By Randy Kugler
Our Planning Commission has approved the design of our new City Hall and Police Station. The Planning Commission’s responsibility was restricted to the review of the application submitted by the City’s consulting team and to confirm that the design complied with the applicable code provisions. The Planning Commision fulfilled their responsibilities. Unfortunately, what we are ending up with appears to be at odds with what we were told we either needed or could expect in this facility. For example:
We were told in previous public meetings that soil conditions at the site were such that in the event of moderate or severe ground shaking, the existing Underhill structure’s foundations were potentially at risk of catastrophic failure. The City’s contractor for the new City Hall explained that the solution to this risk was to place the new building on a system of bored pilings that would be able to resist the threat of liquefaction and structure collapse. This solution he explained would be “an economical method of supporting the proposed structure”.
What the Planning Commission was asked to approve was a seperate Police structure that would be placed on this system of bored pilings and a City Hall that would not now have to have a foundation supported by this piling system. The reason: it would be too expensive to include this foundation system for City Hall.
What had just months ago been a critical factor and argument by the City’s consulting team for demolishing both the School and Quonset Hut was not now a concern for City Hall because it was no longer the “economical” solution that we were led to believe.
What happened to the City Hall design that was presented to us at previous public meetings? The architect had presented a building design based on input from citizens that said they wanted a building that represented Manzanita similar to the Library and First Security Bank.
The City Hall that we were told that we would be getting did share architectural features with the Bank and Library. A welcoming entrance, abundant natural lighting with an interesting roof design and horizontal lap cedar siding. What was submitted by the City to the Planning Commission does not resemble what the City’s team presented to us and was characterized by a resident as something you would find in a Beaverton Industrial Park.
The reason for the difference between what we saw then and what we are now getting is simple; it is a cheaper design. Compare what the Planning Commission approved versus what was presented to the community.
http://tinyurl.com/wkk34wyp pg 15
http://tinyurl.com/4mpk4cvu pg. 89
What happened to our solar powered City Hall? The City Manager stated that “solar is still on the table” and the contractor confirmed that the inclusion of solar “seems like a no-brainer to be ready for”. The architect described how they planned to design the roof for solar panels to maximize the potential for solar power to operate the building.
The City’s design plans submitted to the Planning Commission does not include any solar nor was mention made of including solar power in the future. Perhaps because of the complete change in the building design described above, the now north-facing roof orientation of City Hall can no longer deliver effective solar power.
I find it fascinating that when I report on the actions of our City Officials supported by their direct quotes, the howls of indignation come from the same group of citizens whose only rebuttal is a personal attack and a demand that I stop. I observe what I see happening, present the facts and ask questions.
If we’re not witnessing a City Hall bait and switch, what do you call it?
I will continue this post with two more editions highlighting other examples in the coming days.