{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Roadway DE Log","ADA DE Log"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":2,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":2,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Roadway DE Log","index":0,"n_rows":100,"n_cols":13,"rows_kept":100,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,0,0,2]]}
["K12345: OR999 ADA Curb Ramps "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"For Concept Plan Review - Please provide information in these columns that were identified during Concept",null,null,null,"Columns to the right may be used for any purpose"]
["Design Exception Control Number \n(#####-###) \nor (A#-###-###)","Working Design Exception","Approved Design Exception","Status \n(Select from Dropdown)","Plan Sheet Number (Optional)","ODOT HWY No.","MP or Range","Site or Range\n(Optional)","Location\n(Google Maps, Bing, etc.)","Design Exception Criteria","Comments\nFormat with initials and DATE, then comment/note."]
["22401-01R","R_K22401_DEW_01R","R_K22401_DE_01R","Approved","BC541","028",1.29,"Site 54, Corner 3 (SW Frazer Avenue @ SW 14th Street)","1404 SW Frazer Ave - Google Maps","Lateral offset, obstruction proximity to face of curb","The ASSHTO Roadside Design Guide, Chapter 10, requires a minimum lateral offset of 3 feet from face of curb to the face of an obstruction at an intersection; 1.5 feet in other locations (Page 10-1). This exception would place the face of pole less than the minimum 3’ from the face of curb.\n\nPower pole relocated outside of curb ramp travelled way to allow for a minimum of 4.5’ clear width. Site 54, Corner 3 (SW Frazer Avenue @ SW 14th Street): Frazer Ave. Existing location: Sta. “F” 32+48.08, Offset 25.6’ Rt. (3.1’ from face of curb – assuming 15” pole); Proposed location: Sta. “F” 32+48.08, Offset 24.6’ Rt. (2.1’ from face of curb – assuming 15” pole)\n\nDiscussed with Region Utility Specialist (Jeff Miles) - relocation of the utility pole to a location where the standard could be met is not feasible due to the power line configuration. Region is in support of the power pole remaining in its current location. Date XX/XX/XXX, INITIALS\n\nDiscussed with Heidi Shoblom, verbal approval reached - Date XX/XX/XXX, INITIALS"]
["22401-02","R_K22401_DEW_02","R_K22401_DE_02","Approved","BC002 and \nVarious Curb Ramp Details","028","1.19 - 1.48","The stamped rock concrete surfacing is located either adjacent to sidewalk in a buffer strip/zone type application or utilized in raised islands at various locations throughout the project.","Various Locations","Stamped Rock Concrete Surfacing","Requests the use of stamped rock concrete surfacing simulating a “grouted durable rock” treatment as an alternative material to the non-planted softscape materials approved and shown on RD721. Colorized concrete is proposed simulating a terra cotta brick red tone for the stamped rock concrete surfacing. \n\nDiscussed with the City of Pendleton - the City requests the use of stamped rock concrete surfacing in lieu of the other available landscaping options due to maintenance and upkeep concerns as well as safety concerns surrounding loose material - Date XX/XX/XXX, INITIALS\n\nDiscussed with the District 12 - Maintenance requests the use of stamped rock concrete surfacing in lieu of the other available landscaping options due to maintenance and upkeep concerns as well as safety concerns surrounding loose material - Date XX/XX/XXX, INITIALS\n\nDiscussed with Taundra Mortensen and Will Woods, verbal approval reached. Date XX/XX/XXX, INITIALS"]
["22401-03","R_K22401_DEW_03","R_K22401_DE_03","Approved","BC003 and \nVarious Curb Ramp Details",null,null,"Various locations throughout the project where a return curb is utilized adjacent to a curb ramp.","Various Locations","Snow Curb Return","A snow curb return is requested at these locations to facilitate snow removal and operations of existing maintenance equipment in the corridor. \n\nThis section of roadway is plowed by both the City of Pendleton and ODOT Maintenance forces. Potential offtracking of heavy vehicles or vehicles hauling trailers is also of concern. Region requests the use of the snow curb return to prevent potential damage to the return curb and curb ramp system.\n\nDiscussed with Taundra Mortensen and Will Woods, verbal approval reached. Date XX/XX/XXX, INITIALS"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]

{"sheet":"ADA DE Log","index":1,"n_rows":99,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":99,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,0,0,2]]}
["K12345: OR999 ADA Curb Ramps "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"For Concept Plan Review - Please provide information in these columns that were identified during Concept",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Columns to the right may be used for any purpose"]
["Design Exception Control Number (#####-###) \nor (A#-###-###)","Working Design Exception","Approved Design Exception","ADA Curb Ramp Design Check List\n(ProjectWise Link)","Status\n(Select from Dropdown)","Plan Sheet Number (Optional)","Site \n(Optional)","LRM ","MP","Location Link\n(Google Maps, Bing, etc.)","Corner","Design Exception Criteria","Crosswalk Closure Required\n(Select from Dropdown)","Comments\nFormat with (initials and DATE), then comment/note."]
["22401-05","R_K22401_DEW_51","R_K22401_DE_05","R_22401_DA_51","Approved","BC511",51,"02800I00",1.1399999999999999,"1098 SW Frazer Ave - Google Maps",1,"1-2: C1 and D1","No","C1: Cross slope (1.59%) at the base of the ramp is in excess of the design maximum of 1.5%, resultant from the gutter flow slope of 2.64% and directional curb.\nThe cross slope of the ramp was minimized as best as possible. The ramp was designed to be directional utilizing directional curb, providing the best possible crossing for the pedestrian and eliminating the need for maneuvering at the base of the ramp. Given the drainage direction, the slope of the directional curb was minimized as much as possible in order to further reduce the ramp cross slope at the base of the ramp. The cross slope of the ramp was transitioned from 1.0% at the level landing to 1.59% at the base of the ramp over a ramp length of 7’, resulting in a transition rate of 0.08%/ft. The transition rate is within the Agency guidelines of a maximum rate of 0.5% per foot.\n\nD1: Gutter flow in the adjacent road profile grade of 2.64% exceeds 1.5% at an intersection crossing controlled by a stop or yield sign.\nThe gutter flow slope was reduced from an existing 5.09% to 2.64%by warping the ACP counterslope within the shoulder, extending to edge of the traveled way, at a transition rate of 0.5% per foot.\n\nDiscussed both of the DE elements with the assigned roadway reviewer (name); alternatives were considered, need to prepare at least one alternative prior to DE workshop. Confirm if a curb extension is a viable solution. Date XX/XX/XXX, INITIALS\n\nHeld DE workshop with Standards Staff - verbal approval was obtained - Date XX/XX/XXX, INITALS"]
["22401-04","R_K22401_DEW_56","R_K22401_DE_04","R_22401_DA_56","Approved","BC563",56,"02800I00",1.39,"1600 SW Frazer Ave - Google Maps",3,"3-1: B1\n3-2: B1","No","3-1, B1: Ramp run 3 has a running slope of 9.2% over 6.4', which is in excess of the design maximum of 7.5%\nExisting north-south sidewalk has a running slope of 10.4%. Maintaining this slope makes the level landing for Ramp 3-2 at an elevation higher than can be matched into while meeting the design maximum of 7.5%. Therefore, the elevation difference between the level landing for ramp 3-1 and the level landing for ramp 3-2 is great enough to make the slope exceed the design maximum of 7.5%.\n\nRamp 3-2, B1: Ramp run 1 has a maximum running slope of 13.1% over 8.5', which is in excess of the design maximum of 7.5%.\nExisting north-south sidewalk has a running slope of 10.4%. Maintaining this slope makes the level landing for Ramp 3-2 at an elevation higher than can be matched into while meeting the design maximum of 7.5%.\n\nDiscussed both of the DE elements with the assigned roadway reviewer (name); alternatives were considered, need to prepare at least one alternative prior to DE workshop. Date XX/XX/XXX, INITIALS\n\nHeld DE workshop with Standards Staff - verbal approval was obtained - Date XX/XX/XXX, INITALS"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"\n"]