Tillamook County Public Works Director Chris Laity and Engineering Technician Jasper Lind took time for an interview with The Oceansider to provide more details about the mishandled excavation and resulting closure of Portland Avenue earlier this week. Here is what we learned from them and some independent research:
1. When will Portland Avenue be reopened? Saturday, July 22, if all goes as planned.
2. What happened? In excavating to pour a concrete foundation for a residential parking pad (immediately south of the planned home), the approved plans called for a stepped down series of four-foot-high ledges or “benches” located entirely on the homeowners’ property adjacent to Portland Avenue. Instead, the excavator dug a single 12-foot-high wall located entirely in the county right-of-way. This deprived the road of lateral support and created a hazardous drop-off along the edge of the road that was inadequately marked or fenced off to alert drivers or pedestrians. The builder provided no notice to the county that it had departed from the approved design but reportedly had received a green light from its contracted geotechnical engineer at the site.
3. How was it discovered? The excavation apparently occurred just prior to the Fourth of July weekend. A member of the public (who asked to remain anonymous) tipped off the county this past weekend (July 8-9). The county promptly sent staff to investigate and closed the road Monday morning (July 10). At that point, concrete for the foundation was being poured. (While there has been talk of a “stop order,” concrete continued to be poured today – July 12.) Laity indicated that the county would have discovered the problem during an inspection of the forms prior to the pour, but the builder did not contact the county to schedule such an inspection as required. He also indicated that the variance from the approved plan might or might not have been discoverable during the mandatory post-pour inspection. Laity acknowledged that his department “relies heavily” on public reports to surface such violations.
4. Who is the contractor involved? The general contractor is Grove Development – a custom home builder from Portland. The excavator was Scott Dahme Construction, Inc., of Sherwood, Oregon. Laity indicated that he is working primarily with the project architect and its contracted geotechnical engineer, and that all parties were being “extremely responsive.”
5. How will it be fixed? The contractor proposes to pour three, 12-foot-high concrete walls that, along with the wall along the road, will form a support “box” for the parking pad. The “box” will then be filled with a recycled pumice-like aggregate, and the top will be paved with asphalt. The county has commissioned an independent geotechnical engineer to review the proposal which, if approved, could be completed by Saturday, July 22.
6. Will “temporary shoring” be installed as originally suggested on the Public Works Facebook page? No. The county concluded that the quickest and safest way to remedy the situation is to evaluate the contractor’s revised design as quickly as possible and work with the builder to expedite its completion. According to Laity, installing and then removing temporary shoring would actually slow down the repair and compromise the safety of the resulting structure.
7. Will the property owner or contractor(s) face consequences? Laity emphasized that his immediate priority is to remedy the hazardous situation as quickly as possible. That said, he shared that options for sanctions are currently being discussed among himself, Director Sarah Absher of Community Development (which supervises building permits and inspections) and county counsel. Laity also indicated that the snafu involved potential misjudgments by several professionals who could face a review of their actions by relevant licensing agencies.
8. Permission v. Forgiveness. During our interview, Laity and Jasper Lind frankly acknowledged that their Department would “never” have approved the revised foundation plan (which infringes on county property) had it been part of the original building plan submitted by the homeowner/builder. Given the situation, however. Laity stated, “We have no choice but to find a solution.” Your friendly editor then bluntly reminded him that another homeowner/builder had reportedly built a noncompliant retaining wall and deck adjacent to Portland Avenue several years ago, only to be granted a retroactive variance by the county. I asked whether Portland Avenue residents might consider this another example to builders that, in Tillamook County, it is more effective to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Laity forthrightly acknowledged that it could be seen that way. On the other hand, he noted, the revised design was probably more inadvertent than intentional. The changes, he predicted, will actually complicate other aspects of the construction and end up costing much more than the original design.
And that’s the view from Oceanside!
www.oceansidernews.com
jerrykeene@oceansidernews.com
