Correspondence 1 l Sw f/ SIT - Rooa - ecro
Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4044143!, l +\
Robert D. Wood, VP of Construction CITY OF TIGARD
Renaissance Properties
1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. OREGON
West Linn, OR 97068
RE Erickson Heights H, Retaining Walls and Fill
Dear Bob:
I appreciate the cooperation you have shown since you and I started dealing with the above
matter and I am sure that we can, as we have before in other matters, find our way to a
voluntary and cooperative resolution of the issues of the retaining walls and associated fill at
Erickson Heights II, particularly but not exclusively regarding Lots No. 1 - -10 on Kable St.
(There are lots in addition to these ten with retaining walls that need permits and testing of the
retained fill. If can you get your geotechs to address them with design parameters and permit
applications before we get around to formally giving you notice about them there will be no
need for penalties or citations that might involve the homeowners.)
I will address the Kable St. walls and fill in another letter that is now on its way to you and to
the homeowners. There is, however, one other matter that needs to be addressed: an undated
letter written, on your behalf, by Travis Brooks in response to my letter of July 8, 2002 about
the swimming pool built by Renaissance on Lot No. 3.
Mr. Brooks' letter demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of various aspects of the permit
and inspection process and recites a series of purported "facts" about the actual inspection,
testing, and approval sequence at Lot No.3 that can politely be considered "not accurate." The
only productive result of Mr. Brooks' letter that I am aware of is that it motivated me to take a
much closer look at the actual history, not just of the pool and walls on Lot No. 3, but of the
retaining walls throughout the subdivision.
Nonetheless, a point -by -point rebuttal of Mr. Brooks' points would be tedious and not very
constructive. I will write a rebuttal, if you wish, or if we need to address the issues in court.
However, since the errors and misrepresentations in that letter are so extensive, I will, unless
you wish me to consider it to be an authorized response on your behalf, ignore the entirety of
that document and its contents.
It might be best if you and I deal directly regarding the actual facts and requirements for
resolving the m.tter of the retaining walls, fill, and swimming pool on Kable St.
Sincerel
bert Shields
Building Codes Enforcement Officer
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
$ / 7 20-0 - crr1 / �J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brian Rager, Hap Watkins, Sherman Casper, ^ ° ^ ^i-
Brad Kilmer, Matt Harrell, Matt Scheidegger,
Mike White, p Jones
FROM: Albert Shields
RE: Construction on Private Easements
CC: Gary Firestone, Gary Lampella, Bob Thompson, Dick Bewersdorff
DATE: Thursday, June 27, 2002
This summarizes my conversation with Gary Firestone yesterday as to how the City
should respond to permit applications for construction on or over private easements.
Gary is out of town until next week. After he returns we will craft a formal position/
. opinion and will distribute a memo on how to handle such applications. For the
moment, however, and regarding the case in hand, here's the word.
It is not the City's responsibility nor does the City have the authority to enforce the terms
of private easements. Such enforcement is a civil matter between the easement
holder(s) and the grantor. Further, it is not the City's responsibility to notify or to require
an applicant to notify or get the approval of the holders of a private easement before
approving an application.
In net: the City may not deny approval of a permit application just because a private
easement is involved if the applicant would otherwise be entitled or allowed to do that
work. To deny an application in such a case might leave the City open to charges that
such denial constituted an improper taking of land or the denial of its use by the City.
On the other hand, regarding the concern about holders of such an easement
subsequently seeking to hold the City responsible for issuing a permit and thus
"authorizing" the applicant to impair or damage their rights and property interest, we do
not feel that the City incurs any actual liability.
Nonetheless, if the City becomes aware of the existence of a private easement that will
be impacted in some way by the work proposed under a permit application it would not
be inappropriate for the City to, as a matter of policy and practice, advise the applicant
by letter or in the permit approval documents that "this approval does not authorize the
violation of any easements or the rights of any others who may have an interest in this
property, such as holders of any private easements. The applicant is urged to contact
any such parties and, for his own protection, secure their approval and agreement
before commencing work."
Let's add this text to any approval of the current applicati r, n and we'll tighten up this
procedure with Gary next week.
Please let me know if you have any questions. AO1P-