MEMORANDUM

Date:  October 03, 2019

To:  Portland Historic Landmarks Commission

From:  Arthur Graves, Land Use Services | 503.823.7803

Re:  Burnside Bridge: Earthquake Readiness

September 09, 2019 – Briefing by Jeff Heilman (Parametrix), Patrick Sweeney (PBOT), Cassie Davis (HDR Inc.)

This is the fourth briefing of the Burnside Bridge: Earthquake Readiness to the Historic Landmarks Commission. Previous briefings were on: September 11, 2017, June 25, 2018 and October 08, 2018.

Below is a summary of comments and responses provided by the Historic Landmarks Commission in response to the project as presented on September 09, 2019.

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

•  One commissioner asked for clarification on the process, asking at what point the project will go through the Section 106? After the selection of the “preferred alternative”?

o  Response: The Section 106 will be started during the DEIS (regarding outreach, consultation, etc.). However, the development of the “memorandum of agreement” or “programmatic agreement”, etc. will not come until there is a preferred alternative. Federal Highways requires that this be in place by the time they sign the record of decision.

•  It was stated that the Historic Landmarks Commission would like to be a consulting body to the MOA or PA, etc. in large part due to concerns with the mitigation. It was also asked if the projects shown in the presentation were the intended extent of the proposed mitigation for the project? It was noted that this was premature and not on balance with the extent of the project’s impacts. It was further clarified that mitigation would be required for the extent of impacted resources: The Burnside Bridge, Skidmore / Old Town Historic District, etc. (with impacts to the Landmark Historic District superseding other individual resources).

o  Response: The Historic Landmarks Commission was on the list of consulting parties that ODOT submitted to SHPO.

•  One commissioner asked about Option #1 and the features that would need to be replaced, specifically the towers.

o  Response: It was not clear at the hearing if the towers could be saved. In a follow-up email on September 21, 2019, Jeff Heilman clarified that the towers will need to be removed for the retrofit option, “in order to access parts of the bridge beneath the deck and towers where significant work will be required as part of making the existing bridge seismically resilient”. However, “it may be possible to temporarily remove the towers and then reinstall them after that retrofit work is complete.” If the retrofit option is selected, mitigation of the towers will be explored.

•  One commissioner stated that any proposed new bridge must address urban design issues and comply with the applicable Design and Historic Guidelines.

o  Response: The urban design focus group was set up to help identify and address these issues.

•  One commissioner asked if the historic resources inventory compiled was within the “area of impact” boundary, and for clarity on what was included: buildings, streetscapes, etc.

o  Response: Yes, and buildings and streetscapes were both included. Buried resources were also included. This report is currently in a draft form but will be made available to the public once completed.

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

o  Response: Current work includes a number of band-aid maintenance project, such as repair to concrete work and sidewalks, beam strengthening, etc. to keep the bridge in service to get to an earthquake readyp structure.

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