Letter to Engineering Dept.pdfPROVIDENCE
CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN
• 4208 227' Pl. Sw. Mountlake Ter ace NVA, 980430 425-879 9954
E-Mail: I,ayuc@providencebuilds.com Web: wivNv.providcncebuilds.com
Date: 7/27/17
Rob English
City Engnicer
Phil Williams
Public Works Director
City of Edmonds
Public Works Engineering Division
City Hall - Second Floor
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. English and Mr. Williams:
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2017
s NEE:RING DIVISION
My name is Layne Beller. My firm, Providence Construction & Design, was contracted to build an addition for Craig and
Abby Roosendaal at 704 Bell St. I'd like to ask if I could take some of your time and describe the egregious dealings we
have encountered with the engineering department throughout the course of this project.
This project started out as a remodel. Upon demolition, I noticed that the foundation was cracked in a few places. I
continued to investigate and found; under floor framing was undersized, and not enough crawlspace access. As a builder
with integrity, I halted demolition and contacted the building department for advice. Initially I was told to have an engineer
assess the situation, and to come up with an engineered solution. We did so, but unfortunately, soon thereafter, the
homeowners received an official letter stating that the issue was discussed with the city attorney and we would need to re
submit for a `new construction' permit for various reasons. In doing so, the engineering department entered into the project
with requirements for storm water retention, water management, and numerous other site improvements.
A meeting was organized with the departments of the city, the owners (my clients), and my firm. It was an effort to try and
understand why speaking up and being honest with the city in this matter, and not simply hiding some fix (as was noted by
the building official has been the case in the past), was now causing us a very costly resubmittal. This resubmittal was to cause
no shortage of problems; additional permitting costs, and tens of thousands of dollars in extra work that would be required,
all because I decided not to hide the issue from the city. In this meeting were present; members of the engineering
department. One of these members in particular was outspokenly insensitive to the financial constraints that were now being
required of the Roosendaals. This individual spoke very condescendingly and had a very contemptuous attitude when we
would ask questions. Shockingly, this individual was even laughing and very unprofessionally whispering back and forth with
another colleague, rolling their eyes, and putting on quite the show disrespect during the duration of the meeting.
PROVIDENCE
1009
CO?MRU T 411 ocamI
Resloration Renovation New Construction CouuuuuiLy Sctvicc
During the process of resubmitting, the architect kept ruining into issues with the engineering department. Specifically there
were problems with this same disrespectful individual. There were several attempts made to design a plan for water
management. The feedback from this person was unhelpful and discourteous. This Process held us up for weeks while the
owners continued to pay interest on a loan for a project that had already been held up for an additional 4 months. Why this
city employee couldn't simply tell the architect what they wanted to see for this design, is beyond anyone who was involved.
Even after plans were approved, and construction underway, we continued to have problems with this same person. The
storm water plan that this individual required was outrageously overkill, especially on a lot where the ground is sand. There
were two (2) catch basins required for this small property and a massive gravel pit. All the preparation, digging, planning, and
delivery had been done for 2 catch basins. We had the hole dug, the CB in the hole, and the holes chiseled out for the drain
pipes, when this individual showed up and told us we didn't need it, that we only needed one CB, as two was overkill. They
also upon immediately arriving, started in on us about how they were going to give us a $500 fine because there was dirt in
the road way, even though we had a machine running, and a person with a broom standing in the street sweeping as we went.
As this project continued, I began working with a different person, and inspector named Alix. I had a great experience
working with her. She was very much by the book in carrying out requirements for storm water and sewer, but did so
explaining things graciously. It is also evident that she has a sufficient understanding of the areas she is inspecting, which is
more than I can say about the other people in the department that I have worked with.
The last piece of the project needed before we could get final inspections, was to redo an ADA handicap sidewalk ramp
and landing. I met with Chris from the department, and was told that my approved and stamped plans had an outdated
ramp detail on it. I was handed a new detail different from what I had always had on my approved plan set. We found this
out upon the first pre inspection I called for, and it caused us to redesign everything.
I had a second meeting with Chris about the new requirements, and he informed me that we would need to replace 15' of
the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter. I pointed out that there was no gutter on Bell St. or on 7i6 Ave. Nor was there a
sidewalk that continued, or would ever continue across 7' and Bell, on the east side. I asked why we would need to make
that upgrade, and was told he would need to talk to a supervisor. Upon another meeting Chris mentioned I would need to
adjust a catch basin in the road because it wasn't square with the curb. Aside from digging up the entire street, completely
shutting down the east portion of Bell, disconnecting storm water pipes, lifting and resetting the CB, patching holes and
drilling new ones, redirecting the storm pipes, putting everything back, re doing the pavement, and many more items, that
wouldn't be possible. Chris said he would talk to a supervisor and get back to me. To his credit, he did say several times
when he came out, that he would need to talk with a supervisor before coming to a conclusion on whatever it was we were
discussing. While I appreciate him not simply flying off the cuff and making demands that made no sense, but getting a
second opinion, the lack of experience and first hand knowledge caused weeks of delay. This is something I might expect
from smaller jurisdictions where these issues are figured out on the go, but where the expectations are not extremely high.
It's frustrating to go through this with a city such as Edmonds that is well established, and even has requirements of their own
that exceed the state standards, and where expectations are set at an acutely high bar.
Yet another meeting with Chris, he told me we didn't take the measurement for our 15' correctly for cutting out existing
sidewalk for replacing. We went from the middle of the new ADA landing, and he wanted it from the furthest point of the
landing. None of this is detailed on plans, nor was it discussed until after we had done our demo. I had to bring my concrete
2
PROVIDENCE
coNiTavcnon I. DESIGNr Rcsloralion Rcnovation Nc%v Conslructlon Coinmuiiily Service
guy out again to cut an additional 12" of sidewalk and gutter, which did absolutely nothing for obtaining different slope
results. The one detail he talked extensively about was that the whole purpose of cutting back sidewalk, was to try and obtain
a consistent slope that gets as close to meeting i-epuirements as possible. This point was discussed multiply times during
multiple meetings. While I understood this, I noted to him that there were many requirements that they were looking to be
met, but because of the existing slope of this sidewalk, mixed with how the asphalt isn't a consistent slope in places, that we
could not meet all the requirements, and they would have to compromise somewhere. I tried to show him, but it didn't quite
seem like he understood, as he would revert to repeating the requirements.
Many more meetings happened. Chris would come and we would talk about changing the formwork and each time I would
mention how it would affect the other areas that seemed to be more important, like the entrance ramp and landing. Each
time I was given additional information, which was not on the new set of details, or on my initial approved plans. Several
times he didn't have an answer for me. Frustrated, I called the engineering department and spoke with a supervisor in order
to ask if there were any other details I needed to know about, and where I could go about finding them. I explained that
what I was being told on the field was contradictory to the codes that the new set of plans I was given, were referring to. I was
then told "Edmonds has their own requirements, "you have to go to our website and look them up." I asked why these
details weren't on my plans, and whose responsibility it is to assure the correct details are on the plans. I asked why, if the
correct details were not placed on the plans, did the department not send the plans back and ask for a correction detail, and
point to to where we could fund those details. I was not given an answer, but was given a very unhelpful and notably annoyed
"they are on the website." Further exposing a lack of organization and communication, I rented a `sidewalk closed' sign and
blocked off the work area as requested. A week later, I was told I needed more signage, and it was all of a sudden an
emergency that I get it out there that same day. I got an email, voicemails from a couple of people, text messages, and was
expected to drop everything I was doing to get an additional sign.
After that, more people and a supervisor got involved, including the individual we had struggled with in the past. One
particular occasion, this problematic individual, and two others came to discuss the issues we were having in meeting all of
the requirements. After an hour's conversation, it was determined that we couldn't meet all the requirements! The current
way we had the forms set up was acceptable because of this. One gentleman who was there kept saying tlis was a classic
example of a non -conforming situation. Everyone agreed that they didn't have an issue with how the forms were set up for
the sidewalk, which maintained the consistent slope that Christ had initially insisted on.
The next time there were two individuals who came out, that had been at the previous meeting, and this time, they didn't
like what they approved the time before. I was told we needed to re do the forms again! When asked why they changed their
minds, as nothing else had changed, I was told they were referring to something else, though they never clarified what that
`something else' actually was. The supervisor picked up a form board and placed it in the new desired location. They came
out later that day to inspect and we put a digital level on all of the cross slopes and it showed slope percentages not only
acceptable, but recommended by code. But, they didn't like the looks of the new design they required. For 3o minutes, we
raised and lowered forms and put slopes at maximum percentages, at the specific request and direction of the these two staff
members, so that the aesthetics weren't as dramatic. The changes we made this time were purely for aesthetic reasons. The
forms were initially set up with proper recommended sloping, but the inspectors did not like the look of the new design, and
so made us change the forms again. The most surprising issue they have with the finished product is that there is a slope
change where the ADA connection sidewalk, meets the regular in -line sidewalk. They acted as if they did not know this
PROVIDENCE
w CONSTRUCTION t• DESIGN
Restoration Reuoraliou New Conslruclloll Coouruuuty Service
slope change would happen. But, die formwork was requested to be changed from a version where we did not have a change
in slope, to the current design where there is a change in slope. This was all contradictory to what Chris had told me on
numerous occasions. They had to have known this because it is why upon the last inspection, they made us adjust the forms
yet again, which would maximize cross slopes, but minimize slightly the change in the new angle they requested. I cannot
fathom not understanding something this simple. I truly believe that they simply did not notice or think that a change in
slope would happen. The formwork was set up, it could clearly be seen. We assumed they knew this and were using the
slope change at this point as the sacrificing factor in this equation because they were more concerned with correct consistent
cross slope. I really think that they simply couldn't see it until it was actually poured. Another important observance to note
is that when pouring concrete, it is recommended to be well below the max percentage of slope, as your finished product
almost always ends up over the formwork. They approved the formwork only after making us adjust it at its max tolerance.
Now they do not like the outcome of the cross slope, and angle change in the 5' section that transitions the in -line sidewalk,
to the back landing access.
We cutback 15' of sidewalk in order to minimize a steep angle on a steep road. If we were to tear up the entire block of
sidewalk, we would not be able to obtain anything better than what is currently there, or even worse, what was there before
we were made to tear up what existed and re do. The whole reason we had to replace what was there already is because the
entrance ramp had a slope that exceeded the maximus allowed by a very small change in slope percentage. Time and time
again I tried explaining that no matter how we set up the forms, no matter how many times we play around with different
scenarios, they would not obtain all the required dimensions, or slopes, or cross slopes, or back slopes, etc. I clearly
explained that somedhing has to give and in my opinion, they should focus on the ramp entrance and landing and make sure
those meet requirements first. Then, they could compromise on something else less important. In my opinion, we had
everything set up in the best possible scenario, and three (3) people, one being a division manager, approved it and agreed
we couldn't do any better. In that scenario, we had the ramp entrance and landing set to code, and one continuous plane of
sidewalk meeting up with it. Why two of those people decided a few days later that it needed to change, is beyond me.
I have spent hours upon hours upon hours talking to a total of five (5) different people from the engineering department
concerning this matter. This process started on May 26'h, and I have documented ten (10) different times someone, or a
group of people came out to either give more information, or have us change something which someone else, or worse, they
themselves said or approved. Each time someone came out, we explained to them, that no matter how they have us change
things, there will always be something that would need to compromise. It's mathematically impossible to get everything
exactly how they want it because of too many existing variables; basically, we can't change the road.
Having to resubmit the project in the beginning subjected us to time set backs. The engineering department, and specifically
this one difficult individual, from the beginning, made simple tasks complicated and added more delay in time. Eight (8)
weeks to figure out how they wanted a sidewalk, and still not satisfied, added even more time delay. Because of these time
delays, my client had to do an extension on their loan, which cost them an additional $4000. They still do not have
occupancy because of this sidewalk, and they are in jeopardy of having to do another extension.
This is appalling, with five (5) different inspectors/supervisors involved over a period of 8 weeks, and yet they changed their
minds right up to the very end, twice actually on the last day. We have never had anything remotely similar in working with
any other jurisdiction. Not: Seattle, Woodinville, Redmond, Kirkland, Bellevue, Des Moines, Shoreline, Lynnwood,
91
PROVIDENCE
. CCWSTRucnm+�.ocM.4
ResLorafion Rcuoralion New Conslnuliou Community Scrricc
Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Lake Forrest Park, Snohomish, county, King county, Everett, or Marysville, have we encountered
anything like this.
The fact that we have been through all that we have, and this sidewalk still is not approved is unreasonable, not only because
of everything described above, but because this work has nothing to do with the work being done inside the property lines at
704 Bell St. I understand that municipalities get away with placing this burden on individuals, but it really and truly is unjust
to have property owners pay for work to be done that is outside of their property, which is in fact owned and maintained by
the municipality. The property owners already pay taxes that get designated towards improving sidewalks and re doing ramps
for state and federal compliance. To require that an owner pay thousands of dollars to do this work for the municipality, and
then on top of it all, be this difficult and maladroit, is very disheartening.
In conclusion, I would like to request a site visit between my firm, Providence Construction & Design, my engineer, and the
appropriate city officials: Rob English, the city engineer, and Phil Williams, the public works director. The goal would be to
discuss and gain approval of the sidewalk construction as it has been poured, given the history and direction given by the
City of Edmonds staff. I would appreciate this meeting to be held promptly. This issue has extended for 8 weeks, holding up
final occupancy for the project, and leaving the Roosendaals with their 2 young daughters, homeless and having to stay with
relatives until this issue is resolved. This delay has already caused my clients thousands of dollars in loan extension fees, and
will soon be the cause of thousands more if the matter is not resolved before the first extension is expired. On behalf of my
clients, and my firm, I would like to see this matter resolved as soon as possible in order to avoid any further such expense.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience via phone or email to schedule a meeting time.
Sincerely,
Layne Beller
President
425-879-9954
Layne@providencebuilds.com
1 �J, rc«5I�lnA+AL - 7G'g96`L elrnFL ;.TA('E
cc S Dr W'AL-K P(RZI✓F f"FiVTs
_.7•LC111Y1 Aa-j
(/✓ .7tfLfy _T- MF_-T I f 7J I-A'Ir e l3�LiE� -_G�OQ���I�FNCL L'.Un%6& 1t. oF_S(e-"
GCi?FC-; IOVE '. ry ��� /���� _ !:F-Sc,LvF_ n�s���I Is�,<<�_ Q21E Tv FCAA
of
N 1 S'—,C-QY
I,) A r I E,L-b S 1 'r-- tv-) F- F 'T e eJ 6 L,) A"S tic-t b W I i N C.1 i Y C'F
i,-A,^r RF�'iF.: 1�� 4N APf'ftc-Vfr
c' &" S T. F/A b
( ae PA A A -riL-r./ MA P� A Seb F Co L!< C"41',v Cr-6
Pc. u2, TNtf3 InEi1 r 0'Asz1 6 C--r NcJ'F
w' cF f F Lt- S 1 4 7 rn A v r cF
ADA C:Hn(iL r�AN1Fn
A) A7r, ,11) ,4 6 5 s ;Ar-r- zFc-�D
IQEYIsI�Ns 'ia 111E rc-aMWcfr'K , Pr,,mAlzfLY iv Ac<uun1
Fom, -11g 01�¢L1 TI vF L y S--fLC P 5,_c'PF Dc- -r " AVE
IOPQ tt2AS -r` j-FvlSF -IlA
F�f=n1S car/ 7-H Avg_ !may
rA1 j?-IF(Z -1-+AN Cyr!✓ A E_ -5Cvf'k
FF CIA tt - N C 2n! L-, n1 1 ` 6 F S 18 E- w1 A r_W
T ry �kT¢N nEj). T-, 61Z-_ f T F16 < iH.
iN & 7'a At's (zI; Y rt' F'bMc;4F7S
6�2Ec-r-_n _I /aA-
2E Tus r Ate 5
T)lc 1 -, 0'- L<ae-�lu •J AMf?
Tip I S R Ep E � I t .rJ l� AE ok -rc, n + 5 e-,,( 3ScD
_ l
oi,J n _A Prncs vED cl,I S o Y
C_1-Y cc
A5 SH�`wrJ nN tle A*7,-Ac�ACr� QFAI•.lrh 6
t
i Hr Q e- r iA" $ CS +
gr.cA,\A r- '
AREA P+E
r
(117 ' 43 r-Ai.,, 'veg
• A9i 6A �2 " —MA PAPA,}- DAB s¢cri ooQ
Ap, UIF RAlv.P
EqR 0i>5£ NPALL , 7z;.+ I FL1_ S"T fLl r eW AEG Fi'ETkA i� ��1
v✓ �L CHnI� DAMP t 3
5) f)E�%/A IJ< rn1 PnCt Lle1EN T
C0 N e L. L-t S I v fJ
f4 "I F--jve I "1 4 6 UP1 4 1 0tj I S -rHC h�, 1 S /V v AV- Rr-FGT LSUL_ 1 T,, I,)
-7Z�,T"Nls LdAi-,-c t LJ? IC-(L- C-HA�IR -c-PoNs,/Zo c7rc,^,1. my
�rllili_ ENGr�F-�2inlG EJiF�-r2lE�C£ %�'IE`� �NGL.[-IAA L.Jc;RK
PsZ A KyNC, Cour,�Ti
rJt-vc,L4--PMEIX"i r1��Pl-e�or� AND �'11/fi_ �1�n/ 1eJVG�NI� /�
0VC--.0 �vAbvJAy 10rJ zt Cr7yl�n"e-OLCigc_ br-VlE-i- OPAV:i 7'
,e-�/ � , �l lel N G �Ca •7 c� � ti� E N ! s AI AT'a=-sue
LLN� � 2 /1 /Sc_:Ll s � r J ►�� Fi�13 rnl F A 'S �' r_�.c 7L onf "-tcit � 1��Ts
�t-y G pntvrvp AW6 ADD
,A A 6 1 L'1VEN '�1�- � ISM"rnl� C ;,1,�+A„r.i7S.
1-'!_''-4JAIL !N 6- r& T` V-� IS i 1 ie 6 X IS'I C 5 L v P>< lq 7,� AVC
-74fS e-'utiAf7tv,,i r fC%AS 9ITL(I%l�
�n I !3 FT 11y(� �[r n cuE n Itf`i'f F6N 2 o u (b1� E '7-' h `71c 1 i Ap t-F_
rJ , /� R. v v ; (� -,y c s<_ G. q SZT. n A oQ C r< 16 i
e-1 :?tle
'77/A'T F ,v C E /QE V I F e,* C' r i1-rr r1 G'
/l %.c--I��'n-�.or 0 h-� T�nrv�'rT�ol�.1 � ��' `/c• Sr v��E /-
7NE G AS'T 5 A8 r v —H R/4 /1'l f i �i E r1A /a j T'src_I-gf
G'Ivf-N T#AT C!r 7j� c�c n�oiuA� -s Afs-" [1+ c->r1�
FL2AAWv!ZIC 7-' 1014A7- /.1A---. 06` 4W 19Oct�� k
e 4if- /l/ ! CO NC2E %e-
.4 S—, At ,e CT r L nl
,4 ,PP R c V¢ f� A'5 CzP q s7-z Lc c1c:1"3
ICHA64 J7, �F-;KA,�?Ee
LM
1�.
.kl"'V-r-t,.lA.khL - 70f Sr Y , I�ClokQ
D QAk1l l G - i DEUI�4tk
Lax � sr �/vJ ,✓ b It Ca �
fir. fr ((11
:. ,3/,I-
1
2EA /4
off'. 12
.�� +3 I a P. 17
i
f .4 i, 8 N .+r Ao /p
=4pp O v
X S )c O-W /AFT