Loading...
Correspondence (147) j a t - ( FE8 4 2003 TORT CLAIM NOTICE RISK AGEMENT ME February 3, 2003 Mark C. Hoyt Timothy V. Ramis Attorney at Law City Attorney City of Tigard 1727 NW Hoyt St Certified Mail, Return Receipt No. 70001530000165265940 Portland, OR 97209 and First Class Mail Loreen Mills Risk Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Certified Mail, Return Receipt No. 70001530000165265957 Tigard, OR 97223 and First Class Mail RE: Tort Claim Notice on Behalf of Joseph Green and Joseph Green Investment Company Dear Mr. Ramis and Ms. Mills: I represent Joe Green and the Joe Green Investment Company regarding the office building they are constructing at 11560 SW 67 Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. I write to provide tort claim notice to the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 30.275 as a result of a required design change, and a series of stop work orders and other work stoppages on Mr. Green's project which began in late September of 2002. At that time, an absolute stop work order was placed on the premises. Mr. Green was initially informed the stop work order was placed as a result of design issues regarding the building. He was later told that the stop work order was placed as a result of concerns over the designation of the engineer of record in this matter. The design issues surrounded the stairwell, and their compliance with fire safety standards. When the plans were initially submitted, they were reviewed and approved as drawn. Accordingly, Mr. Green began construction, poured the slab, ordered steel fabrication and otherwise configured the structure 475 Cottage St. N.E., in accordance with the approved plans. After the initial stop work order was Suite 120 placed, Mr. Green was informed that the city no longer felt that the building met Salem, Oregon 97301 fire codes and substantial redesign would be required before construction could Phone: 503-364-3302 continue. Fax: 503- 370 -4308 E -mail: Concerns over the architect and engineer of record appear to stem from hoyt @hoytlaw.net the fact that Mr. Green changed the architect of record to an engineer of record as allowed under the building code. The original designs were created, and Timothy V. Ramis Loreen Mills Page 2 February 3, 2003 submitted by architect Bayard Mentrum. Some time after the plans were fully reviewed and approved, Mr. Mentrum withdrew as the architect of record. He was replaced by Gary Darling of DL Engineering who became the engineer of record. Written notice of Mr. Darling's substitution as the engineer of record was provided to the City on December 11, 2001. After the initial stop work order was placed on the structure, a series of partial and complete stop work orders continued to be placed on the structure while the issue of designating the engineer of record and fire safety design matters were resolved My clients are asserting a claim for damages arising from the City's failure to adequately review the initial plans, and subsequent placement of stop work orders, and for the additional expenses, including delay damages resulting from the interruption of work caused by the stop work orders. Any and all correspondence regarding this matter should be directed to me at the address and telephone number on this letterhead. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Your , -r y, .r / ..4 fj 7 Mark C. Hoyt MCH:vmp cc: Joe Green PJ r October 11, 2002 Mark C. Hoyt Attorney at Law Gary Lampella City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Darrell "Hap" Watkins City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Green Office Building Stop Work Order Dear Gary and Hap: I write to address the events of the last few days regarding the Green Office Building, which resulted in the placement of the Stop Work Order. Because Stop Work Orders were placed on the project, both Mr. Green's insurance carrier, as well as his lender might inquire as to the nature of the events which lead to the Stop Work Orders. Accordingly, it is important there be a record in the file regarding the matter in which the Stop Work Orders came about, my client's response, and the surrounding events and circumstances. What follows is my recollection of events taken from information I received from my client, my notes, and the meetings which I attended. I welcome any corrections, modifications, or supplemental information you might provide based on information you received during the last few days on this project. It is my understanding the first Stop Work Order was placed on the project late on Friday, September 27, 2002. At that time, the foundation was poured, the framing largely completed, the exterior sheathing placed on the premises, and the application of exterior masonry was underway. 475 Cottage St. N.E., The Stop Work Order was placed as a result of information found by Mr. Suite 120 Lampella when we pulled the plans on the project. Mr. Lampella went to the Salem, Oregon 97301 plans to in vestigate whether they were stamped by Gary-Darling as the engineer Phone: 503- 364 -3302 of record on the project. The plans at issue were drawn and stamped by Bayard Fax: 503- 370 -4308 Mentrum the previous architect of record. When the plans were submitted by E -mail: Mr. Mentrum they went through the full plan review process and were approved. hoyt @hoytlaw.net Some time after the plans were reviewed and approved, Mr. Mentrum Gary Lampella and Hap Watkins Page 2 October 11, 2002 withdrew from the project as the architect of record. At the request of Mr. Lampella, Mr. Green made arrangements for DL Engineering to replace Mr. Mentrum as the engineer of record by way of a letter dated December 11, 2001. When Mr. Lampella reviewed the plans the week of September 27, 2002, he discovered that Mr. Darling did not stamp the plans when his firm came onto the project as engineer of record, replacing Mr. Mentrum as architect of record. Mr. Darling did not stamp the plans, because they were prepared by Mr. Mentrum and they were not Mr. Darling's plans. Further investigation into the plans revealed that there were concerns regarding locations of the stairwells and exits, in relation to building code requirements for fire exits. Through communications with Joe Green and Joe Green, Jr., the. City indicated it wanted to meet with Gary Darling, as well as Mr. Green regarding Mr. Darling stamping the plans, and the need to address the location of the stairwells and fire exits. Until such a meeting took place the Stop Work Order would remain in place. Monday, September 30, 2002, I contacted Mr. Watkins, to determine the status of the project, why a Stop Work Order had been placed, and the actions necessary to have the Stop Work Order lifted. Mr. Watkins informed me a meeting was scheduled for 10:00 that morning at which be would like to receive a set of stamped plans from Mr. Darling. He also wanted to address the status of the locations of the stairwells and fire exits. Because I had a conflicting meeting scheduled, that meeting was eventually rescheduled for 2:00. After rescheduling the meeting, I spoke with Mr. Watkins regarding the scope of the Stop Work Order. I indicated to Mr. Watkins it was my client's desire to have the Stop Work Order lifted, as it related to the brick work on the front of the structure, so that the building materials that were on the site could be enclosed, and would not be damaged by weather. When we spoke, Mr. Watkins indicated it might be possible to narrow the scope of the Stop Work Order, however, he needed to have a meeting to discuss the pending issues, prior to making any decision. That afternoon the requested meeting took place. The meeting consisted of Mr. Watkins, Albert Shields and Darrell Jciles,•on behalf of the City of Tigard: Mi Lampeila was unable to attend the meeting, because he had left for a conference in Texas early Monday, September 30, and would be gone through Friday, October 4, 12002. The meeting was also attended by Joe Green, Joe Green, Jr. and I. At that meeting we discussed the manner in which the Stop Work Order came about. The events described above, involving Mr. Lampella's review of the plans to determine whether they had been stamped by Mr. Darling was discussed. After some discussion on this issue, we turned to the issue of fire safety. Mr. Jones, reviewed in detail the code compliance issues he perceived, given the current layout of the plans and building code requirements for fire and exit locations. Several alternative designs were discussed, including extended firewalls through each half of the building, or placing additional fire exits at each end of the building on the outside of the structure. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Watkins requested that we have an appropriate design professional address the concerns raised by Mr. Jones, and return a set of plans stamped by Mr. Darling addressing the issue. Gary Lampella and Hap Watkins Page 3 October 11, 2002 Further, after discussing the condition of the structure, and the fact that there was exposed sheetrock on the side of the building which could not be protected because of the Stop Work Order, it was agreed that the Stop Work Order would be lifted as a result of meeting to allow completion of the roof, and exterior brickwork on the front of the building, and the rear facade. At the outset of the meeting, the City indicated that the plans had been submitted and approved as currently drawn. The plan review and approval was performed by an employee who left the City shortly after the plans were performed. That employee did not raised the issues Mr. Jones outlined in our meeting and approved the plans as drawn. The next day, my client began meeting with Ankrum Moisan Associated Architects to address the issues that were raised by Mr. Jones regarding the plans. While my client was working With Ankrum Moisan Associated Architects he was contacted: by Mr. Watkins. - At -that -time -Joe Green, Jr. indicated that he was working with appropriate officials to address the City's concerns, and as soon as appropriate plans were prepared they would be provided. Mr. Green indicated that given the schedule of the parties involved, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide plans that day. At that time, Mr. Watkins made several suggestions as to ways in which the questions regarding fire exits could be resolved. Mr. Green indicated he would review those suggestions with appropriate design professionals, and provide plans stamped by qualified professionals as soon as they were available. At approximately the same time, the revised Stop Work Order was placed on the premises, which allowed Mr. Green to move his masonry contractor back on the site. The masonry contractor came on site, and began placing scaffolding and otherwise preparing to perform work as authorized by the narrowly crafted Stop Work Order. Some time that afternoon, the narrow Stop Work Order was replaced with a complete Stop Work Order. When I contacted Mr. Watkins to find out the status of the matter, I was informed that he spoke with Mr. Lampella it was decided a Stop Work Order must be placed on the premises until the issue of Mr. Darling stamping the plans was resolved. After some discussion, I asked Mr. Watkins to provide me thc: authority_ on which he relied for placing the - Stop Work Order. In response to our request, Mr. Watkins faxed me the portions of the code he relied upon for requiring Mr. Darling to stamp the plans as the engineer of record. After I had an opportunity to review the code provisions on which the City relied, I contacted Mr. Watkins regarding the requirement Mr. Darling stamp the plans prior to the Stop Work Order being lifted. I indicated I did not feel the code provisions required Mr. Darling to stamp the plans. Mr. Watkins indicated he would need to review the matter with Mr. Lampella, as it was Mr. Lampella's decision as to the requirements. At the same time, Mr. Watkins indicated that this matter had been pending for nearly a year, and was concerned that my clients had been unresponsive to Mr. Lampella's requests. I asked Mr. Watkins if he could provide me copies of the correspondence or communications requesting information from my clients on this issue, Mr. Watkins told me he could not provide the information without the appropriate personnel being present. Because Mr. Watkins, and I were speaking after 5:00 p.m. the appropriate personnel were not available and might not be available absent a public Gary Lampella and Hap Watkins Page 4 October 11, 2002 records request. Accordingly, I asked Mr. Watkins to set up a conference call with Mr. Lampella to address the issue on Wednesday, October 2, 2002. Because Mr. Watkins and I were speaking after business hours, he indicated he would leave a note with the people who were able to reach Mr. Lampella in Texas. I spoke with Mr. Watkins the next morning and he referred me to the Community Development Director's office. There, I spoke with a woman who indicated she would leave a message for Mr. Lampella. Early the afternoon of Wednesday, October 2, Mr. Lampella called me, leaving a message - indicating they were researching the matter, and would let me know the status shortly thereafter. Some time that afternoon, Mr. Watkins indicated that upon receipt of a formal letter verifying that DL Engineering was the engineer of record, the complete Stop Work Order would be lifted, and the limited Stop Work Order replaced, this would allow work on the exterior of the structure to continue. Mr. Darling provided the required letter on Friday, October 4, 2002, and the revised Stop Work Order was posted. Early this week Mr. Lampella contacted Joe Green, Jr. requesting a meeting on site to discuss some possibilities to address the building code issues addressed by Mr. Jones. After some scheduling difficulties, the meeting was held Wednesday morning at 10:30 a.m. At that time Joe Green, Jr., Mr. Lampella and I met on the site. Mr. Lampella reviewed the issues that were raised by Mr. Jones, and addressed some possible means by which they could be resolved. Mr. Lampella was clear he could not aid in the design, but could discuss possible means by which code provisions could be satisfied. One of the factors he indicated was that the International Building Code could be used as opposed to the Uniform .Builiing.Code, because it was a nationally recognized code. Mr. Lampella also discussed the possibility of creating exit corridors on each floor, which would allow the existing framing and stairwell locations to be substantially preserved and used as framed. At the conclusion of that meeting I indicated my clients would provide a design prepared by a qualified professional for the City's review. Mr. Lampella indicated he would prefer to meet with the parties who prepare the design so that the plans could be review. We asked that the plans be reviewed in an expedited manner so that future delays on the project could be avoided. As soon as appropriate plans have been prepared, I will contact Mr. Lampella to schedule a meeting either at the site, or in the City's offices to review the plans, and hopefully obtain approval so that the Stop Work Order can be lifted completely. If I have misstated or omitted anything regarding how this matter progressed, I welcome your input. Thank you in advance for your continuing courtesies and cooperation this matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your Gary Lampella and Hap Watkins Page 5 October 11, 2002 convenience. Yours 1 ,._..... Y Mark C. Hoyt MCH:vmp