Loading...
Correspondence (35) G EO DESIGNZ Geotechnical•Environ mental-Geological December 9, 2002 Curtis Heintz Excavating, Inc. 27475 SW 145th Avenue Sherwood, Oregon 97140 Attention: Mr. Keith Keranen Summary Letter Geotechnical Engineering Services Landscape Rockery Walls 10788 SW Kable Street Tigard, Oregon GDI Project: CHeinztEx-1-01 INTRODUCTION At your request, GeoDesign, Inc. is pleased to submit this summary letter with our observations and opinion regarding the construction of two landscape walls, located at 10788 SW Kable Street in Tigard, Oregon. There are a total of four walls located in the rear yard behind the residence, with each wall about 3 to 4 feet high, about 90 feet in length, and each wall separated by a relatively flat grade. The resulting walls create a terraced type slope. This opinion concerns the two walls located at the top of the terraced slope, and does not include the lower two walls. We understand that the geotechnical engineer of record on the site is Carlson Testing Services of Portland, Oregon. Our review of the walls does not include the geotechnical issues regarding the overall development of the site, the general concept of placing walls on the slope, or the overall stability of the slope. We assume that these issues were addressed by Carlson Testing and these items remain their responsibility. OBSERVATIONS We visited the site on December 4, 2002, accompanied by Mr. Keith Keranen of Curtis Heintz Excavation, and Mr. Steve Hunt of Renaissance Homes. We understand the walls were constructed by Mr. Keranen for Renaissance Homes, with the uppermost wall constructed about eight months ago and the adjacent lower wall about two years ago. Office(503) 968-8787•Fax(503) 968-3068• 14945 SW Sequoia Parkway•Suite 170•Portland, OR 97224 k We observed both walls to be constructed using rock boulders stacked in rows, with each wall consisting of either two to three rows of boulders. In general, the bottom row of rock boulders was observed to be about 2 to 4 feet in length, about 1 to 2 feet high, and 1 to 3 feet in width (measured into the wall face). The top row of boulders consisted of rock boulders approximately 0.5 to 2 feet in length, 0.5-to 1-foot in height, and 0.5-to 1-foot in depth. Overall, the top face of the rock wall was set back from the base of the same wall a distance of about 0.5-to 1-foot, resulting in an average wall batter of about 1 horizontal to 6 vertical (1 H:6V). The width of the uppermost terrace was observed to be approximately 6 feet, and the next to the highest terrace width approximately 7 feet. The single-family residence at the site is set back from the top of the uppermost wall a distance of approximately 18 feet. An elevated wooden deck has been built at the second story level with supporting foundations located a distance of approximately 9 feet behind the top of the uppermost wall. We observed the terraced slope to have an overall height of approximately 16 feet(including the four walls), with an approximate horizontal distance of approximately 22 feet from the top to the bottom. Based on these measurements, the overall gradient of the terraced sloped area is approximately 1.4H:1 V. Based on converstations with Mr. Keranen, we understand the uppermost two walls were constructed by cutting a horizontal level bench into the existing slope. The rocks were then placed in rows and stacked, with backfill placed behind the wall consisting of a 2-to 4-inch crushed rock. We understand there is no drainage pipe behind the wall. From our conversation with Mr. Hunt, we understand the slope area consists of compacted structural fill, which was placed, observed, and tested for compaction by Carlson Testing Services of Portland, Oregon. We understand the residence and the wooden deck are supported on foundations bearing on native soils. OPINIONS Based on our observations, it appears the width of each terrace below each of the two uppermost walls is sufficient so that an imaginary line drawn downward from the bottom face of each wall, at a gradient of 1 H:2V, will not intersect the lower rock wall. Therefore, it is our opinion that the weight of the rock wall and backfill is supported by the soil behind each wall and does not impact the adjacent wall downslope. Based on our conversations with Mr. Matt Harrel, Engineer with the City of Tigard Department of Public Works, we understand that walls 4 feet high and less are exempted from a permit requirement, as per Item 6 in Section 106.2 of Uniform Building Code Volume 1 (1997). As such, it is our understanding that the wall is not required to be designed by a licensed professional engineer. However, it is our opinion, based on our observations and conversations, the wall is constructed in general accordance with our standards for similar type and height of non-engineered walls. 1DESIGNz 2 CHeintzEx-1-01:120902 LIMITATIONS The opinions expressed herein are for the sole use of Curtis Heintz Excavation, Inc., their agents, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions, the stability of the terraced slope, or the construction or testing methods completed by others. The basis of our opinions is based on our observations of the site conditions on December 4, 2002 and our converstions described herein. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time these services were provided. ♦ ♦ ♦ We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Please call if you have questions concerning this letter or if we can provide additional services. Sincerely, GeoDesign, Inc. SP 7c4 tit :7 s GI�G Mitchell F. Schaub, P.E. &L Geotechnical Engineer �� � °• '_ ' Expires:_____ Rick Thrall, P . Principal MFS:RGT:kt One copy submitted Document ID:CHeintzEx-1-01-120902-geol.doc M DESIGN` 3 CHeintzEx-1-01:120902 ABSTRACTS FROM GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS RELATING TO THE RETAINED FILL BEHIND THE "ADDED" WALLS, LOT #3, RENAISSANCE: 1. 9/17/02 KLEINFELDER REPORT: "... many of the walls present on the lots in question appear to be undocumented, both in terms of wall design and of retained fill placement and compaction. Based on a review of the available documents and on field observation of the completed walls, we recommend that the City not accept any of the rockery retaining walls present in the back yards of Lot 1 through 10 at S. W. Kable Street, without the documentation identified in the Comments section of this letter. [Upper Rockery Walls, Comment#3. `Records of fill placement and compaction testing for fills retained by all walls.] ... The evidence of structural distress (hairline cracks) of the swimming pool at Lot 3 does not appear to be directly related to the closest rockery wall present on this site, given the horizontal setback between the upper wall and the pool. Other factors may be influencing this situation, including the condition of fill adjacent to the pool and the aggregate effect of the three walls present at this lot and the condition of the fill behind these walls." 2. 10/17/02 CARLSON REPORT, LOT#3: "The upper rockery wall ... was backfilled with silt soils and had been embedded into the subgrade. I did not observe a drain behind this wall. The second ... was poorly stacked and contained negative batter in some locations. ... The boulders were not embedded into the subgrade. This wall also appeared to have been backfilled with silt soils. I did not observe a drain behind this wall. This wall is experiencing a surcharge from the wall above it. The third wall ... was generally poorly stacked, and lacked adequate batter. The backfill appeared to be silt soils. I did not observe a drain behind this wall and the boulders were not embedded into the subgrade." 3. 10/25/02 CARLSON REPORT, LOTS 1-10: "The subdivision walls were constructed in general accordance with the rockery wall design provided by Carlson Testing, Inc. ... All rockery walls not noted above are considered the "other" walls. Our observations of these walls ... indicate that these walls were not constructed in accordance with the standards of practice for rockery wall construction, or CGT's standard recommendations for rockery wall construction. In addition, these walls are being surcharged by adjacent structures, or are adding a surcharge onto the subdivision walls. Our observations and probing of the wall backfill suggest that several of these walls may be retaining undocumented fill that was poorly compacted. ... Based on our observations, we recommend that the "other" walls on Lots 1 through 10 be removed and re-constructed in accordance with the following recommendations ..." 4. 12/5/02 CARLSON REPORT, LOT#3: "Purpose of our current work was to evaluate the likelihood that the rockery walls that were not included in the original plans for the subdivision were placed on structural fill. ... When compared, the two profiles show that the lower most wall was likely founded on structural fill while the other walls are approximately one to two feet higher than the structural fill that was installed during grading for the subdivision." 5. 4/9/03 GEOPACIFIC REPORT, LOTS 2-4, 6, AND 8-10: "Lot 3 and 8 require extensive further study, analysis, and remediating design." [The attached lot profile shows the upper two walls and the rear part of the pool built on added, non-structural fill.] 6. 5/27/03 GEOPACIFIC REPORT, LOT 3: "The upper 9 feet of fill in the borings was only moderately compact and not likely to have been engineered. The existing fill behind the walls, with minor adverse inducement, has a high potential to be subject to lateral movement unless remedial measures are undertaken. At a minimum, we propose ... [the 8- foot wall that was built]. ... "such construction ... should result in a final Factor-of-Safety against sliding of at least 1.48, even ignoring the effects of wall support. Our conclusion assumes that the swimming pool is adequately evaluated and repaired as necessary. We currently do not know if the pool is founded on compacted or engineered fill." 7. 7/10/03 PAT KELLY REPORT, LOT 3: "It is my opinion that post-construction differential settlement of the pool is the cause of the structure not being level. (See the Comments section of this report for a discussion of the settlement.) The "Review of Site Photographs" section draws an erroneous conclusion: "it is unlikely there was additional filling on the lot after the [subdivision] grading work that was completed around the beginning of November, 1999; i.e., when the last testing of lot fill was preformed [sic] by CTI." "Comments" section: "the behavior of the pool, i.e., the differential movement ... does not reflect the characteristics of a fill compacted to 97 percent of modified Proctor. This discrepancy [sic] ... will, in my opinion, require field and laboratory testing to fully resolve. ... It is my opinion that the pool settlement ... has ended ... However, the soil sampling and testing work described above would be required to confirm that opinion." 8. 8/22/03 GEOPACIFIc REPORT, LOTS 2, 3, AND 8: "The walls were inspected for materials used, subgrade bearing, keyway, and general conformance with our design. Based on our observations, the walls were reconstructed in general accordance with our design and recommendations. ... We have also reviewed the report by Patrick B. Kelly Associates ... At the City of Tigard's request, we have been asked to comment on the likihood of filling after November 1999 around the pool. One of Mr. Kelly's conclusions is that vegetation in a photograph proved it unlikely that additional filling was performed after original development grading. Based on ... the proposed grading per Harris McMonagle's plan, and on our understanding of why the rockery walls and terraced pool area were constructed specifically for the pool, it seems unlikely that there was no additional filling in the pool [area] shortly before of home and pool construction in the Fall of 2000." C.O.T. COMMENTS: GeoPacific's 8/22 report does not address or mention the quality or compaction of the fill behind the upper wall other than acknowledging that, contrary to the Kelly report, the fill behind the upper wall on Lot#3 was added after the subdivision was complete in 1999 and, therefore, after the last compaction testing was done. However, the 5/27/03 GeoPacific report appears to make the point that the Factor of Safety of the conclusion and recommendation, i.e., the proposed and now completed 8 ft. wall, depends upon the adequacy of the support provided to the pool by the retained fill. In other words, the Factor of Safety of the new wall depends upon the quality and degree of compaction of the fill retained behind the upper wall, about which there is no test data other than the GeoPacific borings. We consider that, in the interest of public safety, it is important to confirm whether, in the opinion of the design engineer, he and we can have confidence in the safety and adequacy of the new wall without the further testing of the retained fill mentioned in both his and Mr. Kelly's earlier reports. '(P9/17/02 TUE 11:20 FAX 503 643 1905 KLEINFELDER 17j002 1} KLEI NFELDER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Geotechnical Engineering Materials Testing& Inspection Environmental Science&Engineering Water Resources Earthquake Engineering Air Quality Date: September 17, 2002 To: MR. ALBERT SHIELDS CITY OF TIGARD FAX(503) 624-3681 goED PR. From: Robert L. Stephens, PE c� 04,13 6, 9� ' aso Senior Geotechnical Engineer _ Project No.: 19893 oREN 14,2411.to, Subject: THIRD PARTY REVIEW ti:. sr104" ROCKERY RETAINING WALLS LOTS 1-10 `a9'�j, bi ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDFVTSION TIGARD, OREGON Background Kleinfelder, Inc_ (Kleinfelder) was requested by Mr. Albert Shields, Building Codes Enforcement Officer of the Building Inspection Department at the City of Tigard (City) to provide third-party review related to construction of rockery retaining walls located at the rear of Lots 1 through 10 of the Erickson Heights Subdivision located on SW Kable Street in Tigard, Oregon. The work was authorized by the City of Tigard by a Personal Services Agreement, dated August 5, 2002. The scope of work includes review of available as- built data, inspection and testing reports, reconnaissance of the lots, and preparation of a letter report of findings related to undocumented construction on the lots. Documentation provided by the City includes: 1. Rockery Wall design prepared by Carlson Testing, Inc., dated October 18, 1999; 2. Construction field reports prepared by Harris McMonagle Associates, through the time interval of September 20, 1999 through May 10, 2000; 3. Site Grading/Erosion Control Plan (Sheet 1 of 8) by Harris-McMonagle Associates, dated April 11, 1999; L:120021PRojEcrs\193971POR2L122.Doc Page 1 of 6 15050 SW Kull Parkway COPYRIGHT 2002 KLEINFELDER,INC. Suite L Beaverton,OR 97006-6028 Tel.503-644-9447 Fax.503-643-1905 09/17/02 TUE 11:20 FAX 503 643 1905 KLEINFELDER 1j003 1 ' KLEI NFELDER 4. Topographic contours for Lot 3 including: As-built drawings (1999), proposed pool site plan (October 6, 2000), proposed house site plan (August 31, 2000), air photo contours (on or about July 2001); 5. A letter from the City of Tigard to Renaissance Properties dated July 9, 2002 Re: Permit No. BUP2000-00421, Swimming Pool at 10832 SW Kable St., Tigard, OR; 6. Final summary report from Carlson Geotechnical dated June 2, 2000 for special inspections related to fill placement and compaction for Lots 1-10 and road subgrade, base and asphalt. According to the City, additional rockery retaining walls have been built on Lots 1 through 10 that are not documented. The subdivision as-built drawing listed above indicates two rockery walls extending across the full width of Lot 10 through Lot 5. One rockery wall is shown extending across the full width of Lot 4. Lots 1 through 10, at the time of our site visit on August 9, 2002, contained rockery walls in addition to the walls shown on the subdivision as-built drawing. Document Review Rockery Walls: Two rockery wall designs were prepared: for back slope orientations up to 511:1V (horizontal:veztieal) and for back slopes up to 2H:1 V. We have not verified these wall designs, but believe that they are generally consistent with the local area practice. The Harris-McMonagle Associates construction reports mention construction of the rockery walls at Lots 1 through 10 on September 30-October 1, 1999. No mention of rockery wall observation during construction was included in the Carlson reports. Fill Placement/Compaction: Carlson reports cover the time period September 24 through November 1, 1999 for fill compaction on Lots 1-10. Based on elevations of tests, a minimum of 10 vertical feet of fill was placed on Lots 2-10. The lateral extent of the fill is not identified in the reports,nor is there any mention that the slopes in the vicinity of the rockery walls were built according to the design recommendations. L:\2002\PROJECT5\19397\POR2k.122.Doc Page 2 of 6 15050 SW Koll Parkway COPYRIGHT 2002 KLEINFELDER,INC. Suite L Beaverton,OR 97006-6028 Tel.503-644-9447 Fax 503-643-1905 69/17/02 TUE 11:21 FAX 503 643 1905 KLEINFELDER 004 I ' KLEINFELDER Site Reconnaissance — A site reconnaissance was performed by a Kleinfelder geotechnical engineer and a geological scientist on August 9, 2002. This geotechnical engineer regularly provides design and construction services for rockery walls. Data collected included rockery wall parameters (wall height, rock size, wall batter, presence of chinking and drainage layer, etc.)horizontal dimensions between walls, heights and inclinations of adjacent site slopes, site improvements (pools, decks, etc.) and surficial soil types. Digital photographs of some of the rockery walls were taken. The attached table provides a summary of the observed details of the rockery retaining walls located at Lots 1-10. Comments Lower Two Rockery Walls. These are the two walls shown on the as-built drawings for the subdivision. The portions of the walls that were visible during our site reconnaissance appear to be built in general accordance with the engineering design. However, whether or not some of the design recommendations were implemented cannot be determined by a visual inspection following completion of construction. These items include: 1. The dimension of the rock in the direction perpendicular to the face of the wall; 2. The embedment of the wall; 3. The presence of the drainage backfill and drain pipe; 4. The construction sequence with respect to overbuilding and excavating the fill soils that are retained; 5. Some of the walls exhibit what we term "poor stacking" of rocks. Stacking refers to the placement of rocks such that each rock rests on two rocks below it and the size of voids between rocks visible on the wall face is minimized. The effect on overall wall stability of stacking is not clear, but in general the care exhibited in stacking the rocks is an indication of the overall care in building the wall. The above items (1-4) should be made available for review to confirm the walls were built conforming to the design. L:12002\PROJecrs\19397\POR2L122.DOC Page 3 of 6 15050 SW KoII Parkway COPYRIGHT 2002 KLEINFELDER,INC. Suite L Beaverton,OR 97006-6028 Tel.503-644-9447 Fax.503-643-1905 U9/17/02 TUE 11:21 FAX 503 643 1905 KLEINFELDER e005 I R KLEI NFELDER Upper Rockery Walls. These are all walls not shown on the subdivision as-built drawing. There is apparently no design information nor construction records for these walls. The following information should be made available for review: 1. Individual walls that are less than four feet in height generally do not require an engineer's design. However, for tiered walls (including walls less than four feet in height) that are separated horizontally by less the lower wall height should be designed to include the surcharge of the upper wall on the lower wall. 2. All the design details applicable to walls greater than four feet in height should be incorporated in lower height walls. This includes the overbuilding (with engineered fill) and re-excavation of retained fill slopes, wall drainage features, and workmanship of rock placement as described in the Lower Rockery Walls section above. 3. Records of fill placement and compaction testing for fills retained by all walls. General. These apply to all lots where the following situations are present. 1. Documentation of global slope stability analyses showing adequate factors of safety where cut and/or fill slopes are oriented steeper than 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical) and total slope heights are greater than 10 feet. 2. Records indicating effect of structural loads applied to walls or to the zone of influence of the wall defined by a line inclined at IH:IV (horizontal:vertical) from the rear base of the rock wall to the adjacent ground surface have been included in wall design. Risk- General All structures that are built on or of earth materials have risk of failure associated with their performance. Failure has a variety of definitions. These definitions cart range from structural deformation larger than expected (without collapse) to complete structure collapse with no impacts beyond the structure itself,to structural failure with catastrophic impacts to life and property. Sources of risk include quality of design and construction, impacts of structure failure on adjacent facilities, nature and variability of site soils, natural and man-made hazards, and others. Risk can never be completely eliminated. Risk is managed in part by employing experienced professionals to design and observe construction of these structures. When design and construction observation are not L:\2002\PRo7ECTs\19397\POR2L122.DoC Page 4 of 6 15050 SW Koll Parkway COPYRIGHT 2002 KLEINFELPER,INC- Suite L. Beaverton,OR.97006-6028 Tel.503-644-9447 Fax.503-643-1905 09/17/02 TUE 11:22 FAX 503 6431905 KLEINFELDER Q006 KLEI NFELDER performed by experienced professionals, the level of risk of structure failure increases. -- Of the potential sources of risk associated with structural failure, those most easily controlled are those which the owner has the most control over, namely design and construction observation by qualified professionals. Site-Specific Risks The houses built along the south side of S.W. Kable Street at the Erickson Heights Subdivision are built on a hillside location in silty soils that are prone to erosion, slope instability, and settlement, when proper geotechnical engineering design and construction observation are not provided. The general approach to development of these lots was to place fill on the hillside to provide more level back yards. The method used for this development was to build rockery retaining walls to retain portions of this fill placed to regrade the Jots. One effect of this retained fill is to increase the steepness of these slopes where fills are retained with walls. Increased slope steepness can increase the risk of slope instability, or slope failure. Rockery retaining walls can be safely designed for this application. When rockery walls are planned, their setting in the overall site design must be considered. That is, if multiple walls are planned, or steepening of natural slopes result from fill retained by retaining wall(s), or structures are placed near walls, then the effects of these factors must be considered. If multiple walls are built with close horizontal spacing, the loading from upper walls must be considered on lower walls. If these effects are not considered,the risk of failure is increased. The site, as it has been developed, includes many lots with multiple rockery walls. Many of these walls are located with horizontal separation between walls dictating that loading from upper walls should be included in the design of lower walls. In addition, when rockery walls are designed to retain fill soils, the fills should be properly placed and compacted beyond their finished location and cut back to the wall Iocation. However, many of the walls present on the lots in question appear to be undocumented, both in terms of wall design and of retained fill placement and compaction. Conclusion Based on a review of the available documents and on field observations of the completed walls, we recommend that the City not accept any of the rockery retaining walls present in the back yards of Lots 1 through 10 at S.W. Kable Street, without the documentation L:\2002\PRoJECTs\19397\POR2L122.DOc Page 5 of 6 15050 SW Kell Parkway COPYRIGHT 2002 KLEINFELDER,INC. Suite L Beaverton,OR 97006-6028 Tel. 503-644-9447 Fax.503-643-1905 09/17/02 TUE 11:22 FAX 503 643 1905 KLEINFELDER 1:ajoo7 1111 KLEINFELDER identified in the Comments section of this letter. The lowest wall on Lots 5 through 10 appear to meet all the design requirements of the Carlson wall design report, with the exception of wall batter. All remaining walls have additional issues relating to either non- compliance with the original design report, or lack both design and construction documentation. The evidence of structural distress (hairline cracks) of the swimming pool at Lot 3 does not appear to be directly related to the closest rockery wall present on this site, given the horizontal setback between the upper wall and the pool. Other factors may be influencing this situation, including the condition of fill adjacent to the pool and the aggregate effect of the three walls present at this lot and the condition of the fill.behind these walls. We appreciate this opportunity to provide services on this project. Please call if you have any questions. L:\20021FRosECrS\19397\POR2L122.Doc Page 6 of 6 15050 SW Koll Parkway COPYRIGHT 2002 KLEINFELDER,INC. Suite L Beaverton,OR 97006-6028 Tel.503-644-9447 Fax.503-643-1905 Wall Summary ed H Numbers of Maximum Observed Apprradmate Drainage --1 Lot Wap In the Lot Exposed Height Base Rack Well SurchargeJHorixontat Distance Wall Zone Boulder Slack Quality Subdivision p HofAddress Backyard of Walls(1) She(2) Embedment(3J To Beck ofWall Batter _Observed(4) and Stability 15) Wa6(6) Rothe ro c11tOf186 2 1)44.5 feel 2-4 feet 031 foot no surcharge no yes goad slack 20.5 feet 2-4 feel 0,54 foot no surcharge no no good shack slope at105 of Iran 2 H Di #11O655 4 1)2 feet 1.5-3 feet 1 foot no surcharge no no acceptable Such voids observed 2)5 feet 2-3 feet 1 fool surcharge from wall 1 2.5 feel , no no acceptable I- 3)4 feet ., 2.3 feet 1 fool surcharge born wall 214 feel no no acceptable I-' 4)4feet 2-4 feet 1 foot no surchage no _ no acceptable re no Kul Om 3 1)5feet 2-4 feet 1 foal no eurcharge no no marginal to good stack wail 1 isaboul 10-20 feel on the west end only 2}3 feet 13 feet 1 foot enachange front wail 2 feet no no marginal to good stack pcal:17 feet fru horizontal ds(ance from*per coal;slope at toe of war 2 a 3)4 feel 24 feet 1 foot no surcharge no no marginal le good shack _ 2H:1V slope104 appear. (eel horizontally above ural 1 • #41'10610 3 1)4.6 feel 2-4 feelpew_1 foot surcharge from pello slab/3-4(eel no no peslack o 2)4 feel 24 feet 1 foot surcharge from playhouse no no poor slack — La surcharge from well 2.5.5 feet patio footings(construction of patio is underway)located between Hank 2 co 3)4,5 feet 2.4 feel 1 fool end pa0ofoouregs no no poor stack and As 4)4.5 feet 2-4 feel I fool surcharge horn wall 315.5 feet no yes marginal slack x In center of taro ea stairway walls--pcaraarrairudpnabserved #511O766 4 1)4 fed 2-4 feet 1 feat no surdiarge no no h+ } r9 poet stack rade stairway running through sanest of al walls C 2)4.5 feet 24 feet 1 fool surcharge iron wal 1145 feet no no poor stack house 11B feet from wal Dol In no surcharge bort a 3H:1 V slope 3)4 feel 24 feet 1 foot above the coal no no pour slack x 4)4 feat 2.3 tee; 1 toot sno surcharge no yes — marginal stark a 034'1072Z 4 1)2feet 2-4 feel 1 fool noswZherge no no good slack house is beck 25 fee hoaizooialyfrom wall 2)3,5 feel 2-4 feel lfoot nosarharge no no goad slack no surcharge bul a 3:1 slope 3)4 fed 2-1 feel 1 fool above wall no no good slack x X 4)3.5 feet 2-4 feet 1 foal no surcharge no , yes good slack x Di i H no surcharge but 3:1 slope Z r47P10696 2 1)3„5 feet 2-4 feet i(oot above wall no no good slack x A 2)3.5eel 2.4 feet 1(oot no surcharge no yes good stack x C' x8110652 _ 4 I)3.5 feel 24 feel 1 foot no surcharge no no good stack og 2)3.5feet 2-4 feet 1 foot surcharge kern van 113.5feet no no good shade 3)4 feet 2.4 feel 1 foot surcharge from well fed no no —J 9 good stack a walls 9 and 4 ere oonllnuoua across lots 9 and 14 4)4 feet 2-4 feet 1 foot no surcharge no yes good stack x dopes- are well galled oonlirwous across lots 9 and 10 { 49/10630 3 1)4 feel 2-4 feet 1 fool no surcharge no no pod sleds 2)4(eel 2-4 feet 1 fool no surcharge no no ) good stack x 313,5 fees 2.4 feet 1 fool ,no surctrerge na yes 4 good stack a • #10110600 3 1)4feet 2-4feet 1(oal no surcharge no no geodsleck T 2)4 feet 2.4 feet 1 foal no surcharge re m good slack x 3)3.5 feel 24 feel hoot no surcharge no yes good slack x NOTES i T.._ I (1)Wall nos.are from upper to lower wale.For example-1)'Is wall l and upper wall,2?is coal 2 and lower wall. - ()The observed base rock drerneters are parrailel to ea wall(not perpendicular to the wall). Dee to soil filled the voids between the boulders.the base rock diameter perpendicular to the wall was nol measured. T (3)Wall embedment is based on observations Whose excavation to the wad suberade. -- "' (4)Drainage zone-ddrain rock is present In the voids between the bouMars. (5)Stack refers to the placernent of rocks as described in the repol batt — I (6)These refs are shownon the As-Bull drawings for the subdheioo end are the subject of The Canison Design report j SI Lt20c2prclecla1198931wai summa rya o 0 co Michael&Kathy Smith 10690 SW Kable St., Tigard, OR 97224 Voice 503-639-0894, Fax 503-670-7068 MichaelSmith007@aol.com kathsmth@aol.com TO: Albert Shields, City of Tigard FROM: Michael Smith SUBJECT: Erickson Heights,Lot 7,Retaining walls,drainage pipe DATE: October 7,2002 Here is a copy of Robert Wood's Oct. 2 letter to me regarding the above. I have deleted the second page, as it does not relate to this matter. Subsequently,on Friday,Oct.4,he and Steve Hunt, Project Manager for Erickson Heights, visited my wife and me. Robert said he was mistaken in his Oct. 2 letter stating, "There is no perforated drain pipe behind the rock wall on your property.", and informed us Friday there is such pipe and that it is connected to a drain. Today I requested written confirmation of the size and location of said pipe. Please keep me and the other affected homeowners informed of all developments surrounding this matter. cc.Robert Wood OCT-02-2002 WED 09:28 AM RENAISSANCE HOMES FAX NO. 5036561601 P. 02 1.11114411111111 0.111.111100 RENAISSANCE .(41h1ENT(A)u'o N7 ION TO: Michael Smith From: Robert Wood,V.P. of Construction Subject: Erickson Heights Lot 7, Retaining walls, drainage Date: October 2, 2002 In response to your demand letter dated 10/1/02 I offer the following response: 1.) There is no perforated drain pipe located behind the rock wall on your property. This is not our practice of construction, perforated pipe is placed behind walls to relieve hydrostatic pressure. Rock walls do not create an impervious structure, they naturally drain water therefore; it is highly unlikely that there would be problems due to these forces 2.) Batter is defined as the height of a wall above the retained soil behind it. This is something that the City of Tigard has questioned in their latest letter. I restate what I told you in our latest phone conversation. I disagree with the City on all aspects of their letter on your property. They approved design and construction on the walls, these walls. We do assume responsibility to resolve the issues the city has brought up. (see attached sketch) Bullet points one and two answer the questions you posed in your demand letter, but I believe three will address what you have asked me in our phone conversations. 3.) Regarding drainage from your lot to the lots below, this subdivision has been built for over two and a half years, this will he the third winter we have had no complaints from the homeowners in the lots below Erickson Heights due to water or other erosion concerns. Your home was built with relatively little disturbance to the back of your lot. So it seems unlikely we would have erosion problems now. With that said, if you now are seeing problems in drainage. I have in several recent phone conversations stated that Renaissance Homes will take appropriate measures to alleviate these issues. These measures may include grading or adding drainage pipe. (see attached sketch) 1672 SW Willamette Falls Drive • West Linn, Oregon 97068 • 503.557.8000 • Fax 503.656.1601 s�-.�-�,xsxlesrw�wauratemazgawassiMISZtvezi ,14„1121Lagearriteer4t*Attuttutamzeraimaltaritialit QCT-02-2002 WED 09:28 AM RENAISSANCE HOMES FAX NO. 5036561601 P. 04 ill tb/i (tom imp6, AvzL 'fir 21-41 0 ,,,,11,":. { i-7tv.- ‘ ' C' i ay.=.p- of / D gmb.,.ess460 1r-53 r4#4,40,06 Cop , C Tuesday, September 24, 2002 ! OF TIG ® OREGON Robert D. Wood, VP of Construction Renaissance Properties 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068 and Individual owners of Lots 1 - 10, Erickson Heights, list attached. RE Erickson Heights II: Retaining Walls, Fill, and Swimming Pool on Kable St. Dear Bob: Before getting into the substance of this letter I want to acknowledge that the City and I appreciate the cooperative spirit that you, personally, and Renaissance have shown since you and I first discussed the above matter. Based on our past experience I am hopeful that we can find a way to a voluntary and cooperative resolution of the issues of the retaining walls and associated fill on the lots.at Erickson Heights II, particularly Lots No. 1 - 10 on Kable St. However, as I am sure you understand, I am obliged to put you and the individual homeowners on formal notice about the City's position on this matter so that there may be no misunderstanding of the situation or of the need to address it immediately and expeditiously. Eight of the ten subject lots are now owner-occupied and the majority of the walls with which we have concern, the "Later" walls, were built without permits, inspections, or approval after the subdivision was approved and after purchase contracts were signed with the current owners. The City has been advised that, even though the "Later" walls and the swimming pool were built by or at the direction of Renaissance, the City must consider the individual homeowners to be in violation in addition to Renaissance. Accordingly, this letter is directed to Renaissance Construction in terms of style but should be construed as addressing each homeowner, as well, in terms of substance and in terms of putting all concerned on notice about the existence of various building code and municipal code violations and the need to correct them. Let me emphasize that our primary concern is with what we do not know about the walls and fill. We have seen no actual failure of any of the walls nor have our observations proven whether fill composition or compaction is adequate or inadequate. However, our investigation has raised serious questions about the walls and the retained fill and we turn to Renaissance to provide evidence of adequacy. The fact is that the "Subdivision" walls appear to differ from the approved design and the "Later" walls were built without permits or inspection by this 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 Retaining Walls,Fill,and Swimming Pool. Sept.24,2002;p. 2 of 7. division and, as far as we can tell, without compaction testing or construction observation by a geotechnical engineer. Accordingly, we cannot accept or approve these walls "as-is" and must require documentation of their proper original construction or appropriate corrective measures. SUMMARY: This letter does the following: 1. Addresses certain issues surrounding the rockery retaining walls and retained fill on various lots at Erickson Heights II, particularly Lots No. 1 - 10 on SW Kable St.; 2. Provides you with a copy of a report on the subject done at the City's request by Kleinfelder, Inc. which is herewith incorporated into the City's findings; 3. Advises you that, based on that report and on our own observations and review of documentation, the City herewith rescinds and withdraws any acceptance or approval, implicit or explicit, of the "Subdivision Walls," the lowest retaining wall built on Lot No. 4 and the lowest two retaining walls built on lots Nos. 5 - 10 in the subdivision phase of the project; Renaissance is herewith directed to provide appropriate documentation of the original construction observation and testing or to submit plans and permit applications for any corrective measures needed to allow the City to now accept those walls; 4. Advises you that the City finds that the "Later Walls," all other walls on the subject lots, nineteen in total on Lots Nos. 1 - 6 and 8 - 10, were constructed without permits and that you and the individual homeowners are thereby in violation of provisions of the Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Specialty Code (OOTFDSC) and of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) for causing or allowing that construction; Renaissance and the individual homeowners are herewith directed to now remove those walls or to submit plans and permit applications for their construction and provide appropriate documentation, testing, and any corrective measures needed to allow the City to subsequently accept the subject walls; 5. Advises you that the City finds that it has received no documentation of the nature, placement, and compaction of the retained fill behind each of the walls referenced in item #4 above; Renaissance and the individual homeowners are herewith directed to now remove that fill or to provide appropriate documentation, testing results, and any corrective measures needed to allow the City to subsequently accept the subject retained fills; 6. Advises you that the City finds that, as noted in my letter of July 8, 2002, Permit No. BUP2000-00421, for the construction of a swimming pool at Lot No. 3, 10832 SW Kable St., never received final inspection approval and expired by limitation effective June 7, 2001, advises you that the City finds that the site plans and engineering for the original permit did not accurately reflect the site, slope, and fill conditions, and notifies you and the respective homeowners that use of the pool without final inspection approval constitutes a violation of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), OOTFDSC, and TMC; Renaissance and the individual homeowners are herewith directed to now remove that pool or submit new plans that accurately reflect the site, slope, and fill conditions and a new permit application and to provide appropriate documentation, testing, and any corrective measures needed to allow the City to subsequently accept the subject pool; 7. Directs Renaissance and the individual homeowners to, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter, ti Retaining Walls,Fill,and Swimming Pool. Sept.24,2002;p. 3 of 7. A. submit to the City any original construction observation and testing data that would verify the proper construction of the "Subdivision" walls or submit plans and permit applications for their correction, and B. remove the "Later" walls and retained fill or submit permit applications and plans for their construction and any needed correction, and C. remove the swimming pool or submit a new permit application and plans for its construction and any needed corrections. We are allowing thirty instead of the more normal ten days for permit submission only because we anticipate that testing of the composition and compaction of the retained fill may be required before comprehensive plans can be developed; 8. Directs Renaissance and the individual homeowners to, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this letter, complete all work under the above mentioned permits and all corrective actions including receiving final inspection on all such permits from the Building Division of the City of Tigard. It is the City's hope that Renaissance will voluntarily take whatever steps are necessary to resolve all of the above issues with regard to each of the subject lots so that no court action will be necessary and so that the individual homeowners are minimally inconvenienced. If court action becomes necessary, please understand that we will be obliged to issue summonses to everyone involved without further notice and turn to the court to parse out responsibility. In order to facilitate resolution of these matters as quickly as possible, we urge each of the individual homeowners to voluntarily cooperate with Renaissance in providing access to their premises for such geotechnical engineers and construction personnel as Renaissance may need to dispatch in the course of researching the situation and developing plans for correction. The following reviews certain of the relevant points and findings regarding the items discussed above. "SUBDIVISION" WALLS: The original subdivision plans called for the rockery walls to have a lh:4v batter (slope into the hill,) drain rock and a 4" perforated drain pipe behind the walls, and evaluation by a soils engineer of the prepared and compacted foundation prior to rock placement. The approved plans declare that "wall construction shall be inspected and accepted by Carlson Testing." The observed walls have zero batter, the higher "Subdivision" wall shows no visible drain rock or drainage pipe, we have seen no documentation of construction observation, and the submitted compaction testing records do not clearly document just where the tests were performed. Although the subdivision design engineer, Harris McMonagle, issued a certification of compliance for all subdivision improvements, including the walls, there is no final acceptance letter for the walls from the geotechnical engineer, Carlson. Therefore, we must now question the accuracy of the Harris McMonagle certification of compliance. Simply on the lack of batter it is apparent that the "Subdivision" walls were not constructed in accordance with the submitted and approved design. Failure to construct these walls according Retaining Walls,Fill,and Swimming Pool. Sept.24,2002;p.4 of 7. to the approved plans constitutes a violation of TMC 14.04.090, a civil infraction for which maximum penalties of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. Since the lots were not individually established when these walls were built we will assess one violation for each of the two original walls for failure to construct the walls as had been approved in the subdivision plans. However, the individual lots do now exist and any future documents, such as acceptance letters, should reference the specific lots and any plans or permit applications should be taken out for specific lots. If Carlson has documentation sufficient for them to write a final acceptance letter for the "Subdivision" walls, including reference to the lack of batter on the walls, any other deviations from the original design, and the degree to which those walls now bear surcharge from the presence behind and above them of additional walls on all but one lot, we will consider accepting such a letter with additional or clarified documentation. Alternatively, we require that the geotechnical engineer explicitly address the question of the integrity of the walls and specify corrective measures which, when taken, will allow them to take professional responsibility for the walls' design and construction through a final acceptance letter. "LATER" WALLS: OOTFDSC 111.1 requires that any retaining wall over four feet in height (from the bottom of the footing or base stone) or bearing a surcharge be built under permit and for such walls we require appropriate design and engineering. The codes do not make an exception for "landscape" walls. Each of the nineteen "Later" rock retaining walls exceeds four feet in height or bears surcharge from either sloped fill or from the close proximity of a higher wall to the rear face of the lower or, in the case of the uppermost wall on Lot. No. 2, surcharges a lower wall and thus requires incorporation with the lower wall in permit and design. We have seen no plans or permit applications for these walls, no documentation of construction observation, and no records of compaction testing. Contrary to an earlier representation by Renaissance, what compaction tests we have received appear to have been conducted prior to completion of the subdivision and reference the fill existing at that time -- before these walls were constructed and before their retained fill was placed. Building these walls without a permit constitutes a violation of OOTFDSC Section 111.1 for each such wall, civil infractions for which maximum penalties of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. RETAINED FILL: The original design for the "Subdivision" walls called for the retained fill to be "placed and compacted as rocks are being placed." We have received no statements from the geotechnical engineer documenting that this practice was followed and was observed by them. The "Later" walls are of similar construction but no observation documentation or compaction test data has been submitted for any of those walls or their retained fill. Approval of the "Later" walls, with or without corrective measures, will require the submission of sufficient Retaining Walls,Fill,and Swimming Pool. Sept. 24,2002;p. 5 of 7. compaction or other test data, final acceptance letters from a geotechnical engineer taking professional responsibility for the adequacy of the walls' construction, and a similar letter from Renaissance taking responsibility for construction. If any of this data already exists please make it available to us clearly identified by the geotechnical engineers on a lot-by-lot and wall- by-wall basis. SWIMMING POOL: While construction of the swimming pool on Lot No. 3 was begun under permit, no final inspection was ever requested or performed and that permit has since expired. New or updated plans and engineering and a new permit application are required if the pool is to remain. The site plan and engineering submitted to the City with the original application failed to disclose or address the facts that that the site was a steeply sloped lot and that the pool would be constructed on and supported by, not native soil, but possibly uncompacted and apparently untested fill retained by a series of three retaining walls. Failure to submit accurate and sufficiently complete plans is a violation of OOTFDSC 112.1, a Class I Civil Infraction subject to penalties of up to $250.00 per day, per violation. As noted in the Kleinfelder report, the observed settlement and stress symptoms exhibited by the swimming pool on Lot No. 3 raise questions about the composition and compaction of the fill under and around the pool, particularly whether that fill is or was sufficiently compacted to carry and properly support the pool as designed. Approval of the pool, with or without any corrective measures, will require the submission of sufficient compaction or other test data concerning the fill under and around the pool in addition to the fill immediately behind the walls added to Lot No. 3 and a statement from the pool design engineer that the pool design is sufficient for the actual fill conditions and that he has inspected and accepted the installation. CODE CITATIONS: Construction Work Without Permit: OOTFDSC 111.1 Permit Required: "A permit shall be obtained before beginning construction, alteration, or repairs, ... Exceptions: 1. Structural. ... 1.18. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge (ORS 455.310)." Occupancy Without Final Inspection Approval: OSSC 109.1 Use and Occupancy: "No building or structure shall be used or occupied ... until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein." Occupancy Without Final Inspection Approval: OOTFDSC 113.1.5 Final Inspection. "Final inspection shall be made after the building is complete and ready for occupancy." Failure to Submit Required Plans: OOTFDSC 112.1 Plans Required. "When required by the Building Official, plans shall be drawn to scale and ... shall show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Plans shall include a plot plan drawn to scale showing the location of all easements, drainage Retaining Walls,Fill,and Swimming Pool. Sept.24,2002;p. 6 of 7. facilities, adjacent grades, property lines, the proposed building and of every existing building on the property. ..." Work in Violation of Chapter 14, TMC, Building Codes: TMC 14.04.090 Violation-Penalty- Remedies. "(a) No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair ... a building or structure in the city or cause the same to be done contrary to or in violation of this chapter." NOTICE OF VIOLATION: Renaissance is herewith charged with each of the violations listed below. The individual homeowners of Lots Nos. 1 - 6 and 8 - 10 are charged with those violations that apply to their individual lots. If these violations are corrected through voluntary compliance as outlined in this letter and if the City's enforcement costs are reimbursed as discussed herein, no further enforcement action will be taken by the City. If not, the City will issue summonses to all non- cooperating parties to court hearings and will seek court-ordered compliance and penalties. Renaissance: 23 violations. Work Without Permit: 19 walls, Lots Nos. 1 - 6 and 8 - 10, 19 violations. Failure to Submit Required Plans: 1 pool, Lot 3, 1 violation. Occupation Without Final Inspection Approval: 1 pool, Lot 3, 1 violation. Work in violation of TMC Chapter provisions, 2 walls, Lots Nos. 4 - 10, 2 violations. Lot No. 1: Work Without Permit: 2 walls, 2 violations. Lot No. 2: Work Without Permit: 4 walls, 4 violations. Lot No. 3: Work Without Permit: 3 walls, 3 violations. Failure to Submit Required Plans: 1 pool, Lot 3, 1 violation. Occupation Without Final Inspection Approval: 1 pool, 1 violation. Lot No. 4: Work Without Permit: 2 walls, 2 violations. Lot No. 5: Work Without Permit: 2 walls, 2 violations. Lot No. 6: Work Without Permit: 2 walls, 2 violations. Lot No. 8: Work Without Permit: 2 walls, 2 violations. Lot No. 9: Work Without Permit: 1 wall, 1 violation. Lot No.10: Work Without Permit: 1 wall, 1 violation. PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT COSTS: The violations noted above of the OOTFDSC, OSSC, and TMC are Class I Civil Infractions, each of which bears a potential penalty of up to $250.00 per day, per violation. We consider that each lot constitutes a different case and that each of the two "Subdivision" walls, each of the nineteen "Later" walls, and the swimming pool are separate matters. The total amount of potential penalties is substantial. The City does not, generally, seek extensive penalties in a punitive manner in cases where the parties come into voluntary compliance, even in a situation like this one where the total potential penalties may be substantial. However, the City does and will seek to recover all of Retaining Walls,Fill,and Swimming Pool. Sept. 24,2002;p. 7 of 7. its enforcement costs. In this matter those costs will include the cost of staff time and the out- of-pocket cost of professional services such as the Kleinfelder study. It would be a cooperative gesture if Renaissance would voluntarily pay for the cost of that study and for staff costs to date before the City needs to make formal demand for such payments. To that end I have enclosed (for Renaissance only) a copy of the Kleinfelder invoice and a statement of City staff costs to date. Please let me know whether Renaissance would like to pay those amounts now or would prefer to address them subsequently in a court hearing. I and the other staff at the City will be happy to meet with any of the interested parties, geotechnical engineers, pool designers and contractors, etc., to discuss the above. Please let me know if you have any questions and what your plans and intentions are regarding our invitation to bring these properties into compliance. Sincere , Albert Shields Building Codes Enforcement Officer cc: Gary Lampella, Building Official; Brian Rager, Engineering Manager; Gary Firestone, City Attorney; Property Files; Bill McMonagle, Harris McMonagle Associates; Andy Ewing, Carlson Testing; Ron Nelson, Neptune Swimming Pool Co.; Dirk Looijenga; George Otten. Owner list, Kable St. Lot No. Owner Name & Address 1. Renaissance Custom Homes 1672 Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068 2. William Y. & Nina K. Matsumoto 10856 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 3. J.C. and Kathleen Sherman 10832 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 4. Robert C. and Mary Meehl 10788 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 5. Renaissance Custom Homes 1672 Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068 6. Robert E. Vann 10722 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 7. Michael A. & Kathleen S. Smith 10690 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 8. Richard G. Hunter 10652 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 9. Tony J. & Dionnie L. Storino 10630 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 10. Pacific Northwest Erickson Indian American Trust 15685 SW 116 Ave., #313 King City, OR 97224 Y //i_111,P,'-'4111: a j1i,P,'-' Tuesday, September 24, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Robert D. Wood, VP of Construction Renaissance Properties 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068 RE Staff Time Allocated to Enforcement, Kable St. Retaining Walls and Fill. Dear Bob: This provides a recap of staff time and charges to date related to the matter of the retaining walls and fill on the ten lots on Kable St. As I indiciated in my letter of this date, the City will seek reimbursement from Renaissance of these costs as well as our out-of-pocket costs in hiring an independent geotechnical engineer to review the documentation and survey the physical location. If Renaissance would care to voluntarily pay these costs now we will consider that a tangible demonstration of cooperation and a step toward voluntary compliance. The City Staff Costs total an estimated $1,200.00 as shown below. The Kleinfelder invoice is for $2,184.75. The total of the two is $3,384.75, a check for which should be made payable to the City of Tigard. Category No. Hours Per Hour Total Cost Inspector/Enforcement Officer 16 $50.00 $800.00 Supervision/Management 8 50.00 400.00 Total 24 $1,200.00 Please let me know whether Renaissance wishes to take care of this now, voluntarily. Thanks for yo cooperatio. jii / / Alber : ields Buil,ing Codes Enforcement Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 INVOICE Terms:net 30 days Finance charge on past due amount 1.5%/mo(18%APR) k9KLENFELER Federal tax identification number 94-1 5325 13 Remit To: Kleinfelder, Inc. P. 0. Box 51958 Los Angeles CA 90051-6258 Telephone No: 503-639-4171 Invoice Date 06-Sep-02 City of Tigard Invoice No: 49604 Albert Shields Client No: 7816 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Contract No: Tigard OR 97223 Project No: 19793 Bill Thru Date: 25-Aug-02 Total Due This Invoice: $2, 184 .75 Project Name: ERICKSON HEIGHTS Top Task Name: 001 Task Description: Geotech Evaluation Professional Services Hours Rate Amount Administration 0.50 50.00 $25.00 General Field Activities 4.00 52.00 $208.00 General Field Activities 5.00 125.00 $625.00 General Field Activities 6.00 90.00 $540.00 Report/Document Preparation 5.00 125.00 $625.00 Site Reconnaissance 2.00 52.00 $104 . 00 Sub-Total $2, 127.00 Direct Charges Units Rate Amount MILEAGE, 2 WH/MILE 60.00 0.55 $33.00 DIGITAL CAMERA/DAY 1.00 24.75 $24 .75 Sub-Total $57.75 Total Amount Due This Invoice $2, 184.75 PLEASE INCLUDE THE ABOVE INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR PAYMENT FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS INVOICE,CALL THE PORTLAND OFFICE AT (503) 644-9447 INVOICE Terms:net 30 days Finance charge on past due amount 1.5%/mo(18%APR) KLEINFELDER Federal tax identification number 94-1532513 Page No: 2 Project No: 19793 Invoice No: 49604 TOTAL OUTSTANDING Total Due Current Over 30 Over 60 Over 90 Amount Due 2, 185 2, 185 0 0 0 Interest Due 0 0 0 0 0 Total Due 2, 185 2, 185 0 0 0 PLEASE INCLUDE THE ABOVE INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR PAYMENT FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS INVOICE,CALL THE PORTLAND OFFICE AT (503) 644-9447 Michael&Kathy Smith 10690 SW Kahle St., Tigard, OR 97224 Voice 503-639-0894, Fax 503-670-7068 MichaelSm ith 007@aol.corn kathsmth@aol.com September 26, 2002 Albert Shields Building Codes Enforcement Officer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Erickson Heights II: Retaining Walls, Fill Mr. Shields: We are not liable for any code or other alleged violations specified in your September 24, 2002 letter. Any action the City takes in this matter should be directed against Renaissance Custom Homes. We do not have any"Later"walls nor swimming pool, so are obviously not a part of those alleged violations. Renaissance represented to us prior to our purchase of Lot 7 and its improvements that the two lower retaining walls were built in conformance with City requirements. They also specifically represented that drainage/perf piping had been installed at the lower level. We have tried repeatedly to get written confirmation of this fact from Renaissance, so far without success, and have turned that matter over to our attorney. We will reasonably cooperate with Renaissance and the City in correcting any violations of the Subdivision requirements. Any and all costs associated with said corrections are the sole responsibility of Renaissance. Respectfully, /4;� Pin Michael A. Smith cc. Robert Wood, Renaissance Stan Rotenberg, Attorney Friday, October 25, 2002 CITY OF TIGAR® OREGON Steve Hunt Renaissance Properties 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068 RE SW Kable St., Tigard, OR 97223, Retaining Walls, Lots #2-10 Erickson Heights. Dear Steve: I was glad to learn from you yesterday that Carlson Testing may have located records pertaining to the observation of construction of the "added" retaining walls - those added to lots #2-6 and 8-10 subsequent to completion of the subdivision. We will be eager to receive a copy of their report. As.I mentioned in our conversation, however, even a complete documentation of contemporaneous construction observation and testing of the retained fill to meet Carlson's specifications will take us only part way to resolving the issues involved with the walls. Specifically, we need to receive, for each affected lot, a complete permit application for construction of the walls, consisting of a permit application, a site plan, and engineering design and calculations. Assuming that the applications are submitted and the permits issued, we will subsequently look to the design engineer for their report on their observations, any required test reports, and a final acceptance letter. Because of the steepness and height of the slope, the number of walls, and their short setbacks one from the other, this applies to Lot#5 as well as the other seven lots with added walls. We understand your desire to complete work on Lot #5 as soon as possible, now that it is almost ready for sale, but we cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the issues of the walls on that lot are resolved. The first hurdle is the submission of permit applications and the timeline for their submission expires on Monday at close of business when our counter closes at 4:00 p.m. The sooner we receive the application packets the sooner we will be able to work with you. To help move the permit application process forward I am enclosing a Site Permit Application. We need to receive one of these for each affected lot (along with the site plan and engineering.) I have spoken with Debbie Adamski at our permit counter to let her know that we hope and expect to receive these applications. If you or your people 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 have any questions about completing the form or the application package, please give her a call at 639-4171 X2450. I can be reached at X2426. I am concerned that little time remains before the expiration of the 30 day response period and by the fact that we have received nothing from Renaissance addressing the questions and issues concerning the swimming pool on Lot#3. On that issue, as you know, we also require a permit application with plans amended to explicitly address and reflect the slope, retaining wall, and fill conditions on the property and that response timeline also expires on Monday. I and the department are happy to cooperate with all who make an effort to work with us but without receiving any applications or communications on the subjects of the walls and the pool we will have no alternative after Monday other than to proceed with enforcement actions. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of any other assistance. 'PAO Albert Shield Building odes Enforcement Officer cc: Robert Wood, Gary Lampella, Hap Watkins, Brian Rager, Gary Firestone AnIr Tuesday, November 05, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Robert D. Wood, VP of Construction Renaissance Properties 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068 RE Erickson Heights II, Retaining Walls and Fill, Lots #2-10. Dear Robert: Thank you for your cooperation in taking steps to resolve the issues concerning the rockery retaining walls and fill on Lots #2 - 10 at Erickson Heights II. Permit applications and plans regarding the subject walls and fill have been received by the City of Tigard. The lot numbers, street addresses, and permit numbers are listed on the attached exhibit. The City recognizes this submission as meeting the timeline requirement set forth in the September 24, 2002 Notice of Violation letter sent to Renaissance but, as you know, the application and plans do not resolve or propose corrections regarding the issues raised about this site in that September 24th letter from the City, the September 17th report from Kleinfelder, Inc., or the October 21' report from Carlson. We will accept these plans as a pro-forma submission pending receipt of revised and updated plans upon which we will conduct a formal plan review. Please submit plans revised to address and correct the issues and concerns raised in the above letter and reports. We have not yet assigned a permit number to the application for lot #7, 10690 SW Kable. The two rockery walls on that lot were included in the original plans for the subdivision. If corrective work on those walls is required before the design engineer, Carlson, can verify the adequacy of their construction and issue a final acceptance letter, please let us know and we will issue a permit on this property. If Carlson is able to approve these walls as having been constructed in accordance with their original plans and will issue a final acceptance letter on them, specific for this lot, please forward that letter to us. Please note that the City's September 24th letter provided 30 days for submission of the permit applications and a total of 90 days or 60 days additional for completion of all corrections, including plan review, construction, inspection, and approval. As of today, November 5th, 52 days remain of that 90 day period, which ends at close of business on Friday, December 27, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 2002. Please note further that final inspection approval will require submission of a final acceptance letter from the design engineer(s). Sincerely, 647 t‘' Gary Lampella, Building Official cc: Steve Hunt, Hap Watkins, Albert Shields cI ERICKSON HEIGHTS II, RETAINING WALLS AND FILL Lot No. Permit No. Street Address 2 SIT2002-00028 10856 SW Kable St. 3 SIT2002-00029 10832 SW Kable St. 4 SIT2002-00030 10810 SW Kable St. 5 SIT2002-00027 10788 SW Kable St. 6 SIT2002-00031 10722 SW Kable St. 7 SIT2002-000XX 10690 SW Kable St. 8 SIT2002-00032 10652 SW Kable St. 9 SIT2002-00033 10630 SW Kable St. 10 SIT2002-00034 10600 SW Kable St. 41, JJ �i Friday, January 3, 2003 C11Y OF TIGARD OREGON Robert D. Wood,VP of Construction Renaissance Properties 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068 and Individual owners of Lots 2-10, Erickson Heights, list attached. RE Erickson Heights II: Retaining Walls and Fill—Status Review of Plans, Permits, and Penalties. To all concerned: Good News! Agreements have been reached,permits are ready to be issued, and we have no reason to doubt but that everyone involved is fully committed and will cooperate wholeheartedly in completing corrective work on the subject retaining walls as soon as possible. However, to provide the status report many of you have asked for, to make sure there are no misunderstandings, and to encourage all of the parties to cooperate to the fullest extent, it is appropriate that I review the status of the plans to correct the violations noted in my letter of September 17, 2002, the permits that have been applied for, and the penalties associated with those violations and related deadlines. "SUBDIVISION"WALLS: The lower walls on lots 4-10, those identified in my September 17th letter as the"Subdivision Walls"have all been accepted by the responsible geotechnical engineer, Carlson Testing, Inc. (CTI), as"being constructed in accordance with CTI's recommendations and the standards of practice for construction of rockery walls." Accordingly, those walls have been accepted by the City as meeting the requirements of the original subdivision permit and as being in compliance with the Building Codes and City regulations. The violations cited in the September 17th letter pertaining to those walls are herewith withdrawn. In effect,this releases the owners of Lot#7 from any further responsibility in this matter, since no other walls were constructed on Lot#7. For each lot, a copy of the Carlson acceptance letter pertaining to that lot is attached to the owner's copy of this letter. "ADDED"WALLS: Regarding the remaining"Added Walls"on lots 2-6 and 8-10, Renaissance has agreed to remove each those walls, excavate the subgrade to firm material, and rebuild the walls in accordance with Carlson Testing's rockery wall design and with 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 Retaining Walls,Fill,and Swimming Pool. Jan.3,2003;p.2 of 3. representatives from Carlson Testing providing continuous observation of the process. Carlson Testing will observe the subgrade soils exposed under and behind the walls and will determine when excavation is sufficient and re-filling, compaction, and re-construction can begin. Renaissance has submitted permit applications and plans to the City regarding this corrective work. Those applications have now been approved and the permits are ready to be issued: Once construction begins, City inspectors will observe the construction periodically in addition to the continuous observation and verification being provided by Carlson. Construction and correction will not be complete or accepted by the City until, for each lot, a final summary report is received from Carlson verifying compliance with their design and accepting all supported or retained fill at each retaining wall, including, in the case of Lot#3,the presence of the swimming pool. Until such a report is received for a given lot and the City grants final inspection approval under that permit, the violations previously cited remain in effect against both Renaissance and the individual property owners of that lot and both are responsible for effecting the corrections and payment of any penalties. This requests that the respective homeowners cooperate in providing Renaissance and their contractors with access to the subject walls so that the work may be completed as expeditiously as possible. TIMING AND PENALTIES: A building permit does not normally restrict the time allowed for construction other than providing for expiration after 180 days of inactivity. On the other hand, the issuance of a building permit by the City does not vitiate, modify, or override a previous order by the City to correct violations within a specific time period nor does the issuance of a permit estop the City from subsequently ordering correction of violations encompassed by the permit and specifying timelines for such correction. In this case,we had previously established deadlines for correction. And, in this case, each of the deadlines set by the City by which correction was to have been completed have passed without completion. Under my order of September 17th, all work on all lots was to have been completed by December 27th. It was not. By subsequent agreement under the terms of a Temporary and Conditional Certificate of Occupancy, all work on Lot#5 was to have been completed by December 2nd. It was not. Since these timelines have been broken the City could and reserves the right to seek to have all penalties revert back to the$250.00 per day, per violation, figure cited in my September 17th letter. If,however, the timelines set forth below are met and if the penalties previously agreed upon are paid by Renaissance, we will not seek to reinstate the higher figures. Because permits have now been applied for and are ready for issue, the City will extend the previously passed deadlines for another thirty(30) days. The permits can be paid for and picked up today, January 3,2003. If all work under the permits is completed, all reports and final summary letters received by the City, and all previously agreed upon penalties paid by Renaissance prior to the City's close of business on Monday, February 3, 2003, we will assess no further penalties and will dismiss charges against all involved. If extremely severe weather significantly delays work we will consider requests for extension on a day-by-day basis if made on the day of the severe weather. Otherwise, if the February 3rd deadline is not met we will, Retaining Walls,Fill,and Swimming Pool. Jan.3,2003;p.3 of 3. without any further delay or discussion, issue summonses to all concerned on Tuesday,February 4th,and let the court resolve any remaining issues. It is my hope and expectation that we will shortly have a mutually satisfactory end to this project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, �/ be Shields Building Codes Enforcement Officer cc: Gary Lampella, Building Official; Brian Rager, Engineering Manager; Gary Firestone, City Attorney; Property Files; Bill McMonagle, Harris McMonagle Associates; Brian Ranney and Jeanne Niemer, Carlson Testing; Ron Nelson, Neptune Swimming Pool Co.; Dirk Looijenga; George Otten. Owner list, Kable St., 1/3/03 Lot No. Owner Name &Address 2. William Y. &Nina K. Matsumoto 10856 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 3. J.C. and Kathleen Sherman 10832 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 4. Robert C. and Mary Meehl 10810 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 5. Martin&Debra VanBaardwyk 10788 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 6. Robert E. Vann 10722 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 7. Michael A. &Kathleen S. Smith 10690 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 8. Richard G.Hunter 10652 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 9. Tony J. &Dionne L. Storino 10630 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 10. Pacific Northwest Erickson Indian American Trust 15685 SW 116 Ave.,#313 King City, OR 97224 Richard G Hunter 10652 SW Kable Street Tigard OR 97224 (503) 431-2293 January 28, 2003 Mr. Robert Wood Vice President of Construction RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 1672 SW Willamette Falls Drive West Linn OR 97068 Re: Erickson Heights, Lot 8 Dear Mr.Wood: February 4th is almost upon us and as of this writing I have heard nothing from anyone at Renaissance Homes about arrangements for your company to start the work ordered by the City of Tigard. I spoke to Albert Shields about a week ago and that conversation left me with the very clear impression that he has every intention of going forward with legal action if you fail to meet his deadlines. Since you have not even commenced the work at this date I cannot see how you can possibly complete it by February 4th. If the City initiates legal action of any sort, by association I will be drawn into it and I will incur legal fees to protect my interests. Because this entire matter is of your doing, I fully expect that you will compensate me for such legal fees. It is further my expectation that, upon completion of the re-construction ordered by the City with regard to my property, Renaissance will fully restore all the landscaping that will have been damaged or destroyed in the process. I have a complete set of photos of the area as evidence and a guide in such restoration. I am hoping that you will commence the required work soon in order to avert any further escalation of the City's enforcement actions. Sincerely, Richard G Hunter cc: Steve Bennett rA _ . Monday, February 24, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Renaissance Development Curtis Heintz Excavatio 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. 27475 SW 145th Ave. West Linn, OR 97068 Sherwood, OR 97140 Attn: Robert D. Wood, VP of Construction Attn: Curtis Heintz Neptune Swimming Pool Company 13785 SE Ambler Rd. Clackamas, OR 97015 Attn: Ron Nelson and Individual owners of Lots 2-6 and 8-10, Erickson Heights. RE Erickson Heights II: Retaining Walls and Fill and Swimming Pool—First Appearance Date. The purpose of this note is to advise each of the individual homeowners and to confirm to the corporate representatives noted above that the Municipal Court has received statements of representation from attorneys for each of the respondents in the above matter. In each case, a denial or written appearance has been entered and no personal appearances will be made or necessary on Wednesday, February 24, at the previously scheduled First Appearance. A court hearing on the case is scheduled for Thursday, March 6th, and 1:30 p.m. However, please note that one of the respondents' attorneys has asked the court to reschedule that hearing in order to allow time for the parties to try to resolve the issues. The court will not make a decision about the reschedule request before Wednesday and as soon as we know whether the hearing will be rescheduled and, if so, to what date, we will let you know. I continue to hope that we will shortly achieve a satisfactory end to this project. Please let me kn if you have any questions. Sincerely Al=-rt Shields Building Codes Enforcement Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 _..k /�a,,���m''ilq���yIP1411 l(it. • CITY OF TIGARD Thursday, June 05, 2003 OREGON Ron Nelson Neptune Swimming Pool Co. 13785 SE Ambler Rd. Clackamas, OR 97015 RE Request for Information: 10832 SW Kable St., Tigard, Lot#3 Erickson Heights II, Renaissance Development, retained fill at swimming pool location. Per your request for copies of any documents addressing whether the fill behind the retaining walls consisted of engineered or non-engineered fill, particularly the fill behind the uppermost rockery retaining wall and lying under and around the swimming pool built at that location by Neptune for Renaissance, I have two documents in my files that directly address that. The first and most recent is the 5/27/03 report from GeoPacific Engineering titled Rock Walls and Slope Evaluation, Lot 3 - Erickson Heights, which you told me you have already received a copy of from your attorney. The second is a letter to me from Travis Brooks of Renaissance in response to my 7/9/02 letter to Steve Hunt, yourself, Dirk Looijenga, and George Otten. I have attached a copy per your request. Travis's letter is undated but was received by me on August 12, 2002. Please be advised that most of the specific statements about dates and approvals made by Mr. Brooks in this letter are not correct, including the statements that "The pool was dug into engineered fill ..." and "the retaining walls for Erickson Heights 1-10 were reviewed, inspected, and approved as part of the grading plan for the P.U.D." We have since established that while there were two walls constructed on lots 5-10 and one on lot 4 as part of the subdivision, no such walls were built on lots 1-3. All of the walls on lots 1-3 and all of the "added" walls on lots 4-10 were added after final subdivision approval and were built without permits, approved plans, or observation or compaction testing by a geotechnical engineer. The test boring data in the 5/27/03 report mentioned above confirm that "the upper 9 feet of fill in the borings [between the uppermost wall and the swimming pool] was only moderately compact and not likely to have been engineered." I hope this provides the information you desired. If you have any questions please call me at 503-718-2426. Albert Shields Building Codes Enforcement Officer cc: Property File, City Attorney. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 r 4 CITY OF TIGARD Tuesday, August 26, 2003 OREGON Jim Imbrie GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. 7312 SW Durham Road Portland, OR 97224 RE Your August 22, 2003 report: "Summary of Geotechnical Observation of rockery Wall Reconstruction and Pin Pile Placement Lots 2, 3, and 8 - Erickson Heights, Tigard, Oregon. Dear Jim: We forwarded to you last evening copies of our letters to the Lot 2 and Lot 8 homeowners reporting that, regarding those lots, we have accepted your report and have granted final approval to the building permits for the retaining walls added to those lots subsequent to the completion in late 1999 of the subdivision phase of development. In reviewing the subject report as it relates to Lot#3, however, we need to request further confirmation or clarification before we can similarly accept the report and grant final approval. GeoPacific's 8/22 report does not address or mention the quality or compaction of the fill behind the upper wall on Lot#3 other than acknowledging that, contrary to the Kelly report, that fill was added after the subdivision was complete in 1999 and, therefore, after the last compaction testing was done. However, the permit issued, SIT2002-00029, includes both the walls added to the property and approximately 240 cubic yards of fill. In order to grant final approval on the permit we need to have an explicit inclusion of the fill in your final acceptance letter. Further, the 5/27/03 GeoPacific report appears to make the point that the Factor of Safety of the conclusion and recommendation, i.e., the proposed and now completed 8 ft. wall, depends upon the adequacy of the support provided to the pool by the retained fill. In other words, that the Factor of Safety of the new wall depends upon the quality and degree of compaction of the fill retained behind the upper wall, about which there is no test data other than the GeoPacific borings. Are you satisfied that the resultant wall assembly, including the 8 ft. wall and the upper wall remaining from the original construction, meet your design parameters and deliver the desired 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 e Factor of Safety regardless of the degree of compaction of the fill retained behind the upper wall and that the further testing of the retained fill mentioned in both your and Mr. Kelly's earlier reports is not now required? If so, please confirm this to us and we will be pleased to grant final approval to the work on Lot #3. If not, please advise us as to what additional testing may be required. Thank you for your cooperation. :: 'ei " rely S •s Building Co•es Enforcement Officer cc: Larry Blake, Esq.; Jack Hoffman, Esq.; Property File. Friday, September 05, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Stephanie Marcella 10888 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97224 RE"Added" retaining walls on Lots 1 — 10, Erickson Heights, your Lot#1. This confirms, for your records and files, that all issues relating to the retaining walls constructed on your lot and the other subject Kable Street lots by Renaissance Development and Curtis Heintz Excavation have now been resolved. The original "subdivision walls" were accepted by the geotechnical engineer for the subdivision, Carlson Testing, Inc., and approved by the City of Tigard, as noted in my letter of January 3, 2003. Subsequently, all of the "added walls"on each of the lots have been brought under permit, corrected as required, and accepted by the appropriate geotechnical engineers or otherwise approved by the city of Tigard. All of the permits have received final approval, and all other issues relating to this matter have been resolved. The City of Tigard considers your lot, and each of the others originally involved in this issue, to now be in compliance with the building code requirements regarding retaining walls. Accordingly, the terms of the Notice of Violation given to you in my letter of September 24, 2002, are hereby declared to be satisfied and we consider this case to be closed. Renaissance is a highly-regarded home-builder and we are very pleased that, with your cooperation and with Renaissance's, we have been able to resolve any misunderstandings or differences of opinion and bring this matter to a close. We have enjoyed working with Renaissance in the past and that we look forward to working with them in the future. Thank you for your cooperation. We at the City wish you many years of enjoyment in your home. Sincerely, V ,00 Al ert Shields Building Codes Enforcement Officer cc: Randy Sebastian, Renaissance Development; Curtis Heintz, Curtis Heintz Excavation; Jack Hoffman, Esq.; Larry Blake, Esq.; Property File. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 I,L4ii�U�11 J Tuesday, September 24, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Robert D. Wood, VP of Construction Renaissance Properties 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068 RE Staff Time Allocated to Enforcement, Kable St. Retaining Walls and Fill. Dear Bob: This provides a recap of staff time and charges to date related to the matter of the retaining walls and fill on the ten lots on Kable St. As I indiciated in my letter of this date, the City will seek reimbursement from Renaissance of these costs as well as our out-of-pocket costs in hiring an independent geotechnical engineer to review the documentation and survey the physical location. If Renaissance would care to voluntarily pay these costs now we will consider that a tangible demonstration of cooperation and a step toward voluntary compliance. The City Staff Costs total an estimated $1,200.00 as shown below. The Kleinfelder invoice is for $2,184.75. The total of the two is $3,384.75, a check for which should be made payable to the City of Tigard. Category No. Hours Per Hour Total Cost Inspector/Enforcement Officer 16 $50.00 $800.00 Supervision/Management 8 50.00 400.00 • Total 24 $1,200.00 Please let me know whether Renaissance wishes to take care of this now, voluntarily. Thanks for yo cooperatio / = Albert : ields Built ing Codes Enforcement Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Lampella, Hap Watkins /1040041A r4.14:1.41( inewoo FROM: Albert Shields RE: Retaining Walls Update 10888 SW Kable St., Erickson Hgts. Lot#1 CC: Jim Hendryx, Brian Rager DATE: Friday, October 11, 2002 [With EMail down we'll go back to paper for today.] FYI — No action needed at this time. 1. Walls on Lot#1 have been brought into compliance. The lower wall has been reduced in height in the few places where it had exceeded 4 ft. and the upper wall has been rebuilt as two walls, one 4 ft. or less and a new 2 —3 ft. wall with a nice, level, 6 to 8 ft. setback. I've lifted the hold on MST2001-00550 so that final mechanical and building inspections can proceed. I'll prepare a letter acknowledging the resolution of the violations on this lot. 2. Renaissance management will be back in town Monday from "meetings" out of state and I expect to hear more next week from Bob Wood, et al, about their plans on the other lots. 3. They appear to have site super Steve Hunt taking the point on resolving the wall issues. He understands that the walls on the steeper lots can not likely be rebuilt as exempt in the same way. I spoke with him at length on-site today about the need to have Carlson or some other geotech go over each of the remaining walls and for Renaissance to do whatever it takes to enable a geotech to sign off on them. I made it clear to him that if they will take care of this "voluntarily" we will assess no penalties other than recovering costs but that if we bring them into court I expect to win substantial penalties without much difficulty. I am cautiously optimistic that they will now cooperate. Albert. 10/11/02 Tags for Parcel # :2S110DA-04000 12:32:03PM TIDEMARK COMPUTER SYSTEMS. INC. "i US e. ,il 4a. -.x, .:ar -, . ...ih ,; mgr.. C a I- f< � .: . ,., � ! �..,u' e'-. 4A' �:�, ✓.i. �% -^i � �,'�. is i � .- ,"x" 4, ..i, i ".+? i "� �� .r.. = fes,.. .: 7 . � ,_ - '.8�t �.?_. ^�" ppl ;., �_ � nom ... . alue�<�. :i .. . ';SII©lel- � ,: Desenpti©n.. ,;�: �Im �ro-= ��.,: ���: � :., �:. x � �$ �,:: '� - n� �I���: .� NQtes �, ��u i�,w �.. gym: �� � t�:�UPd�ted.���:- �Y . e BLDG N Hold With Override Building Dept Action OK to final,retaining walls brought into compliance 10/11/02 AMS 10/11/02,Hold lifted,AMS. Please delete this tag when case finalled. 1 of 1 ParcelTags..rpt �a MEMORANDUM iftedimpti TO: Jerree Gaynor FROM: Albert Shields RE: Kleinfelder Invoice(s) CC: Hap Watkins, Gary Lampella DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 Enclosed are invoices received from Kleinfelder, Inc. for professional services under contract regarding the retaining walls and fill on Lots #1-10 on Kable St., Erickson Heights II Subdivision and the City's notification to Renaissance Development that they are in violation of provisions of the Building and Municipal Codes for constructing the subject walls without permit, plans, testing, or inspection. I don't have a copy of the signed contract but I have attached a copy of the draft I had presented to Gary and Jim. The original estimate was that the total cost would be under$2,500. In fact, the actual total is very close but exceeds that amount slightly. The actual total is $2,771.25, of which $2,184.75 is billed on an 8/25/02 invoice and $586.50 on 9/22/02. We have received the reports and analyses contemplated in the contract and represented by the charges to date. As contemplated in the contract, we may yet request other services of Kleinfelder including possible court appearances, so this should be considered an interim rather than a final billing. In a letter to Renaissance on 9/24/02 I gave them the opportunity to pay the first invoice voluntarily, rather than leave it to the City to pay and then seek court-ordered reimbursement from Renaissance. As of today that invoice has not been paid so it is now appropriate that the City pay the total due to Kleinfelder. Accordingly, this requests payment to Kleinfelder, Inc. of the attached invoices totaling $2,771.25. Please let me kno 'if ou eed anythi r• ore. INVOICE Terms:net 30 days Finance charge on past due amount 1.5%/mo(18%APR) Federal tax identification number 94-1532513 kg KLEINFELDER Remit To: Kleinfelder, Inc. P. O. Box 51958 Los Angeles CA 90051-6258 Telephone No: 503-639-4171 Invoice Date 06-Sep-02 City of Tigard Invoice No: 49604 Albert Shields Client No: 7816 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Contract No: Tigard OR 97223 Project No: 19793 Bill Thru Date: 25-Aug-02 Total Due This Invoice: $2, 184.75 Project Name: ERICKSON HEIGHTS Top Task Name: 001 Task Description: Geotech Evaluation Professional Services Hours Rate Amount Administration 0.50 50.00 $25.00 General Field Activities 4.00 52.00 $208.00 General Field Activities 5.00 125.00 $625.00 General Field Activities 6.00 90.00 $540.00 Report/Document Preparation 5.00 125.00 $625.00 Site Reconnaissance 2.00 52.00 $104 .00 Sub-Total $2, 127.00 Direct Charges Units Rate Amount MILEAGE, 2 WH/MILE 60.00 0.55 $33.00 DIGITAL CAMERA/DAY 1.00 24.75 $24.75 Sub-Total $57.75 Total Amount Due This Invoice $2, 184.75 PLEASE INCLUDE THE ABOVE INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR PAYMENT FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS INVOICE,CALL THE PORTLAND OFFICE AT (503) 644-9447 INVOICE Terms:net 30 days Finance charge on past due amount 1.5%/mo(18%APR) K� K LEI N F E L ER Federal tax identification number 94-1532513 Page No: 2 Project No: 19793 Invoice No: 49604 TOTAL OUTSTANDING Total Due Current Over 30 • Over 60 Over 90 Amount Due 2, 185 2, 185 0 0 0 Interest Due 0 0 0 0 0 Total Due 2, 185 2, 185 0 0 0 PLEASE INCLUDE THE ABOVE INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR PAYMENT FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS INVOICE,CALL THE PORTLAND OFFICE AT (503) 644-9447 INVOICE Terms:net 30 days Finance charge on past due amount 1.5%/mo(18%APR) kI KLEINFELDER Federal tax identification number 94-1532513 Remit To: Kleinfelder, Inc . P. O. Box 51958 Los Angeles CA 90051-6258 Telephone No: 503-639-4171 Invoice Date 27-Sep-02 City of Tigard Invoice No: 54125 Albert Shields Client No: 7816 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Contract No: Tigard OR 97223 Project No: 19793 Bill Thru Date: 22-Sep-02 Total Due This Invoice : $586 . 50 Project Name: ERICKSON HEIGHTS Top Task Name : 001 Task Description: Geotech Evaluation Professional Services Hours Rate Amount Administration 0 . 50 50 . 00 $25 . 00 Design 3 . 00 90 . 00 $270 . 00 Foundation/Excavation Obsery 2 . 00 52 . 00 $104 . 00 Report/Document Preparation 1 . 50 125 . 00 $187 . 50 Sub-Total $586 . 50 Sub-Total Phase: 001 $586 . 50 Total Amount Due All Phases $586 . 50 Total Amount Due This Invoice $586 .50 PLEASE INCLUDE THE ABOVE INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR PAYMENT FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS INVOICE,CALL THE PORTLAND OFFICE AT (503) 644-9447 INVOICE Terms:net 30 days Finance charge on past due amount 1.5%/mo(18%APR) kIKLEINFELDER Federal tax identification number 94-1532513 Page No: 2 Project No: 19793 Invoice No: 54125 TOTAL OUTSTANDING Total Due Current Over 30 Over 60 Over 90 Amount Due 2 , 771 2, 771 0 0 0 Interest Due 0 0 0 0 0 Total Due 2 , 771 2, 771 0 0 0 PLEASE INCLUDE THE ABOVE INVOICE NUMBER ON YOUR PAYMENT FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS INVOICE, CALL THE PORTLAND OFFICE AT (503) 644-9447 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Hendryx - FROM: Albert Shields RE: Oregonian/Tigard Times Articles — Pending Renaissance Court Case. CC: Gary Lampella, Hap Watkins DATE: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Today's Oregonian article concerns a building codes enforcement case involving Renaissance Development scheduled for hearing in Municipal Court next Thursday, 3/6. Renaissance Development, after receiving subdivision approval, constructed 19 rockery retaining walls on 9 steep lots on Kable St. without permits, plan approval, geotechnical inspection, or testing. From 1 to 4 walls were constructed on each lot as the lots were sold. The walls required permits because of their height and surcharge from fill or higher walls. Construction took place without the City's knowledge or approval between approval of the subdivision and the first inspections for footings and foundations. Renaissance at first falsely maintained to inspectors that the walls were built and approved during subdivision. A swimming pool was built on Lot#3 above three such walls. The pool had a permit but the plans made no reference to the walls or to the placement on retained fill and no final inspection was called for. A 7/2/02 complaint from the owner about cracking of the pool led to our discovering the existence of the walls and to our directing Renaissance to take out permits and bring the walls and pool on Lot#3 into compliance. The initial deadline expired without compliance and we served a formal Notice of Violation on 9/25 for all of the lots with deadlines of 30 days for permits and 90 days for completion. Plans and permit submissions were not complete until 12/23, permits were ready for issue on 1/3/03, and the overall deadline was extended to 2/3. Lots #1 and 5 were bought into compliance before that date and 7 lots remain in violation. Following the expiration of the last extension date, summonses and complaints were served on Tuesday, 2/11, and a hearing is scheduled for Thursday, 3/6. Respondents' attorneys have requested a postponement. The City hired independent geotechnical engineers to survey the walls and both they and Renaissance's own geotechs, Carlson Testing, found the walls unacceptable. The City's focus has been on gaining compliance and we have sought every reasonable opportunity to work with Renaissance. A Voluntary Compliance Agreement was signed for Lot #5. The timeline on that agreement was missed and an extension was granted with an attorney agreement on new dates and payment of penalties but that deadline too was missed. Overall, Renaissance failed to meet 5 deadlines for permit submission or completion. After completing work on Lot#5 on 1/13 Renaissance made no further efforts to correct the situation and the City was left with no option but to turn to the court. The summonses and complaints reference all of the walls and occupancy of the pool without final inspection approval. Because of the number of walls and missed deadlines and the two year occupancy of the pool the total stated potential penalties amount to over$175,000.00 but our objective is to gain court-ordered compliance and the reimbursement of all out-of-pocket and staff time enforcement costs. MEMORANDUM TO: Jim lmbrie -numun, FROM: Albert Shields RE: Geotechnical reports and requirements — Kable St. Retaining Walls CC: Hap Watkins DATE: Friday, March 28, 2003 Jim, as I said on the telephone, I understand that Renaissance Development has engaged you to perform a geotechnical analysis of the "added" retaining walls and fill on lots Nos. 2-4, 6, and 8-10 on Kable St. I am happy to help you and Renaissance move forward on this project by providing, as you requested, copies of previous geotechnical reports by Carlson Testing, for Renaissance, and by Kleinfelder, Inc., for the City. Copies of those documents are enclosed, as listed below. To make life a little easier for you I've also enclosed a list of the current property owners as of 2/11/03, and copies of a couple of my letters to Renaissance that refer to the reports and to the questions we have about the walls and fill. Our understanding with Renaissance is that you will be addressing each of the walls that remain out of compliance (Lots No. 2-4, 6, and 8-10, in our assessment) with the specific objective of recommending any corrective measures that would bring the walls into compliance. You should know that, regarding the swimming pool on Lot No. 3, we have given final inspection approval on the swimming pool permit for the pool construction as being consistent with the engineered design but that that approval does not in any way constitute an approval or acceptance of the retaining walls or retained fill on Lot No. 3. My letter of July 9, 2002 addressed the walls and pool on Lot#3 and my letter of September 24, 2002 broadened the issue to address all of the walls on Lots #1-10. Subsequently, the lowest wall on Lot#4 and the lowest two on Lots #5-10, which were built during the subdivision phase, were accepted by Carlson and by the City. No other walls were added to Lot#7 and the walls on Lots #1 and 5 have subsequently been corrected, leaving the walls on Lots #2-4, 6, and 8-10 at issue. Enclosures: 1. List of property owners. 2. Letter, July 9, 2002, from Albert Shields to Renaissance re Lot#3. 3. Report from Kleinfelder, Inc., September 17, 2002, on Lots 1-10. 4. Letter, September 24, 2002, from Albert Shields to Renaissance and homeowners outlining the City's concerns and requirements re Lots 1-10. 5. Letter, October 11, 2002, from Albert Shields accepting the corrections made to the walls on Lot#1. 6. Report from Carlson Testing, October 25, 2002, on Lots 1-10. 7. Reports from Carlson Testing, November 19, 2002, regarding the "Subdivision" (lower) walls on Lots#4-10. 8. Letter, January 3, 2003, from Albert Shields acknowledging acceptance of the "Subdivision" walls on Lots #4-10 and releasing Lot#7 from further consideration. 9. Report from Carlson Testing, August 2, 2002, regarding Lot#5. 10.Report from Carlson Testing, Decembert 2, 2002, regarding Lot#5. 11.Letter from GeoDesign, Inc., December 9, 2002, regarding Lot#5, not accepted by the City as based on partial and erroneous information. 12.Field Observation Reports from Carlson Testing, January 8, 9, 10, & 13, 2003, regarding re-construction of the walls on Lot#5. 13.Report from Carlson Testing, December 5, 2002, regarding Lot#3. 14.Letter from pool designer Dirk Looijenga, December 20, 2002, regarding the pool on Lot#3. Please let know if Jr ave any questions or if I can provide any other information. Al rt hield Housing Inspe . , Building Codes Enforcement Officer MEMORANDUM ANA TO: Larry Blake owa FROM: Albert Shields RE: Renaissance Timetable CC: Hap Watkins, Gary Lampella DATE: Thursday, April 24, 2003 Larry, it is 7 weeks since our March 6th meeting with the other parties and our agreement with them that reports on all 7 of the lots would be submitted within 4 weeks. It is understandable that the detailed analysis that Jim Imbrie is doing will take longer than the original 4 weeks but at this point, only 2 of the 7 lots have been addressed and the proposed timetable will not have all of the reports in until 11 1/2 weeks from the meeting. Even with that we have heard nothing from Renaissance about any plans or timetable for doing the actual corrective work, just this extended timetable for the reports. Accordingly, this note addresses the timetable and points made by Jack Hoffman in his letter of Tuesday, April 21, and suggests including a schedule for conducting the actual corrective work in the timetable. Regarding Mr. Hoffman's perception that he was not consulted or advised about the rescheduled May 14th hearing date and his desire for another rescheduled date I think there may be a misunderstanding. It is my recollection that the date was not actually set by the court nor any announcement sent out until after you had told him that the City was calling for a new date and that the 14th was the next date available. Surely, if he was not available on the 14th or felt that he had inadequate input in establishing the date he would have told you that then. Nonetheless, the City appreciates his expectation that the matter may not need to be litigated after all and we still hope he is correct, even though we are no longer confident of that ourselves. The City is agreeable to a nominal extension of the date beyond the 14th,if you find that to be appropriate, or, if Mr. Hoffman can secure an agreement from Renaissance and Curtis Heintz Excavation to the timetable suggested below for production of the reports and completion of the actual corrections on each lot, we are agreeable to a longer extension, as long as the interim timelines are met. 4 Regarding the timetable for production of the remaining geotechnical analyses and recommendations that Mr. Hoffman outlined in his letter, I have reviewed that schedule with Hap Watkins, Gary Lampella, and Jim Hendryx. Based on the highly professional and solid analysis of the seven lots that Jim Imbrie provided in his April 9th report and the fact that his geometric profiles of the lots confirm the basis of our original concerns about the shortcomings of the original construction, and with the understanding that his forthcoming analyses for Lots 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 will address those shortcomings and will provide specific recommendations for their correction, we find the timetable suggested in Mr. Hoffman's letter to be generally acceptable. To do a job of this complexity right does take time and the depth and quality of the analysis that Mr. lmbrie is doing is very much on target. Jim Hendryx is advising Bill Monahan and the City Council of our willingness to work with this timeline for the reports. However, the proposed timetable speaks simply to the production of the reports and recommendations and does not in any way address turning those reports and recommendations into revised plans to be submitted for the permits now in existence on each of those lots, nor does it address or suggest a timetable for actually performing the work and making the corrections proposed by Mr. lmbrie. Mr. Hoffman notes that Mr. Imbrie "has already submitted an April 9, 2003 letter which takes care of Lot 2 and Lot 10." That is not quite correct. We accepted Mr. Imbrie's approval of the work on Lot 10 and we promptly gave final inspection approval to the permit on that lot and closed that permit, as I confirmed in a letter to Randy Sebastian on Monday, April 14. The April 9 report did propose specific corrections for Lot 2, as agreed upon in our March 6 meeting, but that does not complete the work needed on Lot 2. Before Lot 2 can be considered to be truly "taken care of," we need to receive, from Renaissance, plans and calculations for the proposed corrections on Lot 2 submitted as a revision to the existing permit, along with the specific construction parameters called for by Mr. Imbrie and a representation that the actual construction work will be observed and approved on-site by Mr. Imbrie or representatives from his office. Further, we need an agreement as to when, following our review and (assumed) approval of the revised plans, physical work will be begun and completed on the work on that lot. For that matter, before we can accept the proposed extended timetable for the analysis and reports and contemplate accepting more than a nominal further postponement of the court hearing, we need agreement on a timetable for plan submission and a work schedule for the remaining lots as well. It might go without saying that the intention of Renaissance and Curtis Heintz Excavation is to implement Mr. Imbrie's proposals immediately, but since we have heard nothing from Renaissance, Curtis Heintz, or Mr. Hoffman about any timetable for implementing the Lot 2 proposal in the two weeks that have passed since the April 9th r report was produced, we consider it essential that we establish a clear agreement as to when work will begin on each of the remaining lots. With 6 lots remaining, and assuming that Renaissance and Curtis Heintz will want to tackle the lots with one crew, one at a time, and assuming that remediation work may take 3 to 5 days in the field, as it did with Lot 5, and with lots 3 and 8 possibly longer, we are looking at a work schedule that will encompass 6 to 8 weeks. If work were to begin on Lot 2 on Monday, May 5, we are looking at a work schedule that would not be completed until mid or late June. 'The public interest that must be served in this case includes the interests of the homeowners involved. We consider it important that these homeowners, who have already had their enjoyment of their yards and their ability to refinance or sell their houses compromised for 10 months, be assured of having the work on their properties completed before the end of June, certainly in time to be able to enjoy the full use of their yards before the Fourth of July holiday. Accordingly, using Mr. Hoffman's timetable as a basis, we suggest the following as a timetable for production of the remaining reports, submission of permit revision documents, and commencement and completion of work: in general, submitting revised plans on Monday, April 28, for Lot 2, by Wednesday, April 30 for Lots 4. 6, and 9, and by Tuesday, May 27, for Lots 3 and 8, simultaneous with the submission of those reports. The City will expedite review of the submitted revisions, work is to begin on each lot within five days of approval of the plans or immediately upon completion of work on the preceding lot, whichever comes later, and work is to be complete within five days of commencement. (Adjustments can be made to accommodate Mr. Imbrie's actual recommendations, if more or less work is required.) The work flow would look like this: 1. Lot2: Plans to be submitted Monday, April 28. Assume approval by C.O.T. on Wednesday, April 30. Begin work by Monday, May 5. Complete work by Monday, May 12. 2. Lot 4 (or 6 or 9): Report to be submitted Monday, April 28. Plans to be submitted by Wednesday, April 30. Assume approval by C.O.T. by Friday, May 2. Begin work by Monday, May 12. Complete work by Monday, May 19. 3. Lot 6 (or 4 or 9): Report to be submitted Monday, April 28. Plans to be submitted by Friday, May 2. Assume approval by C.O.T. by Wednesday, May 7. Begin work by Monday, May 19. Complete work by Monday, May 26. 4. Lot 9 (or 4 or 6): Report to be submitted Monday, April 28. Plans to be submitted by Friday, May 2. Assume approval by C.O.T. by Wednesday, May 7. Begin work by Monday, May 26. Complete work by Monday, June 2. 5. Lot 3 (or 8): Report and Plans to be submitted by Tuesday, May 27. Assume approval by C.O.T. by Friday, May 30. Begin work by Monday, June 2. Complete work by Monday, June 7. 6. Lot 8 (or 3): Report and Plans to be submitted by Tuesday, May 27. Assume approval by C.O.T. by Friday, May 30. Begin work by Monday, June 7. Complete work by Monday, June 14. Please note the following: • I've taken the "four weeks from Monday, April 28" to Tuesday, May 27, since Monday the 26th is the Memorial Day holiday. • This schedule has work complete by June 14th, but more extensive work on lots 3 or 8 or any other delays, such as weather, could extend that uncomfortably close to July. • For item #5 I've allowed only 3 days to review what could be a complex plan for Lot 3 (or 8) with work to begin after only a weekend. It would help greatly if either the Lot 3 or the Lot 8 report and plans could be submitted a week earlier, on Monday, May 19, so that we could target delivering an approval by Friday, May 24, and work could begin a week later, on Monday, June 2, as shown. Let's discuss, at your earliest convenience. • MEMORANDUM FILE CoP iar�i�"NPObIpI� ��(\ TO: Hap Watkins .. //r �,, FROM: Albert Shields RE: Kable St. — Check from Renaissance — Closing Case CC: Gary Lampella, Nadine Robinson DATE: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 Attached is a copy of a check from Renaissance Development for $21,371.75 that we received this morning. As we've discussed, this is accepted by the City as a voluntary reimbursement of the City's enforcement costs, both staff time and out-of-pocket expenses. Since full compliance has now been achieved, we have agreed to accept this reimbursement and to request dismissal by the Municipal Court of the complaints against Renaissance and Curtis Heintz Excavation without penalties. I will coordinate with Finance so that these funds are properly credited to the Building Division to replenish the staff time and professional services accounts which were drawn upon in the course of our enforcement activities. Attached also are copies of Larry Blake's Motion for Dismissal with which we fully concur, Jack Hoffman's cover letter for the check, and Larry's cover letter to us. With receipt of this check and the anticipated agreement of the court to dismiss, we can now consider this case to be closed. r RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES,LLC 019202 WEST LINN OREGON 97068 DATE INVOICE NO. DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT DEDUCTION BALANCE 9-04-03 230901 EH RATAINING WALL I 21371 . 75 . 00 21371 . 75 RECEIVED DEC !` _ E SEP 10 2003 SEP - 5 2003 CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION DUNN CARNEY CHECK 9-04-03 CHECK 19202 21371 . 75 . 00 21371 . 75 DATE NUMBER I TOTALS ."4111.11111 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMESLLC STERLING SAVINGS BANK 28-7174/3251 019202 Qregon-Corporate Banking 1672 Willamette Falls Drive 621 SW Morrison St,Suite 550 West Linn Oregon 97068 Portland,OR 97205 503.557.8000 Pay: *******Twenty-one thousand three h-undred seventy-one dollars and 75 cents DATE CHECK NO. AMOUNT September 4, 2003 19202 $*****21,371 .75 PAY City of Tigard TOTHE 8777 SW. Burnham St. ORDER P.O. Box 230000 OFTigard, OR 97281-1999 i 11'0 1: 325L717401: 5999184534811• • Larry J. Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* " Also admitted in Minnesota&Washington Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Al Shields September 9, 2003 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 2003-31790, 2003-31792 Dear Al: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter dated September 5, 2003 from Jack Hoffman. Please also find enclosed the original check, check number 019202, Renaissance Custom Homes, L.L.C.,made out to the City of Tigard in the amount of$21,371.75. As you may guess, I am very pleased with the results of this case mainly based upon your excellent efforts. I believe the City of Tigard can be truly proud of your work performed and on behalf of the properties in question. But for your efforts, I believe that there could have been a substantial risk to the homeowners in question as well as those living below the lots with the Renaissance homes located on them. Please also find enclosed a letter and a Motion to Dismiss that I have drafted and sent to Jack Hoffman for his review. Please advise if you have any questions regarding either of those documents. Lastly, I have no objection to the second draft forwarded to my office on September 5, 2003. I would agree with the comments regarding the first draft. Again, thank you for your efforts in the resolution in this matter. I believe this sets a good precedence for other contractors looking at cutting corners in the City of Tigard. Very truly yours, Larry J. Blake,Jr. LJB/lb Enclosure 3700 Barbur Building. 3718 S,W. Condor Street. Suite 110. Portland; Oregon 97239 Telephone: 503,228.6200 Facsimile: 503 228.x222 E-Mail: law c€;larryjblakejr.corn DUNN CARNEY ALLEN HIGGINS & TONGUE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 851 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1357 FACSIMILE(503)224-7324 JACK D.HOFFMAN TELEPHONE (503) 224-6440 Direct Dial:(503)306-5324 Internet:jdh@dunn-carney.com September 5, 2003 BY FACSIMILE: (503) 228-6222 And REGULAR MAIL Larry J. Blake, Jr. City Prosecutor Blake & Duckler, L.L.P. Suite 110, 3700 Barbur Building 3718 S.W. Condor Street Portland, OR 97239 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company & Renaissance Properties Our File No. HEI20-1 Dear Larry: This letter will follow-up more than six months of cooperative efforts by Curtis Heintz and Renaissance Homes to address the City's concerns about the retaining walls in Erickson Heights. Curtis Heintz Excavation and Renaissance Properties have complied with the City's requests set forth in your March 12, 2003 letter. We retained Jim Imbrie, a licensed geotechnical engineer, to assist us in reworking some of the retaining walls. The walls were reworked, and they have been accepted by the City. As stated in paragraph 6 of your March 12, 2003 letter, Renaissance is willing to reimburse the City for staff time costs and out-of-pocket expenses related to the corrective measures taken with respect to these retaining walls. Enclosed with this letter is a check in the amount of$21,371.75 for these expenses. This payment should not be construed as an admission of fault or liability on behalf of either Curtis Heintz or Renaissance. Rather, it is consistent with the spirit of compromise that we all agreed to at the March 6, 2003 meeting, in which the discussion and agreement of the parties focused on improving the walls. Renaissance Homes and Curtis Heintz have always stood behind the quality of their work, including these retaining walls. Moreover, it is their companies' policies to follow all applicable governmental procedures and regulations, and they did so, in this matter. INDEPENDENT MEMBER OF MERITAS WITH AFFILIATED OFFICES IN MORE THAN 250 CITIES AND 65 FOREIGN COUNTRIES Sb Larry J. Blake, Jr. September 5, 2003 Page 2 It is my understanding that this concludes all issues relating to the City of Tigard's concerns about the Erickson Heights retaining walls. The City will ask the court to dismiss the civil infractions with prejudice and without penalty. Very truly yours, 1 J.ck D. Hoffman JDH: cls Enclosure cc: Randy Sebastian Curtis Heintz ::ODMAVGRPW ISE\DUNN-CAR.POST I.CLIENTS:256529.1 Larry J. Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota& Washington Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Tigard Municipal Court September 9, 2003 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Clerk of the Court: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and our representation of the City of Tigard. Please find enclosed a Motion and Order to Dismiss. Upon review of the Judge, and if appropriate, please fill out the enclosed conformation card and place in your out going mail. Thank you for your time and assistance. Very truly'yours, Lisette Barajas Enclosure cc: Jack Hoffman Al Shields 3700 Barbur Building. 3718 S.W. Condor Street, Suite 11B, Portland, Oregon 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Facsimile: 503.223.6222 E-aatl: law ar ryjblakejr.co,m IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 2 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON 3 4 CITY OF TIGARD, ) ) Case No.: 2003-31790, 2003-31792 5 Plaintiff, ) 6 ) MOTION AND ORDER TO DISMISS vs. 7 8 CURTIS HEINTZ EXCAVATION ) COMPANY & RENAISSANCE ) 9 PROPERTIES, ) 10 Defendant. ) I 1 Comes now the City of Tigard, by and through their duly appointed City Prosecutor, Larry J. j2 Blake, Jr. and moves this court for a dismissal of the citation of the above-entitled case, City of Tigard v. 13 Curtis Heintz Excavation Company& Renaissance Properties, case numbers 2003-31790 and 2003- 14 31792. The defendant is represented by Jack Hoffman and has no objection to this request. The City 15 moves the Court for this Order based upon the compliance of the Defendants in this matter, as well as the 16 payment of staff time and out of pocket expenses of the City. 17 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the citation against Curtis Heintz Excavation Company & 19 Renaissance Homes is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 20 21 DATED this day of September, 2003. 22 23 The Honorable Michael O'Brien 24 Hearings Officer IT IS SO MOVED. 25 26 — -- Page Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB #87172 City Prosecutor MOTION AND ORDER TO DISMISS LARRY 1.BLAKE,JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUILDING 3718 SW CONDOR,SUITE 110 PORTLAND,OR 97239 (503)228-6200 i W CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into today, August 1, 2002,by and between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon,hereinafter called City, and KLEINFELDER,INC.,hereinafter called Contractor. RECITALS City has need for the services of a company with a particular training, ability, knowledge, and experience possessed by Contractor, and City has determined that Contractor is qualified and capable of performing the professional services as City does hereinafter require,under those terms and conditions set forth: Therefore,the parties agree as follows: SCOPE OF WORK Contractor shall initiate services on Thursday,August 01, 2002,upon receipt of City's notice to proceed,together with an executed copy of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to complete work that is detailed in Exhibit A— Scope of Work and by this reference made a part hereof. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION This Agreement shall become effective upon Thursday, August 01, 2002 and shall expire, unless otherwise terminated or extended, on Friday,November 1,2002. All work under this Agreement shall be completed prior to the expiration of this Agreement. COMPENSATION City agrees to pay Contractor at the hourly rates set forth in the attached Exhibit B —Hourly Rates for Contractor's Staff for different levels of staff involvement for the performance of those services described in this Agreement. Payment will be made based on Contractor's invoice, subject to the approval of Gary Lampella, Building Official, and not more frequently than monthly. Payment shall be payable within thirty(30) days from the date of receipt by the City. The City estimates that the total cost of these services will be less than two thousand five hundred dollars($2,500.00) CONTACT INFORMATION All notices,bills, and payments shall be made in writing and may be given by personal delivery, mail, or fax. Payments may be delivered by personal delivery,mail, or electronic transfer. The following addresses and contacts shall be used to transmit notices,bills,payments,and other information: Contact Manager for City: Contact Manager for Contractor: City of Tigard Company: Kleinfelder,Inc. Attn: Gary Lampella,Building Official Attn: Robert Stephens 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 Address: 15050 SW Koll Parkway, Suite L,Beaverton Phone: 503-639-4171 ext. 2448 Phone: 503-644-9447 Fax: 503-624-3681 Fax: 503-643-1905 Email Address: Gary@ci.tigard.or.us Email Address: bstephens@,kleinfelder.com CONTRACTOR As INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Contractor acknowledges that for all purposes related to this Agreement, Contractor is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor as defined by ORS 670.700 and not an employee of City,shall not be entitled to benefits of any kind to which an employee of City is entitled and shall be solely responsible for all payments and taxes required by law. Furthermore, in the event that Contractor is found by a court of law or any administrative agency to be an employee of City for any purpose, City shall be entitled to offset compensation due,or to demand repayment of any amounts paid to Contractor under the terms of this Agreement, to the full extent of any benefits or other remuneration Contractor receives (from City or third party) as a result of said finding and to the full extent of any payments that City is required to make (to Contractor or to a third party)as a result of said finding. Contractor acknowledges that for all purposes related to this Agreement,Contractor is not an officer,employee,or agent of the City as those terms are used in ORS 30.265. INDEMNIFICATION City has relied upon the professional ability and training of Contractor as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Contractor agrees that all its work will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws, it being understood that acceptance of a contractor's work by City shall not operate as a waiver or release. Contractor and City agree to indemnify and defend the other, and the other's officers, agents and employees and hold them harmless from any and all liability, causes of action, claims, losses, damages,judgments or other costs or expenses including attorney's fees and witness costs and(at both trial and appeal level, whether or not a trial or appeal ever takes place) incurred by the party being indemnified resulting from the indemnifying party's negligent acts (or failures to act when action is appropriate) that may be asserted by any person or entity which in any way arise from or relate to this Agreement or the performance of obligations under this agreement, except liability arising out of the sole negligence of the party being indemnified. The indemnification by Contractor of the City shall also cover claims brought against the City under state or federal worker's compensation laws. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever,such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. INSURANCE Contractor shall maintain insurance acceptable to City in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising directly or indirectly out of Contractor's activities or work hereunder. The policy or policies of insurance maintained by the Contractor shall provide at least the following limits and coverages: a. Commercial General Liability Insurance Contractor shall obtain, at contractor's expense, and keep in effect during the term of this contract, Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering Bodily Injury and Property Damage on an "occurrence" form (1996 ISO or equivalent). This coverage shall include Contractual Liability insurance for the indemnity provided under this contract. The following insurance will be carried: Coverage Limit General Aggregate 1,000,000 Products-Completed Operations Aggregate 1,000,000 Personal&Advertising Injury 1,000,000 Each Occurrence 1,000,000 Fire Damage(any one fire) 50,000 Medical Expense(any one person) 5,000 b. Workers' Compensation Insurance The Contractor and all employers providing work, labor or materials under this Contract that are either subject employers under the Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage that satisfies Oregon law for all their subject workers or employers that are exempt under ORS 656.126. Out-of-state employers must provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for their workers who work at a single location within Oregon for more than 30 days in a calendar year. Contractors who perform work without the assistance or labor of any employee need not obtain such coverage. This shall include Employer's Liability Insurance with coverage limits of not less than$500,000 each accident. c. Insurance Carrier Rating Coverages provided by the Contractor must be underwritten by an insurance company deemed acceptable by the City. The City reserves the right to reject all or any insurance carrier(s)with an unacceptable financial rating. v • d. Certificates of Insurance As evidence of the insurance coverage required by the contract, the Contractor shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance to the City. No contract shall be effected until the required certificates have been received and approved by the City. The procuring of such required insurance shall not be construed to limit contractor's liability hereunder. Notwithstanding said insurance, Contractor shall be obligated for the total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by negligence or neglect connected with this contract. TERMINATION The parties agree that any decision by either party to terminate this Agreement before Friday,Novermber I, 2002 shall be accompanied by sixty (60) days written notice to the other party prior to the date termination would take effect. There shall be no penalty for early termination. If City terminates the contract pursuant to this paragraph, it shall pay Contractor for services rendered prorated to the date of termination. AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS Modifications to this Agreement are valid only if made in writing and signed by all parties. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT City shall be the owner of and shall be entitled to possession of any and all work products of Contractor which result from this Agreement,including any computations,plans,correspondence or pertinent data and information gathered by or computed by Contractor prior to termination of this Agreement by Contractor or upon completion of the work pursuant to this Agreement. GOVERNING LAW Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws; and rules and regulations on non-discrimination in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, age, medical condition or disability. The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State of Oregon. All provisions required by ORS Chapter 279 to be included in a contract of this type are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. Any action or suits involving any question arising under this Agreement must be brought in the appropriate court of the State of Oregon. COMPLETE AGREEMENT This Agreement and attached exhibit constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. No waiver,consent,modification, or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change if made, shall be effective only in specific instances and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. Contractor, by the signature of its authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that he/she has read this Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized undersigned officer and Contractor has executed this Agreement on the date hereinabove first written. CITY OF TIGARD CONTRACTOR By: Authorized City staff By: Authorized Agent of Contractor Date Date Exhibit A Scope of Work SITUATION: On a series of steeply sloped lots on SW Kable St. in the City of Tigard,part of the Erickson Heights II Subdivision, fill and rockery walls appear to have been added to the lots subsequent to subdivision approval and without permit, inspection, or testing. Some lots have as many as four or five walls stacked closely behind each other. Lot#3 has an in-ground swimming pool constructed behind the highest of three walls and cracking has been observed in the gunnite walls of the pool and in the concrete walk surrounding and leading to the pool. The fact that the City of Tigard has no record of permit, engineered design,compaction testing, or inspection for the subject walls and fill means that the City has no basis upon which to assess the integrity or sufficiency of the walls and fill or the degree of risk to persons or property posed by settlement or collapse. Contractor is a licensed provider of geotechnical engineering services with substantial experience in evaluating slope stability including stability analyses,retaining walls, tie back systems, and shoring and trench safety. SCOPE OF WORK: The City has asked for Contractor's expert help in developing a diagnosis on behalf of the City of the degree of risk posed by the subject fill and retaining walls on the Kable St. lots. This assistance may include review of existing documentation, including as-builts and testing reports, on-site inspection, and examination and testing of the fill and retaining walls. The full extent of work will depend upon what preliminary examination discloses. The City anticipates that the analyses and professional assessments and opinions expressed by the Contractor may serve as a basis for legal action by the City against the Builder/Developer and the scope of work may,therefore, also include providing formal affidavits and/or testimony. Loreen\H:\DOCS\CONTRAC \Contract Manual\Short Forms-Personal Services 6-10-02.doc it f Exhibit B Hourly Rates for Contractor's Staff Sr.Engineer $125.00 Prof. Engineer/Geologist $100.00 Staff Engineer $ 90.00 Engineer $ 85.00 Technician/Draftsman $ 50.00 Clerical $ 50.00 E=t,•0 1/2003 09: 32 5032286222 LAW OFFICES PAGE 02 � p • Larry J C 1 C Jr.. Att rrieyE at, Law Larry J. Blake, Jr." Also admitted in Minnesota& Washington Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Jack D. Hoffman August 20,2003 Dunn Carney Allen Higgins &Tongue,LLP Attorneys at Law 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland OR 97204-1357 Via Fax and US Mail (503)224-7324 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 2003-31790;200331792 Dear Jack: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. I am in receipt of your letter dated August 19, 2003. I will attempt to address the issues as indicated in your letter: 1. Voluntary Mediation: The City is, and has always been, ready willing and able to informally resolve this matter. However,based upon your.client's refusal to act in good faith regarding these attempts, I am not overly optimistic that further mediation will succeed. However,in the City's effort to have this matter resolved informally,if mediation can occur before the trial date of September 5, 2003,we will agree to further mediation, As you know, the City entered into several agreements with your client, all which have been violated by your client. Therefore, I would be interested in your thoughts regarding what issues you believe can be mediated_ 2. City Expenses: In your most recent letter you indicate that you were enclosing a copy of a summary sheet. Unfortunately, that summary sheet did not accompany your letter. For purposes of this letter, I assume that you axe talking about the information I sent to you from.Al Shields regarding out-of-pocket expenses. Since it is your position that your client will not agree to pay all of the out-of-pocket expenses of the City,it makes little sense to provide further documentation: Based upon your statement that since Al Shields is a salaried employee and therefore, should be no expenses attributable to this case,is without merit. 3. Disc9vety: Please be advised that the City has hired additional help to expedite your discovery request. Once the discovery is complete,I will advise you so that you may arrange for pickup and payment of that discovery. 4. Depositions. We are in agreement that you will depose Al Shields on September 26, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. at the City of Tigard. I anticipate that deposition ending prior to 12:00 noon due to a Court date I have starting at 1:30 p.m.in Columbia County. I would like you to make available for depositions several clients and/or parties to this proceeding. Specifically,I would like to have the opportunity to depose Randy Sebastian, Robert Wood, Curtis Heintz and Jim Itmbrie. Please advise of an appropriate schedule. 5. Status o€Acceptance of Lots: Please be advised that Lot numbers 2, 3 and 8 have not been accepted by the City of Tigard as a result of your client's failure to prepare 08/21i2003 09: 32 5032286222 LAW OFFICES wr PAGE 03 Jack Hoffman August 20, 2003 Page 2 of 2 the appropriate report and forward the report to the City. As outlined in my affidavit enclosed with this letter, you will see that your position is without merit. 6. Set Over Request: As you can see by the enclosed, I am objecting to your set over request The constant delay by your client and refusal to abide by past agreement, does not bode well for the informal resolution of this matter. Therefore, the Court will be required to assist the parties in the determination of whether or not your client was in violation of City Code as indicated by the City's flings. I look forward to hearing from you upon receipt of this letter- Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. Very truly yours, Larry J. Blake,Jr. City Prosecutor LJB/le Enclosure cc: Al Shields 3700 Barbur Building,3718 S.W.Condor Street, Suite 110,Portland,Oregon 97239 Telephone:501228,6200 Facsimile:503.228,6222 E-Mail: Iawwlerryjbtakejr,com 08/21!2003 09: 32 5032286222 .A6LAWOFFICES PAGE 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON 9 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 10 ) Case Na: 2003-31790; 2003-31792 11 Petitioner, ) ) CITY'S CONTINUING OPPOSITION TO 1� vs. ) RESPONDENT'S MOTION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING 13 ) CURTIS HEINTZ EXCAVATION ) 14 COMPANY&RENAISSANCE ) PROPERTIES, 15 ) Respondent. 16 17 COMES NOW the City, by and through its duly appointed City Prosecutor, Larry J. Blake, Jr., and 18 moves this Court for an Order denying the Motion and Order for Continuance filed by Defendant. In 19 support of this motion the City incorporates the Affidavit of Larry J. Blake, Jr., which is referenced herein. 20 DATED this_day of August,2003. 21 22 Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB#87172 23 Tigard City Prosecutor 24 25 26 Page 1—AFFIDAVrr IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S CONTINUING OPPOSITION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S CONTINUANCR CARRY J.BLAKE,JL ATIV3700 B RB R UILDRJ 77)1 SW CONDOR,SUITE I;0 rOATLAND.OR 97239 (50)2216E oa 08/21/2003 09: 32 5032286222 LAW OFFICES PAGE 05 1 2 3 4 5 6 S IN THE MUNICIPAL CO T OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 9 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON 10 CITY OF TIGARD, ) t 1 ) ase No.: 2003-31790; 2003-31792 Petitioner, ) 12 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S vs. ) ONTINUING OPPOSITION TO 13 ) SPONDENT'S MOTION AND ORDER ) 14 CURTIS HEINTZ EXCAVATION R CONTINUANCE OF HEARING 5 COMPANY&RENAISSANCE ) PROPERTIES, ) 16 j Respondent. ) 17 18 STATE OF OREGON ) � 19 ) ss. County of Multnomah ) 20 � 21 I, Larry J. Blake,Jr., being first duly sworn, deposeIand say: 22 1. I am the City Prosecutor for the City Lf Tigard. 23 2. I have reviewed the Affidavit prepared by Jack Hoffman dated August 19, 2003. I have 24 also discussed this matter with the app ropriate City Officials to be able to prepare an 25 appropriate response regarding I- of ' � g g Mr. � furan s affidavit. 26 /// Page -AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Crry'S CONTINUED OPPOSITION RE ARDING DEFENDANT'S CONTINUANCE t A Y MAKE,JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 9700 HAREM IUiUNNG VII 3W CONDOR,BUTTE 110 PORTLAND.OP.97339 (9031 IZBLZO0 08/21/2003 09:32 5032286222 LAW OFFICES PAGE OF 1 3. rim Imbrie, an employee of Renaissance Homes, reports that he was instructed by Al 2 Shields not to file the closing report. Al Shields adamantly denies ever directing Mr. 3 Imbrie not to file the appropriate report. In addition, Mr. Shields does not have the 4 authority to direct an employee of Renaissance homes not to file the report. 4. It is the responsibility of the Defendant, not Mr. Imbrie, to ensure that the report is filed. 6 5. Defendant cannot argue that he does not know the appropriate methods to have the reports 7 filed and therefore, the appropriate approvals submitted by the City. In six (6) out of the 8 ten(10) lots in questions in the instant case, the defendant has appropriately filed the 9 reports and the City has immediately, approved defendant's permits. 10 6. When Mr. Shields was talking to Mr. Imbrie regarding two (2) of the lots in question, Mr. 31 Imbrie indicated that although he needed to complete these reports for the lots in question, 12 that as of May and Tune, 2003 he was too busy to get them out. 13 7. Regarding lot#3, Mr. Shields reviewed a report by Mr. Kelley regarding that lot, In 14 reviewing that report, it was obvious that the author of that report had relied upon 15 inaccurate and/or incomplete information regarding a vital aspect of the review. Once that 16 error was noted by the City, Al Shields contacted Mr. Imbrie and asked him to review the 17 report, specifically paying attention to the problem area, Once Mr. Imbrie reviewed the 18 report,he was also concerned and indicated that he would take further action before 19 sending a report to the City indicating acceptance of the work performed. • 20 S. Despite repeated requests from the City to the defendant to complete the required reports 21 for the three (3) lots left in question, the defendant has failed to perform pursuant to City 22 Code. The fact that the defendant has failed to act pursuant to Code, in no way negates the 23 need to have this matter resolved in a reasonable manner and time. Since this matter has 24 been set over on numerous occasions in the past, it appears appropriate and the City 25 requests that this matter be resolved forthwith. 26 /// Page /// 2—AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S CONTINUED OPPOSITION REGARDING DEFENDANTS CONTINUANCE LARRY!.BLAKE,JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARRIJI,BUILDING 3711 SW CONDOR.SUITE 110 PORTLAND,OA 9712p om)Z11.pa0p 08;'21/2003 09: 32 5032286222 LAW OFFICES PAGE 07 1 9. I am competent to testify to the foregoing of my own personal knowledge, except as to 2 those matters stated upon information and belief, which such matters I do believe to be 3 true. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and of the state of Oregon 5 that the foregoing is true and correct. 6 7 Executed this—day of August, 2003, at Portland, Oregon. S 9 1.0 Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB#87172 City Prosecutor 11 - 12 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of August, 2003 13 14 Notary Public for Oregon 1.5 My Commission Expires: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 3-AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S CONTINUED OPPOSITION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S CONTINUANCE LARRY].BLAKE,EL A'r7'9RRRY'T LAW 3100 BARBUR MONO 7110,cw CONDOR.SURE 110 PORTLAND.OA 97239 (+ml 21$-02O0 BALL JANIK LLP ATTORNEYS 101 SOUTHWEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3219 www.balljanik.com KEVIN S.MAPES TELEPHONE 503-228-2525 kmapes@bjllp.com ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA FACSIMILE 503-295-1058 December 2, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Albert Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Renaissance Development Corporation Dear Mr. Shields: This firm represents Renaissance Development Corporation. We are writing to follow up on my telephone conversation with your attorney, Gary Firestone, regarding the expiring Voluntary Compliance Agreement and Temporary Conditional Certificate of Occupancy for the property located at 10788 SW Cable Street in the Erickson Heights development in Tigard, Oregon. Pursuant to my conversation with Mr. Firestone, Renaissance Development agrees as follows: 1. By noon on Friday, December 6, 2002, Renaissance will submit specific plans from a licensed engineer addressing the retaining wall and related fill issues for this property. The plan will be sufficiently detailed to allow the City to issue a permit, will specify any additional testing to be done, and will state how Renaissance will address the issues identified in the City's letter of September 24, 2002. 2. Renaissance will commence work at the property promptly upon issuance of a permit, and will complete the work within two weeks of issuance of the permit, weather permitting. 3. Renaissance agrees to voluntarily pay a penalty of$100 per day from December 2, 2002 until the City approves the permitted work. ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\310644\1 PORTLAND, OREGON WASHINGTON, D.C. BEND,OREGON BALL JANIK LLP Mr. Albert Shields December 2, 2002 Page 2 We understand that,in exchange for this commitment, the City of Tigard will not issue any notice of violation or summons to Renaissance. Renaissance looks forward to working with the City to resolve all remaining issues at the Erickson Heights development. In the meantime,please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, Kevin S. Mapes KSM:clv cc: Gary Firestone, Esq. (via facsimile) Mr. Robert Wood ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\310644\1 .w s• Blake & ©uckler, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota&Washington Geordie Duckler, Ph.D.** *• Also admitted in California Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Jack D. Hoffman March 12, 2003 Dunn Carney Allen Higgins &Tongue,LLP Attorneys at Law 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland OR 97204-1357 Via Fax and US Mail (503)224-7324 Carter Mann Foster Pepper Tooze LLP 101 SW Main Street 15`'' Floor Portland OR 97204 Via Fax and US Mail (503)221-1510 Al Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Via Fax and US Mail (503) 624-3681 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Jack, Carter and Al: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. Thank you for taking the time to meet with all the parties on March 6, 2003 at 3:00 p.m. I believe that meeting was useful for the parties'attempt to informally resolve this matter. By the time you receive this letter,it is my understanding that the City will have already sent an inspector to fmal the pool in question. If I am anyway in error. Please advise. As indicated in our meeting,it has always been the City's intent to have parties within the City comply with the applicable code. To that end, I would like to offer the following as an informal resolution to this matter: 1. Respondent(s) will contact Jim Embry, a licensed geotechnical engineer, and engage him to examine the walls that remain out of compliance and their retained fill and submit a report (or reports) addressing each of the subject walls with specific recommendations of any corrective measures needed to bring the walls into compliance with the building and City codes. All such reports are to be produced within four (4) weeks from the March 6,2003 meeting. Hoffman,Mann and Shields March 12,2003 Page 2 of 2 2. Upon receipt of that report,Respondent(s) will provide a copy to the City of Tigard for review and the City will expedite its review of the same, completing such review by staff and any independent experts within two (2) weeks of receipt. 3. Upon reviewing of the report by Mr. Embry, the parties will contact each other either telephonically or in person to advise as to those areas in agreement and those areas that need further review. 4. If there are issues to be resolved, the matter will then be forwarded to Hearings Officer,Michael O'Brien,who will have the opportunity to review the materials,in person or by letter and will make the final binding decision on the parties as to which repairs or modifications are required. 5. The defendant will be responsible for the cost of obtaining the reports by Mr. Embry. 6. If all the subject walls are brought into compliance without it becoming necessary for the City to reconvene a Court hearing on the facts and if the above agreements and deadlines are complied with and if the Respondent(s) voluntarily reimburse the City for the enforcement costs of staff time and out-of-pocket expenses as above, the City agrees to waive civil penalties and to ask the Court to dismiss the charges without penalty. I believe I have correctly listed off the discussed resolution by the parties. Please review with your client and contact me upon receipt of this letter for further discussions. I would like to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. Very truly yours, Larry J. Blake,Jr. City Prosecutor LJB/le 3700 Barbur Building, 3718 S.W. Condor Street, Suite 110, Portland, Oregon 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Facsimile: 503.228.6222 E-Mail: lwjblakendduckler.con Blake buckler, L.L.P Attorneys at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota&Washington Geordie Duckler, Ph.D.** ** Also admitted in California Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Jack D. Hoffman April 7,2003 Dunn Carney Allen Higgins &Tongue,LLP Attorneys at Law 851 SW Sixth Avenue,Suite 1500 Portland OR 97204-1357 Via Fax and US Mail (503)224-7324 Carter Mann Foster Pepper Tooze LLP 101 SW Main Street 15th Floor Portland OR 97204 Via Fax and US Mail (503)221-1510 Al Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Via Fax and US Mail (503)624-3681 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Jack,Carter and Al: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. As you know,we recently met with the parties on March 6,2003 at 3:00 p.m. Pursuant to that meeting, sent the parties a letter dated March 12,2003 confirming the agreement of the parties. Specifically,the agreement was that the report by Jim Imbrie was to be due within four (4) weeks of the March 6,2003 meeting. That date would have been April 3,2003. As of the date of this letter,I have not received a copy of that report. TherefoYe,unless that report is received by the City of Tigard and my offices by Thursday, April 10,2003,I will immediately see that this matter is placed on the trial Court docket and ask Judge O'Brien to resolve this matter. I apologize for the status of this matter but have no choice based upon the time delay that has already occurred prior to my involvement in this case. Very truly yours, Larry J. Blake,Jr. City Prosecutor LJB/le 3700 Sarbur Building. 3718 S .Condor Street. Suite 110, Portland, Oregon 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Facsimile: 503.228.6222 E-Mail: l w blakeandduckler,corn Blake & Duckler, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota&Washington Geordie Duckler, Ph.D.** ** Also admitted in California Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Jack D. Hoffman March 27, 2003 Dunn Carney Allen Higgins &Tongue,LLP Attorneys at Law 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland OR 97204-1357 Via Fax and US Mail (503)224-7324 Carter Mann Foster Pepper Tooze LLP 101 SW Main Street 15th Floor Portland OR 97204 Via Fax and US Mail (503)221-1510 Al Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Via Fax and US Mail (503) 624-3681 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Jack, Carter and Al: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. Since it has been several weeks since my letter to you of March 12, 2003 I wanted to update all of you as to what is my belief of a posture of this case. Subsequent to my letter of March 12,2003 I received two (2) letters from Carter dated March 12,2003 and March 18,2003. Carter wanted to make sure that it was noted that it was his client's position that his client's liability in this matter was limited to any problems associated with the pool on Lot 3. Carter also indicated his client's efforts and desire to complete the work for final permit regarding the pool. In a memo to my office of March 21, 2003,Al indicates that the inspections were completed on both the mechanical permit and the building permit for the swimming pool. Al indicates that both permits were fmaled. Al wanted to make sure that Carter and his client acknowledge that although the permits have been final,it only indicates that the pool was built to code and does not any way constitute an approval or acceptance of the retaining walls on Lot 3. Hoffman, Carter, Shield March 27, 2003 Page 2 of 2 In a letter to my office of March 20,2003,Jack indicated that Jim Embry had started the work to provide a report to the City by April 3, 2003. Although not officially agreed to,it is my hope that we can use Hearings Officer Michael O'Brien, to arbitrate any disagreements between the parties. Lastly,Jack indicated his position that perhaps the City should take some responsibility for the cost associated in the prosecution of this matter considering that the retaining wall issue was passed with a certificate of occupancy in 2001 rather than raising the issue at that time. I believe the above is a correct rough summary of the status of this case. The purpose of this letter is to keep all parties apprised as to the efforts of the parties as well as to clarify the various positions. It is my continued belief and hope that we will be able to informally resolve this matter in the near future. Once the important issue of the safety and structure of the lots is resolved,we can then look at the issue of payment from the various parties for the cost associated in the prosecution of this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, Larry J. Blake,Jr. City Prosecutor LJB/le 3700 Barbur Building, 3718 S.W. Condor Street, Suite 110, Portland, Oregon 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Facsimile: 503.228.6222 E-Mail: lawJblakeandduckler.c;orn A Blake & Duckler, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota&Washington Geordie Duckler, Ph.D.** ** Also admitted in California Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel ,I 41 Jack D. Hoffman May 6,2003 Dunn Carney Allen Higgins &Tongue,LLP Attorneys at Law 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland OR 97201-1357 Va Fax gnd ISMgad (503)224-7324 Carter Mann Foster Pepper Tooze LLP 101 SW Main Street 15th Floor Portland OR 97204 Via Fax and US Mail (503)221-1510 Al Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Via Fax and US Mail (503)624-3681 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Jack, Carter and Al: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. First and foremost, I want to apologize for any problems my delay in mailing this letter to the parties may have caused. I was out most of the last week of April with my wife on a delayed anniversary trip. During my absence,it appears that several matters have been resolved with the hopes that a majority,if not all the issues will be informally resolved by July 1,2003. In reference to Jack's letter,please be advised that I have no objection to the Court setting a trial date over to July 1,2003. Of course,that is with the understanding that all of the issues to be resolved will have to be resolved by that date. If not,we will have to ask the Court for assistance. Additionally, I do not have any objection to the waiving of the posting of a base fine at this time. Pursuant to our discussions,it is my hope that in the near future and have the parties resolve that matter informally or,by further assistance of the Court. Hoffman, Mann& Shields May 6, 2003 Page 2 of 2 In talking to Al, I have asked him to advise my offices for a figure to be agreed upon by the parties for payment of Neptune Pools portion of the case. My guess is that figure will be somewhere between$500 and$1,000. Once I have further discussions with Al, I will advise. It is my hope that by the end of this month,we will have information regarding Lots 3 and 8 that will allow work required to be completed by July 1, 2003. During that time,it is my hope that the City will also be able to conclude on a number for repayment of the City's expenses to date in this matter. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. Very truly yours, Larry J. Blake,Jr. City Prosecutor LJB/le 3700 Barbur Budding. 3718 S.W. Condor Street Suite 110, Portland, Oregon 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Facsimile: 503.228.6222 E-Mail: law a@blakeandduckler.com Blake & Duckler, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota&Washington Geordie Duckler, Ph.D.** ** Also admitted in California Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Jack D. Hoffman May 21,2003 Dunn Carney Allen Higgins &Tongue,LLP Attorneys at Law 851 SW Sixth Avenue,Suite 1500 Portland OR 97204-1357 Via Fax and US Mail (503)224-7324 Carter Mann Foster Pepper Tooze LLP 101 SW Main Street 15th Floor Portland OR 97204 Via Fax and US Mail (503)221-1510 Al Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Via Fax and US Mail (503)624-3681 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Jack,Carter and Al: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. I understand that the testing of the two (2) remaining lots, three (3) and eight (8),has been completed. It is my expectation that we will have a report from Mr. Imbrie in the near future. Therefore, there should be more than enough time to have the work completed prior to the July 1, 2003 deadline. Thank you for all your efforts to see that this matter is accomplished in a timely manner. The only issue remaining in the dismissal of Neptune Pools is the payment of costs associated in the prosecution of this matter. Based upon the minimal exposure by Neptune Pools, I am requesting that Neptune Pools pay a$750.00 administration fee for the prosecution of this matter. Upon receipt of this letter,please contact my office for further discussions. Very truly yours, 4_. Larry J. Blake,Jr. City Prosecutor LJB/le 3700 Barbur Building,3718 S.W. Condor Street, Suite 110, Portland, Oregon 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Facsimile: 503 228,6222 E-Mail: law@a blakeandduckler.com Blake & Duckler, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota& Washington Geordie Duckler, Ph.D.** ** Also admitted in California Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Jack D. Hoffman June 30, 2003 Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP Attorneys at Law 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland OR 97204-1357 Via Fax and US Mail (503)224-7324 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company & Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Jack: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. I trust that by the time you receive this letter, your wife will have recovered from her surgery and hospitalization. Of course, my thoughts are with you during this time. As you know, this matter was set over based upon the situation with your wife. It is my thought that this matter would have been continued until August 4 or 5,2003. I have both of those days open on my calendar. Unfortunately,the Court set this matter to August 7,2003,which I will be in my second day of a trial in Multnomah County. Upon receipt of this letter,please contact my office regarding a new date for the trial. As you know,the City expects payment of the demanded amount of$11,521.25. This only represents out of pocket expenses and not potential penalties that the City will be requesting if this matter is not informally resolved. I look forward to hearing from you upon receipt of this letter. Very truly yours, La ry a IrJr, . City Prosecutor LJB/le cc: Al Shields 3700 Barbur Building, 3718 S.W. Condor Street, Suite 110, Portland, Oregon 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Facsimile:503.228.6222 E-Mail: law@blakeandduckler.com Larry J. Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota&Washington Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel C 0 Jack D. Hoffman August 19, 2003 Dunn Carney Allen Higgins &Tongue,LLP Attorneys at Law 85`1 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500 ;'Portland OR 97204-1357 Via Fax and US Mail (503)224-7324 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company& Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Jack: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. I am in receipt of your letter dated August 15, 2003 with your Motion and Order for Continuance of Hearing. As we discussed on the telephone recently, I was quite surprised by your request that the parties enter into voluntary mediation. As you know, the City has been attempting to informally resolve this matter with your client's for over a year, all without success. Although I am always eager to look into informal resolutions in these matters, I honestly do not see that any further informal attempts to be of use to the parties and merely a waste of the City's time and expense. Therefore, please take whatever steps you believe is necessary to prepare this matter for trial. I look forward to hearing from you. Please find enclosed my response to your Motion and Order for Continuance of Hearing. Very truly yours, Larry J. Blake,Jr. City Prosecutor LJB/le Enclosure cc: Al Shields f 3700 Sarbur Building, 3718 S_V, Condor Street, Suite 110, Portland, Oregon 97239 'i.e; phone: 50 3.22 3.6200 Facsimile: 503.228.6222 -Ma=i: 1aw"cx, Tharry hlakejr.com Larry J. Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota& Washington Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Tigard Municipal Court August 19, 2003 • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ,.Tigard OR 97223 Via Fax and US Mail (503) 684-7297 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 0203-01 Dear Clerk of the Court: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and our representation of the City of Tigard. Please find enclosed City's Opposition Regarding Defendant's Motion and Order for Continuance of Hearing,Affidavit in Support of City's Opposition regarding Defendant's Motion and Order for Continuance of Hearing and Certificate of Service. Thank you for your time and assistance. Very truly yours, Lori J. Elkins Enclosure cc: Jack Hoffman Al Shields • 3'700 C,.rbui Building. 3716 S_.v C0nclor Street. 'Suite 116. ' ori.lai r, Oreclou 9.239 Telephone: 503.228,6200 I % ;'.m .1 i. 503.228 6222 E-rr1ila; ' €rrjblakejr.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 8 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON 9 10 CITY OF TIGARD, ) ) Case No.: 0203-01 11 Plaintiff, ) ) CITY'S OPPOSITION REGARDING 12 vs. ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND ORDER ) FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING 13 ) CURTIS HEINTZ EXCAVATION ) 14 COMPANY &RENAISSANCE ) 15 PROPERTIES, ) 16 Defendant. ) 17 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through the City Prosecutor, Larry J. Blake, Jr., and moves 18 this Court to denying Defendant's Motion and Order for Continuance of Hearing. 19 This Motion is supported by the attached Affidavit of Larry J. Blake, Jr., which is incorporated by this 20 reference herein. 21 DATED this "'day of August, 2003. 22 23 24 Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB#87172 Tigard City Prosecutor 25 26 Page 1-OPPOSITION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE LARRY J.BLAKE,JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUILDING 3718 SW CONDOR,SUITE 110 PORTLAND,OR 97239 (503)228-6200 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 8 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON 9 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 10 ) Case No.: 0203-01 Plaintiff, ) 11 ) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S vs. ) OPPOSITION REGARDING 12 ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND ORDER ) FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING 13 CURTIS HEINTZ EXCAVATION ) 14 COMPANY & RENAISSANCE ) PROPERTIES, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 17 STATE OF OREGON ) 18 ) ss. County of Multnomah ) 19 20 I, Larry J. Blake, Jr., being first duly sworn, depose and say: 21 1. I am the City Prosecutor for the City of Tigard. 22 2. Defendant reports that a set over is required because the City of Tigard has not yet issued a 23 final acceptance of the work that Defendant has performed. What Defendant fails to 24 acknowledge is that the reason that the City has not issued the final acceptance of the work 25 is because that defendant has failed to provide all the required paperwork. In addition, the 26 fact that Defendant has still not performed pursuant to City Code, does not in any way Page negate the need to have this matter resolved by the Court. I-AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S OPPOSITION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S CONTINUANCE LARRY J.BLAKE,JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUILDING 3718 SW CONDOR,SUITE 110 PORTLAND,OR 97239 (503)228-6200 1 3. In a letter dated August 15, 2003 and for the first time, defense counsel has asked that this 2 matter be placed before a Mediator for resolution. Unfortunately, the parties have been 3 attempting to informally resolve this matter for over a year, all without success. Although 4 the City is interested in an informal resolution of this matter, based upon defendant's 5 position, the informal resolution of this matter is not indicated through direct negotiation or 6 by a third party. 7 4. This matter has been set by the Court on numerous occasions. Therefore, this matter needs 8 to be resolved as quickly as possible. The Plaintiff is ready to proceed at trial and 9 therefore, requests that the motion to postpone, be denied. 10 5. I am competent to testify to the foregoing of my own personal knowledge, except as to 11 those matters stated upon information and belief, which such matters I do believe to be 12 true. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and of the state of Oregon 14 that the foregoing is true and correct. 15 16 Executed this\c\. day of August, 2003, at Portland, Oregon. 17 18 19 La . -a e,Jr., OSB#87172 City Prosecutor 20 t- 21 21 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me-this 1'1 day of August, 2003 22 • Y _t+f ii C; FICIAL SEAL 23 ) F �'j LORI ELKINS v.,/ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON () t` tart'P b7 is for Oregon COmSSION NO.343892 t} My Commission Expires:�3 3 41S( 24 MY COP M'SS N WIRES MAR. 13,2005 6 25 26 Page 2-AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S OPPOSITION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S CONTINUANCE LARRY J.BLAKE,JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUILDING 3718 SW CONDOR.SUITE 110 PORTLAND,OR 97239 (503)228-6200 r 1 2 3 4 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing CITY'S OPPOSITION 8 REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING and 9 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S OPPOSITON REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND 10 ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING on: 11 JACK D. HOFFMAN 12 DUNN CARNEY ALLEN HIGGINS & TONGUE, LLP ATTORNEY'S AT LAW 13 851 SW SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 PORTLAND OR 97204 14 FAX (503) 224-7324 15 by mailing said documents in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid to the address shown above, and 16 deposited in the US Mail at Portland, Oregon, on the 19th day of August, 2003. 17 18 19 DATED this 19th day of August, 2003. 20 21 22 Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB#87172 City Prosecutor 23 24 25 26 Page 1 —CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LARRY J BLAKE,JR ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUILDING 3718 SW CONDOR,SUITE I10 PORTLAND,OR 97201 Larry J. Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law Larry J. Blake, Jr.* * Also admitted in Minnesota& Washington Steve J. Rutherford, Of Counsel Al Shields September 9, 2003 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard v. Curtis Heintz Excavation Company&Renaissance Properties Case No. 2003-31790, 2003-31792 Dear Al: This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my representation of the City of Tigard. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter dated September 5, 2003 from Jack Hoffman. Please also find enclosed the original check, check number 019202,Renaissance Custom Homes, L.L.C.,made out to the City of Tigard in the amount of$21,371.75. As you may guess, I am very pleased with the results of this case mainly based upon your excellent efforts. I believe the City of Tigard can be truly proud of your work performed and on behalf of the properties in question. But for your efforts, I believe that there could have been a substantial risk to the homeowners in question as well as those living below the lots with the Renaissance homes located on them. Please also find enclosed a letter and a Motion to Dismiss that I have drafted and sent to Jack Hoffman for his review. Please advise if you have any questions regarding either of those documents. Lastly, I have no objection to the second draft forwarded to my office on September 5, 2003. I would agree with the comments regarding the first draft. Again, thank you for your efforts in the resolution in this matter. I believe this sets a good precedence for other contractors looking at cutting corners in the City of Tigard. Very truly yours, Larry J. Blake,Jr. LJB/lb Enclosure 3700 Barbur Building, 3718 S.W. Condor Street, Suite 110, Portland; Oregon 97239 Telephone: 501228,6200 Facsimile: 503.228,6222 -Mail: l w larryjhlakejr.com RECD FEB 032003 DUNN CARNEY ALLEN HIGGINS & TONGUE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 851 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1357 FACSIMILE(503)224-7324 JACK D.HOFFMAN TELEPHONE (503)224-6440 Direct Dial:(503)306-5324 Internet:jdh@dunn-carney.com January 31, 2003 SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL (Fax No. 503-684-7297) James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Erickson Heights Dear Jim: I have been retained by Curtis Heintz Excavation Company to represent its and Renaissance Properties' interests in connection with the retaining wall matter involving 8 lots. I just met with Mr. Heintz a few days ago and have not yet had an opportunity to review the file. I will be out of the office all next week and therefore will not be able to work on it until I return on February 10, 2003. I understand that the City of Tigard would like to get this matter resolved as soon as possible. So do I. As soon as I get back to the office in 10 days, I will contact you. Ve%111 : ry truly yours,1J: . Hoffman JDH: kno cc: Curtis D. Heintz ::ODMA\GRPWISE\DUNN-CAR.POSTI.CLIENTS:224043.1 INDEPENDENT MEMBER OF MERITAS WITH AFFILIATED OFFICES IN MORE THAN 250 CITIES AND 65 FOREIGN COUNTRIES In the Municipal Court for the City of Tigard County of Washington, State of Oregon SUBPOENA CITY OF TIGARD Citation #: 0203-01 Municipal Court Case #: 2003-0031790 VS RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT and CURTIS HEINTZ EXCAVATION, INC TO: Albert Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF OREGON,You are hereby required to appear before the undersigned Municipal Judge in and for the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, on Wednesday, the 14th day of May, 2003 at 9:00 AM at the Tigard Municipal Court, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon as a witness in the above entitled action For Complainant. Witness my name and seal of said court, affixed at the Tigard Municipal Court the 17th day of April, 2003. �� ��1r Court Clerk, Tigard Municipal Court In the Municipal Court for the City of Tigard County of Washington, State of Oregon SUBPOENA CITY OF TIGARD Citation #: 0203-02 Municipal Court Case #: 2003-31792 VS RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT TO: Albert Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF OREGON,You are hereby required to appear before the undersigned Municipal Judge in and for the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, on Wednesday, the 14th day of May, 2003 at 9:00 AM at the Tigard Municipal Court, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon as a witness in the above entitled action For Complainant. Witness my name and seal of said court, affixed at the Tigard Municipal Court the 17th day of April, 2003. /2/ 40.//- 5" Court Clerk, Tigard Municipal Court In the Municipal Court for the City of Tigard County of Washington, State of Oregon SUBPOENA CITY OF TIGARD Municipal Court Cases #: 2003-0031790 VS RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT CURTIS HEINTZ EXCAVATION, INC. TO: Albert Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF OREGON,You are hereby required to appear before the undersigned Municipal Judge in and for the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, on Friday, the 5th day of September, 2003 at 10:00 AM at the Tigard Municipal Court, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon as a witness in the above entitled action For Complainant. Witness my name and seal of said court, affixed at the Tigard Municipal Court the 1st day of August, 2003. Court Clerk, Tigard Municipal Court In the Municipal Court for the City of Tigard County of Washington, State of Oregon SUBPOENA CITY OF TIGARD Citation #: 0203-02 Municipal Court Case #: 2003-0031792 VS RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT TO: Albert Shields City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF OREGON,You are hereby required to appear before the undersigned Municipal Judge in and for the City of Tigard, County of 10 Washington, State of Oregon, on Friday, the 5th day of September, 2003 atQ8:00 AM at the Tigard Municipal Court, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon as a witness in the above entitled action For Complainant. Witness my name and seal of said court, affixed at the Tigard Municipal Court the 1st day of August, 2003. /71°L Court Clerk, Tigard Municipal Court • • CIVIL INFRACTIONS COMPLAINT STATE OF OREGON CIVIL INFRACTIONS FIRST APPEARANCE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CASE NO. 0203-01 CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER: Michael O'Brien BUILDING DIVISION SUMMONS DATE: February 11, 2003 COURT DATE: February 26, 2003 COURT TIME: 1:30 p.m. This Complaint and enclosed Summons have been filed with the Civil Infraction Hearings Officer for the Tigard Municipal Court. The undersigned City of Tigard Compliance Officer certifies and says: On or about June 19, 2000, and continuing from that date to the present, AT: Tax Parcels 2S110DA-04000, 10888 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot #1; 2S110DA-04100, 10856 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot #2; 2S110DA-04200, 10832 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot#3; 2S110DA-04300, 10810 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot #4; 2S110DA-04400, 10788 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot#5; 2S110DA-04500, 10722 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot #6; 2S110DA-04700, 10652 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot #8; 2S110DA-04800, 10630 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot#9; 2S110DA-04900, 10600 SW Kable St. Tigard, OR 97223, Lot # 10. NAME and ADDRESS: Renaissance Development, 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr., West Linn, OR 97068, and Curtis Heintz Excavation, Inc., 27475 SW 145th Ave., Sherwood, OR 97140 did unlawfully and in violation of Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 14.04.030(1)(a) and 1.16.200 and Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) Section 106.1, 3306.1, and 104.2.1, commit or permit to be committed,the following violation(s): CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHOUT PERMIT,OSSC 106.1 FILL WITHOUT PERMIT, OSSC 3306.1,APPENDIX CHAPTER 33 VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL: OSSC 104.2.1 VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF A VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT: TMC 1.16.200 I certify, under penalty provided by ordinance and state law, I have reasonable grounds and do believe the above person committ or permitted to :: ommitted,the above violation. Albert Shields,Building C•: -s nforcement Officer Date Complaint Issued CIVIL INFRACTIONS SUMMONS STATE OF OREGON CIVIL INFRACTIONS FIRST APPEARANCE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CASE NO. 0203-01 CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER: Michael O'Brien BUILDING DIVISION SUMMONS DATE: February 11, 2003 TO RESPONDENT(S): COURT DATE: February 26, 2003 Renaissance Development COURT TIME: 1:30 p.m. 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068, and Curtis Heintz Excavation, Inc. 27475 SW 145th Ave. Sherwood, OR 97140, and This Summons and enclosed Complaint has been filed with the Civil Infraction Hearings Officer for the Tigard Municipal Court. A first appearance on this matter has been scheduled at the date and time shown above in the Town Hall Room of the Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. You are required and are herewith summoned to appear or to respond in writing, either denying the violation and requesting a hearing or admitting the violation and paying the penalty indicated in the enclosed response form. A default hearing will be convened in your absence, should you or your representative fail to appear or respond in writing. Failure to comply with the instructions in this summons, including failure to appear as scheduled and failure to respond as discussed below will result in a default judgement being entered against you in favor of the City of Tigard. The Tigard Municipal Code, 1.16.350 directs that"... a default judgement shall be entered in an amount up to the maximum civil penalty applicable to the charged infraction if the respondent fails to appear at the scheduled hearing." An unpaid Civil Infraction penalty can result in a lien being placed against the property on which this infraction occurred. You have been charged with the following seventy-four (74) infractions as violations of the Tigard Municipal Code(TMC) and Oregon Structural Specialty Code(OSSC), as follows: 1. CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHOUT PERMIT,OSSC 106.1,NINETEEN COUNTS. OSSC 106.1 Permits Required. Except as defined in Section 106.2, no building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired,moved, improved, or converted unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from the building official. OSSC 106.2 Work Exempt from Permit. A permit shall not be required for the following: ... 6. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet(1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge ... • 2. FILL WITHOUT PERMIT,OSSC 3306.1,APPENDIX CHAPTER 33,NINETEEN COUNTS. OSSC 3306.1 Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 3306.2 of this section, no person shall do any grading without first having obtained a grading permit from the building official. OSSC 3306.2 Exempted Work. A grading permit is not required for the following: ... 9. A fill less than 1 foot(305 mm) in depth and placed on natural terrain with a slope flatter than 1 unit vertical in 5 units horizontal (20% slope), or less than 3 feet (914 mm) in depth, not intended to support structures, that does not exceed 50 cubic yards (38.3 cu.m.) on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. 3. VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL: OSSC 104.2.1,THIRTY- FOUR COUNTS. OSSC 104.2.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions of this code. For such purposes, the building official shall have the powers of a law enforcement officer. ... OSSC 104.2.2 Deputies. ... the building official may appoint such number of technical officers and inspectors and other employees as shall be authorized from time to time. The building official may deputize such inspectors or employees as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the code enforcement agency. TMC 1.16.140 Time to Remedy Infraction After Notice. If a Notice of Violation is given to a respondent pursuant to this Chapter, the Code Enforcement Officer shall give the respondent a reasonable time to cure or remedy the alleged infraction after the notice is given. 4. VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF A VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT: TMC 1.16.200, Two COUNTS. TMC 1.16.200 Voluntary Compliance Agreement. ... 2. Failure to Comply with Agreement. The failure to comply with any term of the voluntary compliance agreement constitutes an additional and separate infraction ... The City may also proceed on the alleged infraction that gave rise to the voluntary compliance agreement. These are violations of Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 14.04.030(1)(a) State Codes Adopted and 14.04.090 Violation—Penalty-Remedies (1): TMC 14.04.090 Violation—Penalty-Remedies (1): No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, occupy, or maintain a building or structure in the city, or cause the same to be done contrary to or in violation of this chapter. Such violations are Class 1 Civil Infractions with a maximum possible civil penalty of$250.00 per day, per violation. Any such penalties may accrue daily until the violation has been corrected. If you admit to committing the infraction(s) and wish to avoid a court appearance, complete the enclosed Response Form and return it with payment of the penalty assessed as of the date of this summons. The Court will record an agreement by you to correct the violation(s) within ten days of the recording date. Additional penalties and fees may continue to accrue and if you fail to complete the agreement you may be found in contempt of court and further penalties may be charged. If you deny committing the infraction and wish to request a hearing, complete the enclosed Response Form and return it. The court will then schedule the formal hearing and excuse you from the First Appearance referred to above. You have the right to counsel at your own expense at any first appearance or hearing and, at a hearing, the right to bring witnesses or supporting documents, and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. You have the right to compulsory process for the production of your witnesses. If you will be appearing with an attorney or if you wish to use compulsory process,provide written notice to the Court Manager at least five (5) working days prior to the scheduled court date. Be advised that if the Hearings Officer finds that you committed the infraction you may be charged witness fees plus the civil penalties and other fees and costs. CIVIL INFRACTIONS SUMMONS RESPONSE STATE OF OREGON CIVIL INI'RACTIONS FIRST APPEARANCE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CASE NO. 0203-01 CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER: Michael O'Brien BUILDING DIVISION SUMMONS DATE: February 11, 2003 FROM RESPONDENT(S): COURT DATE: February 26, 2003 Renaissance Development COURT TIME: 1:30 p.m. 1672 SW Willamette Falls Dr. West Linn, OR 97068, and TO: CIVIL INFRACTIONS HEARINGS OFFICER, CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENT: RESPOND TO THIS SUMMONS BY CHECKING ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, SIGNING,AND RETURNING THIS FORMAS INDICATED PRIOR TO THE DATE AND TIME OF THE SCHEDULED FIRST APPEARANCE. I DENY committing the infraction(s) as charged, I request a hearing on a date to be determined by the Court, and I request that I be excused from the scheduled First Appearance. I ADMIT committing the infraction(s), I agree to correct, cure, or remedy the infraction(s) immediately upon receipt of this summons and complaint, and I understand that penalties will continue to accrue until the violation(s) are corrected. Payment is enclosed for the initial penalties sought as of the Summons Date by the Building Division of$18,500.00, representing $250.00 per violation for each of the seventy-four (74) violations cited. I acknowledge that my choosing this option constitutes a written appearance and that I herewith waive my right to a hearing and agree to the penalties sought by the Building Division. _ I ADMIT committing the infraction(s),I agree to correct, cure, or remedy the infraction(s) immediately upon receipt of this summons and complaint, I wish to contest the amount of the penalties sought by the Building Division, and I request a hearing on Thursday,March 6, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. or on another date to be determined by the Court. RETURN THIS FORM WITH A CHECK OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OR CASH(CASH IN PERSON ONLY)FOR THE AMOUNT INDICATED ABOVE. Respondent Print Name Sign Name Date