware that our road access is limited to two routes-either south on North Mountain across the bridge over Bear Creek, or north on North Mountain across the I75 overcrossing. With such limited everyday ingress/egress to our homes, residents in Mountain Meadows, Skylark Assisted Living, and the Meadowbrook Park homes could be completely isolated if these routes become unavailable, such as in the event of a high magnitude earthquake. At peak times, we estimate that over 700 people could be present in this area that would be cut off from emergency services, as well as routes for evacuation. Currently, the I-5 overcrossing is not on the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) list of structures targeted for seismic reinforcement. Therefore, we support Councilor Rich Rosenthal's addition of the Mountain Avenue I-5 overcrossing to the Council's July 17th study session. Although-North Mountain Avenue is due to be resurfaced by the City of Ashland in 2017, it does not appear there are any plans to strengthen the Bear Creek Bridge for seismic safety. The MMOA feels it is critical that at least one bridge near our community be retrofitted for seismic safety. Therefore, we' strongly urge the City of Ashland to formally request that ODOT designate the 1-5 overcrossing as "essential" to our city, in order to increase ODOT's priority of funding seismic improvements to the overcrossing. Thank you for your time and consideration. i Sincerely, Robert Tower President, Board of Directors Mountain Meadows Owners Association j 855. Mountain Meadows Drive • Ashland, Oregon- 975,20 Telephone (541) 4821806 • Fax (541) 488 6609- I ' i 8/8/2017 Mail - tara.kiewel@ashland.or.us FW: N Mountain Ave OC Mike Faught Mon 8/7/2017 3:01 PM ToJara Kiewel <tara.kiewel@ashland.orus>; 1 attachrnents (131 KB) D00001.pdf; From: Ted Hall [mailto:tedha1122@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 4:08 PM To: Mike Faught Cc: Rich Rosenthal; Marty Breon; Dennis Holeman Subject: Fwd: N Mountain Ave OC Hi Mike: This is the third and final e-mail input for the N Mountain Ave. OC technical and estimating data. As we discussed today, there are several seismic retrofit tools in the tool chest. Biggs Cardosa estimate below ranges from about $150k for the 1-5 infill shear wall and up to $600k if every tool in the chest is implemented. The S150k is f6r the I-5 Median Bent infill shear wall. If all of the other things mentioned by Steve are also implemented the cost could be up to S600k. He has identified the biggest impact tool as the infill shear wall. If there are budget constraints, that shouldn't result in a do nothing approach since the relatively low cost of the median shear wall is so effective against transverse forces. Regards Ted Sent from my i.Phone Begin forwarded message: From: Stephen Biggs <sbig!zs(ceBiagsCardosa.com> Date: May 9, 2017 at 6:48:00 AM PDT To: Ted Hall <tedhail22grnail.cam> Cc: Stephen Biggs <sbigtasQBi> gsCard0sa_com> Subject: N Mountain Ave OC Ted We have been discussing the potential risk of collapse of the existing four span pre-cast concrete girder bridge over Interstate Highway 5 near Ashland, Oregon which is an important public https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?realm=ashland.or. us&Source=https%3a%2f%2fcityofashland.sharepbint.cOm%2fSitePages%2fhome.aspx&exsvuri... 1 /2 8/8/2017 Mail - tara.kiewel@ashland.or.us transportation link to the City of Ashland. The structure is supported by drop cap beams over two column bents. The deck slab is continuous and provides some continuity between abutments. Based on our experience and a very cursory review of the structure photos, one of the most significant risks of collapse is failure of the column to drop beam connection due to transverse seismic loading. One of the most typical approaches that we have used to retrofit bridges to eliminate this risk is the addition of concrete shear walls, doweled to the columns to reduce lateral bending of the column. We have attached some shear wall details that we have used on several bridges in California for Caltrans, which involves constructing a small footing, placing a single form, placing the rebar, then shotereting the wall to 12" thick. This wall would cost approximately $100,000. One wall at the center of the bridge may be sufficient, but you may need a new shear wall at each bent which would cost in the range of $300,000. These estimates do not include design work, soft costs, or cost for traffic control. There are two other seismic risks that the shear wall does not address. One is the possible need for restrainers at the bents, which ensure that the superstructure does not move longitudinally with respect to the bents supporting the superstructure. The other risk is losing support at the abutment which could require seat extenders. The cost of these retrofitting requirements is an additional cost, but they tend to cost much less than the more significant shear wall requirements. All total, you may be in the range of $500,000 - $600,000. Stephen Biggs President Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. https://outlook. office365. com/owa/? real m=ashland.or. us&Sou rce=https%3a%2f%2fcityofash land.sharepoi nt.com %2fS!tePages%2fhome.aspx&exsvu rl... 2/2 Mike Faught From: NAKO Albert <Albert.NAKO@odot.state.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:47 AM To: Mike Faught Cc: JOHNSON Bruce V * ODOT Subject: RE: N Mountain Ave OC Shear Wall Attachments: FW: Message from "Ricoh-MP-C3503" HI Mike, Your second email on this topic shows a retrofit cost al.UaQ,400 - 00 range, which sounds more reasonable number to. me. Although the itemized cost estimates capture. most of the work needed for this structure, there are a couple of important work items that have been left out; el gt~1or r l t da,F4 aat ~ rn « lrrrn t'em s), and ra In'r'' ^~rifit~ (T+ 7s1. ~T . nd} U?itqwt; Ft1 H~~=T1rPt~ty rtaw•~u fkPlwu~v~'T ct~fbw7l~)4t~?tYl&l Our Seismic Plus Report emphasizes already some of the challenges associated with construction work on overpasses along our main highways, and traffic management may be the most challenging one, especially if there is excavation work involved. This was already mentioned in MW+ r l; 'zr ~ rrttec Iyghl ht Please let me. know if there are any questions. nkloz; Alert C 503-986-3333 g 503-986-3407 Albert.NAKO@odot.state.or.us From: Mike Faught [mailto:mike.faught@ashland.or.us] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 3:40 PM To: NAKO Albert Subject: FW: N Mountain Ave OC Shear Wall I Good Afternoon Albert... I revived this drawing from a local engineer who believes that the North Mountain bridge over 1-5 could be retrofitted for.$200 k and I just wanted to get you feedback on his opinion. There are a couple more attachments to send once I get them from him... ' From: Ted Hall fmailto:tedhall22@gmail.com1 Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 3:22 PM To: Mike Faught Cc: Rich Rosenthal; Dennis Holeman; Stephen A. Biggs Subject: Fwd: N Mountain Ave OC Shear Walli G a, is 1 II '`t Hi Mike: Having trouble with my wife's fancy wifi e-mail so will try my iPhone. Nice to meet with you today. I will send you three e-mails. This first one is an actual detail drawing of a shear infill wall like one that should be placed at the I-5 median bent of N Mountain Ave. OC. As Steve Biggs mentions below, other seismic retrofit tools can be also implemented, each providing some additional degree of quake resistance. Given the west trust expected from a Cascadia event, the infill wall provides transverse resistance to movement which largely eliminates the transverse force impact to the bridge and is the biggest bang for the buck seismic fix. The next two a-mails are the two estimates that I hand delivered to you today. The median infill shear wall at I- 5 N Mountain Ave. OC will cost less than $200k. Regards Ted Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Stephen Biggs <sbiggs@BiggsCardosa.com> Date: May 2, 2017 at 1:14:21 PM PDT To: Ted Hall <tedha1122@gmail.com> Cc: Stephen Biggs <sbiggsct~BiggsCardosa.com>, Dan Devlin <ddevlin@BiggsCardosa.com> Subject: RE: N Mountain Ave OC Shear Wall Hi Ted Still working on my submittal, but here is a sample detail that is quite representative. I think you can see that this is a fairly simple amount of work. These types of retrofits usually also include restrainers to tie the bents longitudinally to the bent caps and seat extenders at the abutments which can increase the costs though. I cannot tell without seeing some record drawings whether these additions would be needed or not. .Stephen Biggs President Biggs Cardosa Assiciates 2 Seismic Bridge Vulnerability Assessment Ashland, OR Seismic Vulnerability Assessment for the following bridges is based on an engineering judgment after the review of as-built plans and predicted Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) from a major Cascadia Subduction Zone Event at each bridge site. No structural analyses were available or developed to support this assessment. This information should not be used as a sole source for making critical decisions that involve life safety or financial implication. BR #00406A: Hw 21 over CORP " ~ a r _ I cmmz ~Jf Cm 0 ~y 1 ~tt I~ a - It+-t<4J.. w _ ~FLISLAfi/~ lMF1f1GA''~`1 ..=z3 J. NfhlonU Clkk here to reno°ve balloon mmarkera`nd latieJl Predicted Seismic Performance under a M9.0 CSZE: Moderate to Extensive Damage Vulnerable Details: Built in 1974 and not designed for seismic loading. Insufficient footing size and reinforcement (not top mat on footings). Longitudinal column reinforcement lap spliced within the plastic region. Transverse column reinforcement (hoops) #4 @ 12" - insufficient to provide needed confinement. Poor column to cross beam connection detail. Damage Description: Although this structure may not collapse under a major seismic event, the expected damage level would require closure to traffic while the bridge undergoes major repairs. Significant cracks on footings, columns, and column-to-cross beam connections are most likely to develop, requiring immediate shoring and timely repair. BR QBQ49: Ashland Creek Hw 63 NB t avl5 fall hUF SI C, , v !r GF,_nhic i, 'T'c! ~ 4`, a~~. _ N ~ /r'r` .d. v tl •'4 N~~ V r ~ fl • 4z..a"" ' ~ ~ _ old/I I~~ ® Ashlan~J~~ '~a~• ' , e`~~D. i~A N`I' FSS 77Rt•~~ tlN Lr``%, avt ~~~~a7F1 't'a I Cock here to remove balloon marker andnd label •y~_ I~ ! _ _ Predicted Seismic Performance under a M9.0 CSZE. Extensive Damage Vulnerable Details: Built in 1956 and not designed for seismic loading. Insufficient footing size and reinforcement (not top mat on footings). Insufficient longitudinal column reinforcement and lap spliced within the plastic region. Transverse column reinforcement (hoops) #3 @ 12" (1) - insufficient to provide needed confinement. Although there is very little subsurface information available for the site, the potential for liquefaction and lateral spread remains a concern. A rehabilitation project in 2011 addressed shear cracks on few bridge girders, but did not mitigate for the seismic vulnerabilities of this structure. Damage Description: The extensive damage level would require immediate closure to traffic. Major repair work or total replacement of bridge may be necessary before establishing traffic. Significant cracks on footings, columns, and column-to-cross beam connections are most likely to develop, and the possibility of liquefaction or lateral spreading may push the status of this bridge to collapse. BR #0 739: M un ain Ave v r Hw 1 AID 39 j _ - i r,rana T ~j jnoircu .r rcnna `Click here to rt_move 650oon marker and label Predicted Seismic Performance under a M9.0 CSZE: Extensive Damage Vulnerable Details: Built in 1963 and not designed for seismic loading. Insufficient footing size and reinforcement (not top mat on footings). Longitudinal column reinforcement I-ap spliced within the plastic region. Transverse column reinforcement (hoops) #4 @ 12" - insufficient to provide needed confinement. Poor column to cross beam connection detail. Insufficient girder support length. Damage Description: Due to insufficient support for bridge girder over interior bents, this bridge threatens to collapse under a major seismic event. If this vulnerability were to be mitigated, others still remain. Significant cracks on footings, columns, and column-to-cross beam connections are most likely to develop, requiring immediate shoring and timely repair. BR #2 7 2 677 Hw 1 ver Ea I Mill Rd Ott `yam X44 Y',,. tt fiemrGt `v,~4Q - . . 7F Click her'e`to" remove ba7oo`n'r aik and -label Predicted Seismic Performance under a M9.0 CSZE. No Damage Vulnerable Details: These bridges were built in 2008 and are designed for seismic loading. Both structures are expected to be serviceable right after a seismic event. 8/8/2017 Mail - tara.kiewel@ashland.or.us FW: County Bridge @ Oak & Eagle Mill Mike Faught Mon 8/7/2017 2:54 PM To:Tara Kiewel <tara.kiewel@ashland.or.us>; From: Mike Kuntz [mailto:KuntzM@jacl<soncounty.org] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 4:44 PM To: Mike Faught Cc: John Vial Subject: RE: County Bridge @ Oak & Eagle Mill Mike, No, we don't have a seismic report on this bridge. However, the bridge was constructed in 2006 and meets the codes in place at that time. The bridge is founded on drilled shafts and the box beams are restrained. Relatively speaking, I would expect this bridge to perform well in a Cascadia event. Probably much better than the S. Valley view bridge over Bear Creek at Highway 99 that is likely your alternate route. The S. Valley View bridge was ours until we transferred jurisdiction to ODOT in 2007. Absent seismic concern, the S. Valley View bridge is very sound, but it is an unrestrained, multiple span bridge on spread footings. Mike From: Mike Faught [mailto:mike.faught@ashland.or.us] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 11:27 AM To: Mike Kuntz <KuntzM(@iacksoncountv.ore> Subject: County Bridge @ Oak & Eagle Mill Hey Mike... I was wondering if the County has a seismic report on the bridge located on Oak Street at Eagle Mill Road. We are in the process of developing critical strategic routes in case of a Cascadia event and Oak Street to Eagle Mill may be one of those routes... - https://outlook.office365.Gom/owa/?realm=ashiand.or.us&Source=https%3a°/a2f°/o2fcityofashland.sharepoint.com%2fSitePages%2fhome.aspx&eksvur]... 1 /1 I DST. CWNtt RWIE TOi4 PRa~.ESCT SHEET TOTAL S' Lino 39.6,RI.6, r exist column Q axis! ca/umn Q axis( Note 04 SCI 101,280 RI .9 53 70 column Provide 6' minunum clear q Bent & in All we// r .S obou! 5%ne B=6'3 23=6t 23 =6't dwonce between a// drilled - excapl os shown holes and edge of concrete. I I I - 1: I Existing -2Xt 2Xt I Bent Cop P I ! I u m- `li Top of I •'a Bottom RIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC. r a c b In All Wo// of Cop 1871 7HE ALAMEDA, SUITE 200 . I i i a I o I SAN JOSE. CA 95126 j•'J I o v . f/1'(` ~ by 'a I m~.rosror. er emr>„ae-n. wn:..~w~r. ,nm.ee a..,,Ae,.z+. ~~J I b Y ~W.I.n.a o/ Wc4m¢ ~ e/ Nb µn .AUG / 112' e/r New in All wa// I I ` ; I as (#4 q) 22 m e rA\ jY y y New h rll we// m o 7 =0' y I 2'-6 Z=6 I 1 & y Q Bent .l Tip rip = = APProx !JG & F° V o New in6// _ _ I U g5 m m I well 6'- I y 14 ® 24 I I I See Rood Exist col `1 I I I 7)P I y belh woJa. b A/!emote hook 'y, P/°ns I OC ( Exist con dlracfl- I I.~~_~~ /oot/ng, T}p . (•i New wa// 7 ti~ I j I I rox OG & FG Exist New wo// I loam9 APP •I ( Match top of woq lootin ~l / Ping g loot/n9 with existing I column Pooling, Ap l FL® !2 mtemare 1 1=0' I I 4'-6'1 41-6 't 14=6 't 4=6';t 4=6"-L- J4'-6 t 4' 6't 4' nook -6 f d/recNon STRUCTURE EW VA 07- dowels ~5 0 ® 12 i Tab/9 1 tru 71LN i ELEI~A T/ON Stru ofataro/ ~ Con arete, Location N7 H2 1/4 !=0 Bridge Footing 4' fI New Note' Bent J shown, Bents12 & 4 sGni/ol -T-/7 Exist col 1,Rl I I: Bent 2 19.5:1 18.2f fop &bolfom Benf Povement 1 Bent J 18.11 16.6rf Base I surloce h 2=G' Moferio/ ' Bent 4 195't 18.2:1 I OG & FC " 6' I aril & bond gz 2'-6 SECT/ON B dowels in 14' deep holes fL exist CP 12, stagger thus: Exist 14 Q exist ° ® h column °ri// & band )7x4=6' New wo// R 7=0:t 2'-0't total 2 (7 raw ® looting lootin co/umn~^ tit Tw p hle/, in 14' _ g deep holes, (yp Bollom of bent cop 1=0' ~'j=0' I b Top of in%!/ wall I i _1 I I Top of inn/ xAt Bent J only. ~o I I 4 - I j - I ~wo~// looting Drill ~d 7R rR BACWR t 17 hor® 12 (N4 & -t 14' deep holes. 1~ rJ IT ~j lot j a caner TO /n All wo// ® Structure Excarolian (Bridge) I ` Q Benf & Qisl1 col I slogger thus -;If in%// wall ® Structure BocRn/ (Bridge) f i 01,71 & bond J-O LIMITS OF PA YMENT FOR sECTioN 1/z"=1=°' 3 dowels in 74' deep holes, of 4 "PRE" ,v- dowels EXCA VA 7701V & BACKF/LL jl No71 DETA/L 7 DETA/L 2 the Conrrocfor sha// verily a// LEG£N°• No Scale - ~I contra/Ang field dimensions belore Pot2ates existing structure 1/2 mil'-O' .3 i' ordering or labrico(/ng anymoteri/ /nd%cotes new construction EARTHQUAKE RETROFIT PROJECT NO. 102 c`•/ ~ Y. d~...(x~ DESCH Majdi Kanaon Po-Hang Chen FRS "M FOR THE Po-Kong Chen ai-ola2 STORY ROAD OVERCROSSING -u- s Thomas Walker Po-Kong Chen STATE OF CAVFO~~ nrej°el En5N.w f so?s s"IY 1496 -Ms °j Thomas Walker ' Frank Ouach DEPIIRTTEM OF TRAH9PORTAMM 3455BENT RETROFIT DETAILS ~~nsrs °°6 CU 04229 EA 04-148001 1 5/I7 3 5