MEMORANDUM

Date:  October 03, 2019

To:  Portland Design Commission

From:  Arthur Graves, Land Use Services | 503.823.7803

Re:  Burnside Bridge: Earthquake Readiness

September 19, 2019 – Briefing by Mike Pullen (Multnomah County), Teresa Boyle (PBOT), Heather Catron (HDR Inc.)

This is the second briefing of the Burnside Bridge: Earthquake Readiness to the Design Commission. The first briefing was on October 18, 2018.

Below is a summary of comments and responses provided by the Design Commission in response to the project as presented on September 19, 2019.

•  The Commission thanked the guests for returning to present the project to the Commission.

•  One commissioner asked if the entire Burnside Bridge would collapse in the projected seismic event.

o  Response: Yes, the entire bridge including spans, towers, etc. are projected to fail.

•  One commissioner asked about current work being done on the bridge.

o  Response: These are “band-aid projects” (i.e. to keep concrete from failing on people under the bridge-heads). None of this works will help the bridge better withstand a seismic event.

•  One commissioner asked about the status and impacts to the Burnside Skatepark.

o  Response: All proposed design alternatives would significantly impact the skatepark. The County is initiating the assessment of the skatepark regarding historic designation. It was noted that the skatepark will need to be mitigated.

•  One commissioner asked about timeline differences between the replacement and retrofit options.

o  Response: The retrofit will take approximately a year less to complete than the replacement options.

•  One commissioner asked if all options require the bi-pass bridge.

o  Response: The traffic evaluation will determine this.

•  One commissioner stated the importance of evaluating each of the bridge options against the applicable Design and Historic Review Guidelines.

o  Response: The applicant team agreed and stated that a return briefing in the spring of 2020 could provide this and a comparative analysis to the Commission.

•  One commissioner asked if there was a front runner among the design options, and if the “bascule” and “lift” options differed significantly.

o  Response: No, there is not a front runner. Differences between the bridge types is not fully explored/known at this time. Once the “preferred alternative” is selected this aspect will be studied in greater depth. However, broadly speaking, the “lift” option is understood to have a height limit and is thought to be easier to design.

•  One commissioner stated the importance of engaging Parks and applicable social service agencies to address users at/under the bridge-heads.

o  Response: Agreed, all of these agencies have been engaged.

•  One commissioner stated the importance of the future design of the bridge-heads so as to improve placemaking and better program the areas under the bridge. It was further stated that the bridge-heads should be designed (in and of themselves) to provide great opportunities for people in the event that the proposed earthquake strikes and results in permanent removal of the freeway.

•  One commissioner stated that connections from the bridge to the East Bank Esplanade should be improved.

•  One commissioner stated that the previous bridge lasted one hundred years in which it contributed greatly to the architecture of Portland. It was asked how the new bridge intends to be iconic and contribute to the architecture of Portland for the next 100 years. It was further stated that, “We are Bridge-City, how does the new bridge intend to contribute to, and be a part of, this narrative of Bridge-City?”

Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you.