CC Minutes - 09/12/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dan Herbert, 1913 Potter Street, thanked the council for opening up the citizen participation process so soon. He asked the council and staff if they were familiar with the Public Participation Spectrum published by the International Association of Public Participation. He said Mr. Penwell provided copies of it for the group that had interviewed the consultants, which included himself. He wished to recommend that public participation include collectively pitching such participation to the "mid-level of those involved," in which the public participation goal was to work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations were consistently understood and considered. He underscored the need for transparency in the process. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, opined that the public notice for the hearing was short. He also opposed holding a hearing before the university year had begun as he averred students should have the opportunity to weigh in on this. He did not think a big building project should be undertaken in the face of the $93 million backlog in street repairs. Mr. Vishanoff opposed any public/private partnerships. He also opposed siting a new City Hall near the riverfront. He reiterated his concern with the excessive use of video cameras for surveillance. He likened placement of the City Hall in proximity of the new courthouse building to an "Orwellian overdose." Gary Rayor, 2373 Washington Street, stated that he had worked as a structural engineer for 32 years. He said he designed highway bridges, water storage reservoirs, buildings, and other large projects. He averred that there were political and structural aspects to consider when looking at the current City Hall. Regarding the political realm, he recommended showing the public that good due diligence had been conducted for the current City Hall before abandoning it. He said the biggest selling point in leaving the building was that it was going to pancake and destroy all of the police vehicles and other things stored beneath it. He stated that in 1964 the building had been designed to a six percent lateral load while the current design criteria was that the base shear was approximately 19 percent of gravity and the 1,000 year return interval was about 25 percent. He declared this to be equivalent to a subduction zone earthquake or a nearby crustal earthquake and such earthquakes would destroy the building. He thought whether the consultants would recommend ')unking" the building depended on what questions were asked. He felt that basing questions on only structural aspects would lead to the answer that the building could work and be serviceable. He averred that the main reason the "soft story" below the Council Chamber was not repairable was because the perimeter columns were only half of the height of the other columns and would receive the brunt of an earthquake causing a progressive failure. He suggested isolating the perimeter footings and making them full height and adding steel x-bracing in the downstairs with either some "high-tech" dampers, similar to those used in the DeFazio Bicycle Bridge main span, or some basic plates bolted together tightly, though not so tight that they would not absorb some of the movement energy generated by an earthquake. He felt the columns could be rounded out and carbon-wrapped and the base shear of the columns could be prevented by mounting x- braces to the slab using the entire slab as a "huge diaphragm on grade." He indicated he had read all of the reports and had not seen the questions asked correctly so that consultants would consider how they would go about saving the building. He submitted his testimony in writing. David Hinkley, 1350 Lawrence Street, #1, averred that the public needed to know from the beginning what their level of participation would be. He opined that the quickest way to ruin public participation would be to give the public greater expectations of their participation level than would actually be granted. He recommended inviting the public to comment early and often. He wanted the structure to be designed for reasonable growth, for sustainability and to be built economically. He thought the current City Hall was MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 12, 2005 Page 8