Loading...
BLD1990-0607 LEGAL DOCSI File No 17— Applicant (= fftws Gl ll AFFIDAVIT OF MEADOWDALE LANDSLIDE PERMIT POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) ST&ileN 1< A~Ale�rvoi being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says: That on the 3 (? day of 19,76 the . site located at pQ%,cy P/Qele was posted as prescribed by Ordinance No. 2661 on the subject property. This posting begins on the day the City accepts the permit application for review and shall remain until building occupancy is granted. Sign d Signe Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,30� y of 19-X . �2 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. Residing at My COMMISSION EXPIRES 6.16.93 23 July 1990 Building Department City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 re: Acknowledgement of Risk and Hold Harmless I, Steven E. Greenebaum, have purchased lot #3 of the Harbor Hills development, the address for which is 1114 Daley Place. I have applied for a permit and intend to build my residence upon that lot. I am aware that the City of Edmonds has identified the area in which my house shall be built as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. In the process of applying for permit, I have engaged the services of Cascade geotechnical which has evaluated the risks involved and apprised me of them as well as having filed their reports with the City of Edmonds. I accept the risks of building at the proposed site and shall hold the City of Edmonds harmless. Further, I will notify any future purchaser, of the property that it is in an area identified by the City of Edmonds as having potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. 4teven E. Greenebaum 3USAN JUHN5ON, NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RESIDING I0 EDMOND3 WA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 3-1-93 PRODUCER THE INSURANCE STORE, INC. P.O. BOX 809 LYNNWOOD WA 98046 ICODE SUB -CODE INSURED R PAYNE CONSTRUCTION COUNTRY CLASSIC HOMES 23128 76TH AVENUE WEST EDMONDS, WA 98020 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANYT3B LETTER A AMERICAN STATES INS CO. COMPANY B LETTER COMPANY C LETTER COMPANY D LETTER COMPANY E LETTER THISS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FORTH E POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREM ENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAYBE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURAN CEAFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TOALLTHETERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATIO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS TR DATE (MM/DD/YY DATE_l (MM/DD GENERALLIABILITY 1AP0198740 08 /02 /90 08 /02 /91 lGENERALAGGREGATE $ 1 X COMMERCIALGENERAL LIABILIT CLAIMS MADE]OCCUR. OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT, AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANYAUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNEDAUTOS GARAGE LIABILITY EXCESS LIABILITY OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OTH. PRODUCTS- COMP/OPS AGGR I $ PERSONAL& ADVERTISING INJURYI $ EACH OCCURRENCE $ FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) $ MEDICAL EXPENSE(Any one personj$ 1AP0198740 08/02/90 08/02/91 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 10 0 BODILY NJURY (Perpe son) $ BUILDING BODILY INJURY (Per aoo) $ J U L 27 1990 PROPERTY 1 DAMAGE $ 500 500 EACH 1 AGGREGATE OCCUR. STATUTORY $ (EACH ACCIDENT) $ (DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT) $ (DISEASE -EACH EMPLO' DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/RESTRICTIONS/SPECIAL ITEMS RE: ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED PERFORMED FOR BELOW CERTIFICATE HOLDER WHILE CONSTRUCTING CUSTOM HOME SITUATED IN EDMONDS (MEADOWDALE), WA. IT IS AGREED THE CITY OF EDMONDS IS NAMED AS ADD'L INSURED W/RESPECTS ABOVE OPERATIONS_ SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO CITY OF EDMONDS MAIL_ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TOTHE ATTN: DICK MUMMA LEFT, BUTFAILURETOMAILSUCHNOTICESHALLIMPOSE NOOBLIGATION OR 250 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPONTHE COMPANY, ITSAGENTSOR REPRESENTATIVES. EDMONDS, WA 98020 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE n r._ i h /I 8gp.199- CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR April 5, 1991 Steven Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue W, Apt B Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Lot 3 Harbor Hills Permit #900607 The City is in receipt of the required insurance policy for the subject residence. This policy is required to be continually posted with the City for a period of ten years. The policy may not lapse at any time during this period or the occupancy of home may be jeopardized. The following items are outstanding as required by the Earth Subsidence Ordinance: A final construction report from the geo-technical engineer is required. The report must contain a statement that, based on site observation, testing and monitoring, the completed development is in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the geo-technical report. All outstanding progress field reports should be immediately submitted for Building Department review. A final construction report is also required from your structural design engineer. A statement must be included that provides verification that the as -built home complies with the design. Professional service fees of $162.79 are due from invoice of September 27, 1990. After all items are submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Building Official, the site restoration bond can be released. A separate letter of bond release will be mailed to you at that time. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Inspector LOT3FINL/TXTDOS62 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan RLI INSURANCE COMPANY SEQ NO. PEORIA, ILLINOIS 61615 A Stock Insurance Company 195 PERSONAL UMBRELLA LIABILITY POLICY This Declarations page with "Policy Provisions" completes this policy. DECLARATIONS APR n _ 1'411 PERMIT COUNTER Policy Number PUP132383 03/26/91 91085 PUP060 Named Insured & Mailing Address 09938 STEVEN E GREENEBAUM MARSHALL PARIS INS., INC. 1114 DALEY PL 18041 BOTHELL WAY, NE EDMONDS WA 98020 BOTHELL WA 98011 Primary Residence Address (if different than above) SAME AS ABOVE Policy Period - 12:01 A.M. standard time at the address From o3/25/91 To 03/25/92 of the Named Insured as stated herein. Limit of Coverage $ 1,000,000 each accident $ 1,000,000 aggregate Premium $98,00 Forms included at Issue PUP320(06-89) PUA446(06-89) REQUIRED BASIC POLICIES It is agreed by you and your Relatives that you will carry an Automobile liability policy and a comprehensive personal liability policy (or homeowner policy) covering both you and your Relatives for at least the minimum limits listed below. If your Relatives are not covered under your policies for at least the minimum limits listed below, they must be covered under another automobile liability policy and another comprehensive personal liability policy (or homeowner policy) for at least the minimum limits below. If you or your Relatives own Recreational Vehicles, Watercraft or have any household employees, you or your Relatives, as the case may be, agree to carry the appropriate policy (or endorsements) listed below covering both you and your Relatives for at least the minimum limits listed below. Type of Policy Minimum Limit of Coverage A. Automobile Liability Bodily Injury $ 250,000 each person $ 500,000 each occurrence Property Damage $ 100,000 each occurrence or Bodily Injury and Property Damage combined $ 300,000 each occurrence B. Personal Liability 1. Homeowner or Comprehensive Personal Liability (including watercraft liability for boats 25 ft. or less and 50 HP or less) Bodily Injury and Property Damage or both combined $100,000 each occurrence 2. Farmowner or Farm Comprehensive Personal Liability Bodily Injury or Property Damage or both combined $300,000 each occurrence (continued on back) PUP 300 (12-89) Page 1 of 2 Type of Policy Minimum Limit of Coverage C. Recreational Vehicle Liability Bodily Injury or Property Damage or both combined $ 100,000 each occurrence D. Watercraft Liability 1. Boats 25 ft. or less and 50 HP or less 2. Boats more than 25 ft. or more than 50 HP E. Employer's Liability Bodily Injury or Property Damage or both combined $ 100,000 each occurrence Bodily Injury or Property Damage or both combined $ 300,000 each occurrence Bodily Injury by Accident $ 100,000 each accident Bodily Injury by Disease $ 500,000 policy limit Bodily Injury by Disease $ 100,000 each employee PUP 300 (12-89) Page 2 of 2 • NU1LDING NAM E AS EST E N�� FEB 0 4 1992 Steven E. Greenebaum Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Mumma: Writer / Musician 3 February 1992 A few items have come to my attention and I would very much appreciate any light you may be able to shed upon them. 1) I am informed that the million dollar liability insurance that I have been required to carry is not being required of the house built on lot #2. Has the city changed its mind regarding the need for this extra insurance? If so, I would appreciate notification in writing. If not, I would appreciate a better understanding of the reasoning behind a city requirement for me to carry the insurance. 2) I am also informed that the city believes a separate grading review fee, as opposed to a grading permit fee, has not been paid by me and is still owed. I would appreciate more information regarding this fee. Specifically: what was the fee for, when did this review take place and by whom was the review made? I would also appreciate some examples of single family builders who have paid this separate fee: including names, addresses and dates. Lastly, in your letter of 2 May, 1991, you refer to Landau Associates notification of you of their "bookkeeping error." Once again, I would greatly appreciate a full copy of that letter and any accompanying documents. Thank you. Sincerely, Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL MAYOR 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR 890 _ Io4 February 4, 1992 Mr. Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, Washington 98020 The City is in receipt of your letter dated February 3, 1992. I hope the following information will be helpful to you. Item #1: Under Chapter 19.o5.050 of the Edmonds Community Development Code which adopts Ordinance #2661; the Building Official or the Director may require that the homeowner carry a policy of general public liability in a determined amount for a time period not to exceed ten (10) years. Chapter 19.05.030 further .allows applicants to request waivers from these requirements. I Standard operating procedures for the Plat of Harbor Hills has been to require the insurance. In the case of Lot 2, Mr. Horton requested a waiver and it was granted. If you wish to make a written request for 'a waiver from the insurance requirement you may do so to the Building Official. Item #2 and #3: Since this issue is currently under review by the City's claim adjuster we ask that you make all requests directly to Mr. Bob Kerslake Jr., Washington -Oregon Claim Service, at Post Office Box 25549 Seattle, WA 98125. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Inspector • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan BUj1olNe FFe 0 Steven E. Greenebaum 19y2 Writer / Musician 6 February 1992 Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Mumma: I am in receipt of Jeannine Graf's letter of 4 February. Ms. Graf states that "Standard operating procedures for the Plat of Harbor Hills has been to require the insurance." This is a somewhat odd statement as there have thus far only been two houses completed --mine and Mr. Horton's. Nonetheless, as per Ms. Graf's suggestion, this letter will serve as a written request for a waiver of the obligation to carry a general liability policy for ten years. Specifically, that the Insurance Requirement (#4) of the "Covenant of Notification and Indemnification/Hold Harmless" for 1114 Daley Place (lot three, Harbor Hills) be amended to read: Pursuant to Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, the Community Services Director has specifically exempted the Subject Property from any insurance requirement relating to maintenance of public liability coverage. Thank you. Yours, Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper 09 SEp 1 FEB ®6 1T'JI-i INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT M:0:115 O MTER The undersigned applicant(s) for building permit, subdivision, planned residential development, in consideration of the mutual C benefits to be derived, in part due to the review of my/our application by the City of Edmonds, Washington, a noncharter, optional municipal code city, do hereby indemnify, waive, release, and stipulate as follows: 1. I/We do state that we have been provided with/have waived receipt of a copy of an earth subsidence and landslide hazard map made available to me by the City showing those hazards previously identified by the City through its consultant Roger Lowe and Associates, Inc. and a follow-up report by GeoEngineers, Inc., and state that I/we have reviewed or are fully aware of the contents and existence of said maps and of reports explaining said maps and identifying certain hazards to be anticipated or encountered in the construction or development upon my property. I/We am aware that copies of said report are on file with the City Clerk and available for my review at my request. In addition, I/we have undertaken an independent assessment of the hazards through professional consultants of my/our choosing. 2. PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY: I/We do promise to release and indemnify the City, its agents, officers, employees, and/or independent contractors from any and all claims, damage or loss of any kind or nature resulting from or to any party or person, or the property thereof as a result of: A. The construction design, soils report, and/or any other act required as a part of the building permit application process, subdivision process or planned residential development process and the subsequent preparation of my land for and construction thereon VOL. )6 �d PAGE00bY y of any structure or building by myself/ourselves, or my/our agents, employees or contractors and/or the construction of any building or structure. B. The provisions of false, inaccurate, or misleading information by myself/ourselves, or by my/our agents, employees or contractors in the permit, subdivision, or planned residential development process; and C. Any risk or hazard of which I have been notified or could reasonably have had notice of by review of the documents on file with the the City of Edmonds or its building division or could have discovered through reasonable professional efforts of my/our experts. 3. The undersigned applicants hereby waive and release the City from any and all claims arising from the situations described in this agreement, but specifically reserve claims against the City, its officers, employees, or independent contractors, from any loss or damage which arises from or out of the City's sole negligence. Nothing herein shall be construed to be a promise to indemnify the City, its officers, employees, or independent contractors, from any loss or damage caused by their sole negligence. DATED this day of , 19 and given with reference to building permit application, subdivision application, planned residential development application no. READ CAREFULLY - CONTAINS WAIVER AND INDEMNITY PROVISIONS Individual By resident By Secretary 9008070179 2.01+� 1'PAGE� 2 VOL. INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON SN�Nam,st/ ) ss. _ COUNTY OF iC�NG ) D N = W ___ _ Y=4`= -- - On this day personally appeared before me fx.� ,5 yErg C. GR E E t4 E Bp v m to me known to be th- individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that 4� signed the same as his free and voluntarx act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. `����� 1 =,�� my hand and official seal this 30 day of M NOTARY PUBLI in and for the State of Washington, residing at02����� O'RPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared and , to me known to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the official seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at ©D FEB - u M7 SEP 1 FITI M1T C0!JN!TFp COVENANT TO NOTIFY The undersigned property owner(s), as applicant for S/i►'9e,/n/17kPsll�v� a building permit/grading permit, ® in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, in part due to the review of my application, do hereby stipulate and promise to the City of Edmonds, Washington, a noncharter optional municipal code city, as follows: 1. SUBJECT TRACT: The undersigned is/are the owner(s) of certain real estate located in the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, and further described as follows: Lot- 3 N��601Z /l 1II S GAS peA D�'e f ReconyYo% 1N Vd��Mt f ! d 1,f5 6,11 2 ,e5 �G.S ' ��y 1� . /N C/05/l' /Q�CoIt��S 2. STATEMENT OF HAZARD: The above described subject tract or some portion thereof lies within an area of potential earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been assessed and determined by professionals in the employ of the undersigned property owner(s) through written reports required by, and on file with, the City of Edmonds, Building Division, in application file number gDO6 O �Z All prospective inhabitants, buyers, lenders, or other persons acquiring any interest in the subject tract are hereby notified of such potential hazards and of the information on file with the City, incorporated by this reference as V0L. 2� 6 t PAGE()'U' fully as if herein set forth. In addition to an assessment of any such hazard, said City files may contain conditions or prohibitions on development imposed by the City in the course of permit issuance and may reference any features in the design which will require ongoing maintenance or future modification to address anticipated soil changes or movement. All such prospective inhabitants, buyers, lenders or other interested parties are encouraged to review said files and shall be charged with notice of the contents thereof. 3. PROMISE TO NOTIFY: The owners, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, agents, successors in interest and/or assigns do hereby promise to inform any successors and assigns that said described property lies within a potential earth subsidence and landslide hazard, of any risk identified by reports of the professionals and associated with the development of that property, and of any conditions, prohibitions, restrictions, or ongoing maintenance responsibilities which exist with respect to development of that site. 4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: These statements are made in and with regard to an application for �4 3�i✓'�t 1�i4a1i�J /�1lo��ivtC issued this / day of Au6USI , 199'0, under City of Edmonds file No. t?00/00 ; 7 5. WAIVER: I/We/the corporation as the owner of the described tract, and on behalf of my/our/ heirs, successors and assigns do hereby waive the right to assert any loss or claim against the City of Edmonds, its agents, employees, or independent contractors, which may arise by reason of or out of the review of our application and/or issuance of the above -described permit for development approval by the City for the subject property, or from the construction of any building VOL. %J67PAGE06fh 64 or structure or any grading, filling or other action pursuant to said permit, excepting, however, any loss arising from the sole negligence of the City, its officers, employees, or independent contractors. DATED this day of (Individual) (Individual) By (President) By (Secretary) , 19 . V0L.6. �6 �"PAGE 00 N INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) �hiOH�/Y►lS?j ) ss. COUNTY OF *44G ) On this day personally appeared before me STEI/G_ /Y , CP?.6ENE 13A U m , to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that y% signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this Za ?`9day of NOTARY PUBLIC i and for the 02 'ssioNN�',',tt��' �Ii, State of Washington, residing �`NOTAR j% U) a t01 � PUBL`C dr*. % CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S ��I0 N ss. COUNTY OF KING-.,".,-.-, ) On this day of 19 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared and to me known to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the official seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at 90080701 4 VOL.tPA6E���� f890-199 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks. and Recreation . Engineering February 19, 1992 Scott Snyder Ogeden Murphy & Wallace 2100 Westlake Center Tower 1601 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Re: GREENEBAUM REQUEST FOR INSURANCE WAIVER Mr. Snyder: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Recently I received a letter from Steven E. Greenebaum of 1114 Daley Place, Edmonds, Washington. Mr. Greenebaum had discovered, through conversations with his neighbor, that the insurance requirements for Lot 2, Harbor Hills, had been waived. Mr. Greenebaum sent a letter requesting information regarding why the insurance requirement was waived on Lot 2 and was still in place on his property. I responded to Mr. Greenebaum, by letter, informing him that a request had been made of the Building Official to waive the insurance on Lot 2 and a justification for the request was included. I explained to Mr. Greenebaum that if he also wished the insurance to be waived, that he should make his request in writing. Mr. Greenebaum responded on February 6, 1992 (see attached letter). Please review Mr. Greenebaum's letter and make recommendations as to what action should be taken; i.e., should we, in fact, consider amendment of the Hold Harmless to include the verbiage requested by Mr. Greenebaum, or shall we just notify Mr. Greenebaum that Ordinance 1905 provides for discretionary action to be taken and his request for exemption from the requirement is approved. Richard R. Mumma Building Official Attachment cc: File ✓ GREENBAM/TXTDOS62 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 890-19() CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 96020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works . Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering February 19, 1992 Mr. Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: INSURANCE WAIVER REQUEST Mr. Greenebaum: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR I am in receipt of your letter of February 6, 1992 requesting waiver from the insurance obligation as specified in Ordinance 1905 and, further, the amendment of the language of the Covenant of Notification and Indemnification Hold Harmless. I have forwarded your request to the Cit4 Attorney's office for re mendation and await his response. .n A S Richard R. -Mumma Building Official cc: Scott Snyder File ✓ GREENEBl/TXTDOS62 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan NAM Z!Sq SCIENTIA P EST Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Mumma: Steven E. Greenebaum Writer / Musician 13 March 1992 BUILDING MAR 1 6 1992 I have been informed by the City Attorney that the waiver I requested regarding liability insurance, has been granted and a document prepared and that requires my notarized signature. If you will send it to me I will have my signature notarized and the document returned to your office. If this is for some reason a problem, please have your secretary notify me that the document is indeed ready and I will drop by to pick it up. Thank you for your efforts. I am disappointed that your office has not responded to my requests for information regarding Whitcutt, Landau and other matters. I would hope it could be in my hands by 20 March. Sincerely, Steven E. Greenebaum cc: Mayor Hall 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper AMENDMENT OF COVENANT AND NOTICE WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds pursuant to Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code has previously required the owner of certain real property described herein to file a covenant and notice with respect to the construction of a building on the subject property due to its susceptibility to earth subsidence and land slide hazard; WHEREAS, such original notice included a requirement for continuous insurance as a condition of development of the lot; and WHEREAS, said requirement of insurance has been waived by the Community Services Director pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 19.05.050; NOW, THEREFORE, this amendment of a covenant and notification provision has been authorized by the City of Edmonds pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.05. Certain real property described in Exhibit A and the subject of building permit application number F00607 is and has been released from a requirement of continuous revision of public liability insurance pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code Section 19.05.050. DONE this j��dav of , 1992. CITY OF EDM NDS: By: �. Peter Hahn, Director Community Services -1- WSS15570.1AGR/0006.040.034 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this i (C � day of Y V OUI - l---) 1992, before me personally appeared Peter Hahn, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing Amendment of Covenant and Notice and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written. a, C�1 1 ,10TIRY. PUBLIC in Glad f the tvf-i t\ State of Washington, residing at 0 UJ fq— My Commission expires: fp �- -2- WSS15570.1AGR/0006.040.034 ,�troum-led rvi14 64eewe A.4om 0006.040.034 WSS/klt 07/14/89 ORDINANCE NO. 2728 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 19.05.060 RELATING TO ENGINEERING COMPLIANCE REVIEW IN AN EARTH SUBSIDENCE IN THE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA IN ORDER TO DIVIDE THE COST OF SUCH REVIEW BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the cost of engineering reviews for projects initiated within areas of earth subsidence and landslide hazard are highly technical reviews conducted by experts, and WHEREAS, the cost associated with such reviews can be large, and , WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds believes that such fees should not be born solely by the taxpayer of the City of Edmonds, but should be divided equally between the applicant and the City, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 19.05.060 REVIEW TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING PRACTICE of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.05.060 REVIEW TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING PRACTICE. The City shall require review of the submittals accompanying the application by an engineer, geo- technical engineer, geologist, architect, and/or structural engineer as may be necessary and determined by the City in order to determine whether the submittals were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice or the practice of the particular speciality. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Director. The Building Official shall not be required to inquire further into WSS515700 -1- ts� 0 Aft the adequacy of any report, but rather may rely upon the submittals as warranted by the owner and reviewed by the City's consultant. Nothing herein shall relieve the owner of the obligation to submit a completed application fulfilling all the requirements of this chapter in the Uniform Building Code. One half of the cost of such review or reviews shall be paid by the applicant as a plan check fee in the manner provided by the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 15 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, provided, however, that this plan check fee shall be in addition to the fee established by ECDC 15._00.020(C)(1). U. Section 2. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after' passage and publication of the ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: 9CI Y CLERK, JACQUELINE G. PARRETT APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: '7 1 � &C, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: 7-30-89 EFFECTIVE DATE: 8-4-89 ORDINANCE NO. 2728 WSS515700 -2- e_�V_ Yl--) CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Claim must be filed with the City Clerk. TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS: &�� PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, THAT (5�eyev F, GGR feIve6,wM WHO NOW RESIDES AT 1 PI L)e, !n1111Mtf 4,G (State present a tual address by street, number a T city AND WHO FOR SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO DATE OF INCIDENT HAS RESIDED AT tII y a r/ Pl e4 l-e- �=d1 hO Nels eve residence by street, number and City CLAIMS DAMAGES OF AND FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE SUM OF $ arising out of the following circumstances: Describe Claim, giving DATE and TIME injury or damage occurred, PLACE and full particulars. Accurately locate and describe defects causing injury or damage and all acts of negligence claimed. Accurately describe injuries or damage. State items of damage claimed. Itemize all expenses and losses. (Claim must be sworn to by claimant) - �PRhIf //AN Ck,/f gnaturel-- f Claimant) Tele SUBSCRIBED AND !W�_ before me thisday of Ig YZ—. CLAIM/10-5-88 Notary Public i f( and for the State Washington 84, My appointment expires:, /�, / .9 OF CLAIM AGAINST CITY OF EDMONDS--STEVEN E. GREENEBAUM (1) 1 Total Charges per City of Edmonds (23 May 1991) 2 $ 871.12 Professional Charges 3 103.79 Landau General Consultation 4 617.00 Plan check fee 5 22.50 Grading Plan Review Fee 6 $1614.41 Latest Edmonds Total 7 Refund due 8 a)-103.79 Landau's "General Consultation" should not be charged 9 b) - 71.76 Landau's "Site Specific" charge incurred plans approved never explained 10 c) - 23.00 Grading Plan Review Fee paid separately 11 $ - 198.05 Total Adjustment to Edmonds figures 12 Total therefore owed City of Edmonds = $1614.41 - 1 8.05 $1416.36 13 Total Paid City of Edmonds is 1534.00 14 Therefore City owes a refund of $117.64 ($1534-1416.36) 15 Additional Costs Owed by Edmonds 16 $151.80 Site visit requested by City but paid for by owner after plan check reviews were completed on a day no work was taking place. 17 Total therefore owed Steven E. Greenebaum by City of Edmonds: $117.64 ±151.80 18 $269.44 CLAIM AGAINST CITY OF EDMONDS--STEVEN E. GREENEBAUM (2) Explanation of Claim Lines 1-5 are the latest Edmonds calculation of charges. Line 6 is the total. I stress the "latest" calculation as the City has rather consistently changed it calculations. Line 8 -- the charge for Landau's "General Consultation" is whol- ly inappropriate. Landau's problem was with the original devel- oper and the City of Edmonds for approving the plat as it was de- veloped. When I bought the lot the City had approved the plat. If their own consultant thought that was wrong that is not my problem. Nor should it be my expense. Line 9 -- This site specific charge occurred after the City of Edmonds approved my building plans. I asked for and never re- ceived d a reason the City of Edmonds would want, let alone bill me for a Landau consultation after approval of my plans. I was promised, in writing, on 27 September 1990, that the reason for this additional consultation would be explained. It never was. Under those circumstances it is outrageous that I be charged for it. Line 10 -- I have been charged twice for the Grading Plan Review. Once as a part of the original plan check, and then again in new City of Edmonds calculation of charges. Once is sufficient. Line 12 -- Subtracting line 11 from line 6 results in what I should have been charged by the City of Edmonds. Line 14 -- Subtracting what I should have paid from what I was charged results in the refund due for overcharging. Line 16 -- On 23 August the City of Edmonds, on its own initia- tive, called Cascade Geotechnical and requested a site visit. There was no work going on. Cascade had visited the site only two days before and filed a report. This visit and the expense incurred were the results of the City's curiosity. It should have been billed to the City. Cascade, however, billed me and I did not catch it until after the fact. This cost was wholly and completely the City's responsibility. Line 18 -- the total of the refund (line 14) and the cost of Cas- cade's visit to the empty site (linel8) equals the amount of the claim. In addition, the amount on Line 2 includes two unexplained charges. a) Site Charge $279.29 WJA (who is WJA, what is charge for?) b) Site Charge $ 49.00 Whitcutt (what is charge for?) I have assumed these to be legitimate charges and have not in- cluded them in the claim. But I would appreciate an explanation. Lastly, on 2 May, 1991, the Building Official wrote to me about a "bookkeeping" error by Landau and the resulting overcharge. De- tails have never been provided. CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 7713202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 8gp_19 y May 29, 1991 Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Greenebaum: LARRY S.NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The City Attorney has sent me copies of your correspondence with a request that we work out the problems between ourself. I have compiled a history of your file (copy enclosed) and I can't substantiate your claim that the city still owes you money. In fact our records show a balance still due the city. Therefore I will not be able to honor your request for a check from the city for the amount of $75.90. I hope our research will help you better understand the history of your project. 1� S Inc r el— % �G Richard R. Mumma CBO Building Official City of Edmonds cc: City Attorney grnbaum.rrm • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • �,``_. Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 23, 1991 TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official FROM: Jeannine L. Graf, Building Inspector SUBJECT: Daley Place Professional Review Lot 3 Greenebaum Charges Per your request the following breakdown represents the charges received by the City for professional review of the subject project. As required by Ordinance #2661 one-half of all professional review charges are required to be paid by the applicant exclusive of the normal plan review fees. Site Specific Charges to Lot 3 3/15/90 Invoice Amount $ 279.29 WJA 4/18/90 Invoice #1545 Amount $ 1080.70 Landau 6/25/90 Invoice #1618 Amount $ 94.48 Landau 7/25/90 Invoice #1669 Amount $ 95.24 Landau 8/1/90 Invoice Amount $ 49.00 Whitcutt 8/22/90 Invoice #1701 Amount $ 143.53 Landau Total $ 1742.24 One -Half = $ 871.12 General Harbor Hills Consultation Charges from Landau/Schwartz 6/25/90 Invoice #1619 Amount $ 590.54 Paid in full by City 7/25/90 Invoice #1670 Amount $ 1744.19 8/13/90 Amount $ 540.40 Schwartz (Paid by City) 8/22/90 Invoice #1702 Amount $ 910.31 Paid in full by City 10/23/90 Amount $ 706.25 Overcharge *Correction of Invoice #1670 $ 1744.19 - $ 706.25 = $1037.94 divided by 10 lots = $103.79 Landau/Schwartz Total Charges $3,079.19 Paid in full by City 2,041.25 Remaining Fees Divided by 10 Lots $1,037.94 Page Two To: Dick Mumma From: Jeannine Graf Date: May 23, 1991 Total Charges $ 871.12 Professional Charges 103.79 Landau General Consultation 617.00 65% Plan Check Fees based on Permit Fee of $950 22.50 Grading Plan Review Fee Total $ 1614.41 1534.00 Paid when permit issued 8/1/90 Due $ 80.41 The City received bills on 8/22/90 ($910.31) and ($143.53) from Landau. One for general consulation and the other site specific to Lot 3, both were received by the City after the permit was issued. On 8/28/90 I billed Greenebaum for $91.03 ($910.31 divided by 10 lots), $71.76 ($143.53 divided in half) and $54.04 for the Schwartz bill, ($540.40 divided by 10 lots). The building official later decided to pay the two bills in full from Landau. The remaining charge of $71.76 is valid. However, in checking my math Mr. Greenebaum really owes the City $80.41, (see above). Mr. Greenebaum wrote a letter dated October 3, 1990 whereby he requested reimbursement of 50% from a Cascade Geotechnical bill that he received. He states that the "City" requested Cascade to make a site inspection and therefore the City should pay for one-half of the bill. The charge was $151.80, (one half $75.90), Mr. Greenebaum did not provide the City a copy of the alleged bill. Ordinance #2661, requires that the Geotechnical Engineer submit field reports on a weekly basis to the Building Official. These reports are made by Mr. Greenebaum's engineer and he is soley responsible for fees charged by his own consultant. If the Building Official had to remind Mr. Greenebaum of the Geotech's responsibility to submit the weekly reports that does not oblige the City to accept responsibilty for the subsequent bill. 8go-19°1 CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR April 5, 1991 Steven Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue W, Apt B Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Lot 3 Harbor Hills Permit #900607 The City is in receipt of the required insurance policy for the subject residence. This policy is required to be continually posted with the City for a period of ten years. The policy may not lapse at any time during this period or the occupancy of home may be jeopardized. The following items are outstanding as required by the Earth Subsidence Ordinance: A final construction report from the geo-technical engineer is required. The report must contain a statement that, based on site observation, testing and monitoring, the completed development is in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the geo-technical report. All outstanding progress field reports should be immediately submitted for Building Department review. A final construction report is also required from your structural design engineer. A statement must be included that provides verification that the as -built home complies with the design. Professional service fees of $162.79 are due from invoice of September 27, 1990. After all items are submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Building Official, the site restoration bond can be released. A separate letter of bond release will be mailed to you at that time. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Inspector LOT3FINL/TXTDOS62 * Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan .890 19c)v I N V 0 1 C E CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - Si-+ AVE N • EOMONOS. Iva 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering BILLED TO: STEVEN GREENBAUM 19508 80th Ave W #Apt B Landau Invoice #1701 Landau General Consultation INVOICE NO_ DATE 9/27/90 GRANT NO. $ 71.76 91.03 TOTAL $16239 PLEASE ENCLOSE ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE_ THANK YOU_ • • t: iii iii %i 01 EU1LDING LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. AUG 24 i990. P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1701 Greenbaum SFR, #3 Harbor Hills August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Senior Geologist 1.50 78.00 Word Processor & Operator .25 39.00 Support Staff .50 29.00 Total Personnel Charges 2.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- mount 2.28 Total Expense: 2.28 2.28 TOTAL THIS PERIOD 143.53 Copies Amount 117.00 9.75 14.50 141.25 141.25 Project Billing Summary Prior Current Total rersonnel Charges 1,249.25 141.25 1;390.50 Reimbursables/Equipment 21.17 2.28 23.45 Total: 1,270.42 143.53 1,413.95 .lJ Thank You For Your Business 1. Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 /9y� (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-011.10 General Consultation Invoice No. 1702 Harbor Hills Sub and Adj. Lots August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Associate 6.00 88.00 Senior Geologist 3.50 78.00 Project Coordinator .75 41.00 Word Processor & Operator 1.25 39.00 Support Staff .75 29.00 Total Personnel Charges 12.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Facsimile Machine Project Billing Summary Amount 528.00 273.00 30.75 48.75 21.75 902.25 902.25 Amount 4.56 3.50 Total Expense: 8.06 8.06 TOTAL THIS PERIOD 910.31 Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 2,305.75 902.25 3,208.00 Reimbursables/Equipment 28.98 8.06 37.04 Total: 2,33.4.73 910.31 3,245.04 Thank You For Your Business S ?/0.31 = /C�cJs iA03 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice r 0006.040.034 WSS/klt 07/14/89 ORDINANCE NO. 2728 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 19.05.060 RELATING TO ENGINEERING COMPLIANCE REVIEW IN AN EARTH SUBSIDENCE IN THE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA IN ORDER TO DIVIDE THE COST OF SUCH REVIEW BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the cost of engineering reviews for projects initiated within areas of earth subsidence and landslide hazard are highly technical reviews conducted by experts, and WHEREAS, the cost associated with such reviews can be large, and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds believes that such fees should not be born solely by the taxpayer of the City of Edmonds, but should be divided equally between the applicant and the City, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 19.05.060 REVIEW TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING PRACTICE of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.05.060 REVIEW TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING PRACTICE. The City shall require review of the submittals accompanying the application by an engineer, geo- technical engineer, geologist, architect, and/or structural engineer as may be necessary and determined by the City in order to determine whether the submittals were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice or the practice of the particular speciality. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Director. The Building Official shall not be required to inquire further into WSS515700 -1- f a the adequacy of any report, but rather may rely upon the submittals as warranted by the owner and reviewed by the City's consultant. Nothing herein shall relieve the owner of the obligation to submit a completed application fulfilling all the requirements of this chapter in the Uniform Building Code. One half of the cost of such review or reviews shall- be paid by the applicant as a plan check fee in the manner provided by the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 15 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, provided, however, that this plan check fee shall be in addition to the fee established by ECDC 15..00.020(C) (1) . Section 2. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of the ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CI Y CLERK, JACQUELINE G. PARRETT APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ' .A! ►�ti� FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: '7 1 � t `i PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: 7-30-89 EFFECTIVE DATE: 8-4-89 ORDINANCE NO. 2728 WSS515700 -2- Project: LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS , WA 98020 ' UILDPW (206) 778-0907 1990 JUL 27 74-011.10 General Consultation Invoice No. Harbor Hills Sub and Adj. Lots July 25, 1990 Page number City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 09 Jun thru 30 Jun 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Amount Associate 1.60 88.00 132.00 Senior Geologist 17.50 78.00 1,365.00 Technical Illustrator 1.75 41.00 71.75 Project Coordinator .75 41.00 30.75 Word Processor & Operator 2.50 39.00 97.50 Support Staff --------- .75 29.00 21.75 ----------- Total Personnel Charges 24.75 1,718.75 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Amount Computer Usage Copies Project Billing Summary 15.00 10.44 Total Expense:* 25.44 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Prior Current Personnel Charges 587.00 1,718.75 Reimbursables/Equipment 3.54 25.44 Total: 590.54 1,744.19 Thank You For Your Business pi Z33 �c✓ /�aC # iz ei� c/ix Total 2,305.75 28.98 -"` 2, 334. 73 1670 1 1,718.75 25.44 1,744.19 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1029 19g� EDMONDS, WA98020 �UL 0 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1669 Greenbaum SFR, #3 Harbor Hills July 25, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 09 Jun t.hru 30 Jun 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Senior Geologist 1.00 78.00 Word Processor & Operator .25 39.00 Support Staff .25 29.00 Total Personnel Charges 1.50 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Project Billing Summary Amount 78.00 9.75 7.25 95.00 Amount .24 Total Expense: .24 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 1,154.25 95.00 1,249.25 Reimbursables/Equipment 20.93 .24 21.17 Total: 1,175.18 95.24 1,270.42 Thank You For Your Business 95.0( . 2, 95.2, Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice u LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1618 Greenbaum SFR, #3 Harbor Hills June 25, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 10 Mar thru 02 June 1990 Personnel Charges JUN 2 7 1990 G ----------------- Hours Rate Amount Senior Geologist 1.00 78.00 78.00 Support Staff .25 29.00 7.25 --------------------- Total Personnel Charges 1.25 85.25 85.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Film and/or Developing Copies Project Billing Summary Amount 5.75 3.48 Total Expense:* 9.23 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 1,069.00 85.25 1,154.25 Reimbursables/Equipment 1i.70 9.23 20.93 Total: 1,080.70 94.48 1,175.10, * Includes 15% handling charge where applicable. Thank You For Your Business 9.23 94.48 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice I ' BUILDING APR 1 g 1990 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1645 Greenbaum SFR, #3 Harbor Hills April 18, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E-17 Feb thru 03 Mar 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Principal .50 98.00 Associate .50 88.00 Senior Geologist 11.00 78.00 Project Coordinator .50 41.00 Word Processor & Operator 2.50 39.00 Total Personnel Charges 15.00 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Film and/or Developing Mileage Copies Camera Total Expense: Amount 49.00 44.00 858.00 20.50 97.50 1,069.00 Amount 2.00 1.20 6.00 2.50 11.70 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Project Billing Summary Prior Current Personnel Charges .00 1,069.00 Reimbursables/Equipment .00 11.70 Total: .00 1,080.70 APPR�VEO FOR RN01 Thank You For Your Business Total 1,069.00 11.70 1,080.70 — 1,069.00 11.70 1,080.70 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice WHITELEY JACOBSEN AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS / PLANNERS 306 Seattle Tower 1218 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 623-0331 FAX (206) 467-8441 15 March, 1990 Edmonds Building Department Edmonds Civic Center 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 INVOICE Subject: Edmonds Plan Check #17 1114 Daley Place Greenhaum - Owner Structural Plan Check Review 9010-M Professional services for structural plan check review of above subject project and issue letter of comments dated February 16, 1990. House 3138 sq. ft. x $42.90 = $134,620.20 Garage 528 sq. ft. x $14.10 = $ 7,444.80 Deck 182 sq. ft. x $ 5.00 = $ 910.00 $142,975.00 x .90 = $128,677.50 $129,000.00 Structural Plan Check Fee $129,000.00 = $505.50 x .65 x .85 = $279.29 Amount Due . . . . . . . $279.29 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT A-- WJA WHITELEY JACOBSEN AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS / PLANNERS 306 Seattle Tower 1218 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 623-0331 FAX (206) 467-8441 15 March, 1990 Edmonds Building Department Edmonds Civic Center 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 INVOICE Subject: Edmonds Plan Check #17 1114 Daley Place Greenhaum - Owner Structural Plan Check Review 6110111® Professional services for structural plan check review of above subject project and issue letter of comments dated February 16, 1990. House 3138 sq. ft. x $42.90 = $134,620.20 Garage 528 sq. ft. x $14.10 = $ 7,444.80 Deck 182 sq. ft. x $ 5.00 = $ 910.00 $142,975.00 x .90 = $128,677.50 $129,000.00 Structural Plan Check Fee $129,000.00 = $505.50 x .65 x .85 = $279.29 Amount Due . . . . . . . $279.29 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT -gh-- �<� LY , Z 9 g 0 y Joe. No. Fo -067 70 -6 6 --OG7 _oro 'ter/ -OP D ?-3 -offs --6 74 _677 -a7? -677 OP VC-S CIZ/ PTi o/-/ • 0 w /i &7z- 4 ks / . �. ADDi r.,Od - 6 j s - la. AJ. gl L�-c7Z- a. AIEW PQ6Y. - 7-3 J. ,,acwc0D a ..3 N N _ 17 aa/ _ 7 3 PL JuAra SAY 3. S3/�2 - as Ir -r1-f ue511\j IvIED/i LuoX) 3.3 4 A - 11 63 - 11 3 . ,, 4 - 7y73 / Cykus PL. A /V 1-f.4z 3. &4 PL . 1.3cN'JC7"7-- Fav S, 12- 'D),Lt� PL HO P-TO Q �, • j 4 11 Gp-ep j EBAuM .3. Pl- -f4vE5o\j a • / f. IMIARRY M. W ITCUTT 1011 B AVE. EDMONDS. WA.98020 CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT 206-778.7233 Aug. 1, 1990 o��G STATEMENT P Building Division, CDD City of Edmonds For professional services - plan review in accordance with contract dated 24 June 1989.. See attached list. Billing periods July, 1990 Rates $14.00 per hour No, hours, 38.4 Chargess $537.60 Previous valances 0.00 Balances $537.60 Harry MI Whitcutt DESIGN DRAFTING CODES INSPECTION PLAN CHECKING LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. OCT 2 G 1990 P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-011.10 General Consultation Invoice No. 1810 Harbor Hills Sub and Adj. Lots October 23, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Final Billing W/E 08 Sept thru 29 Sept 1990 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Amount Senior Geologist 7.50- 78.00 585.00- Project Coordinator 1.00- 41.00 41.00- Word Processor & Operator 1.50- 39.00 58.50- Support Staff .75- 29.00 21.75- --------- Total Personnel Charges: 10.75- ----------- 706.25- TOTAL BILLING THIS PERIOD Aged Receivables Current 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121+ days 706.25- .00 .00 .00 .00 Project Billing Summary Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 3,208.00 706.25- 2,501.75 Reimbursable/Equipment 37.04 .00 37.04 Total: 3,245.04 706.25- 2,538.79 The above total represents a credit for this project. These charges have been transferred to LAI Job* 74-20.10 (Lot 10). Thank You 706.25- 706.25- Total 706.25- SIGMUND D. SCHWARZ Consulting Geologist/Geophysicist P.O. Box 82-917 Kenmore, WA 98028 (2O6) 823-5596 13ulcolNG AUG 131990 July 10, 1990 S84-90IB City of Edmonds Building and Planning Department 250 5th North Edmonds, Washington Att: Dick Mumma INVOICE: Prorata share of services performed in connection with vibration measurements, analysis of data and preparation of "Report of Additional Vibration Testing, Harbor Hills Development, Edmonds, Washington" dated July 8, 1990_ Senior geophysicist Recording instruments Recording chart Film and processing Truck 16 hrs @ $70.00/hr $1120.00 1 day @$100.00/day 100.00 42 ft @ $1.00/ft 42.00 14.15 30 mi @ $0.35/mi 10.50 Total $1286.65 Homestyle Construction share 58%= $746.25 City of Edmonds Share 42%= $540.40 H)LDING LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. AUG 241990. P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1701 Greenbaum SFR, *3 Harbor Hills August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Amount Senior Geologist 1.50 78.00 117.00 Word Processor & Operator .25 39.00 9.75 Support Staff .50 29.00 14.50 -------------------- Total Personnel Charges 2.25 141.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Project Billing Summary 141.25 Amount 2.28 Total Expense: 2.28 2.28 TOTAL THIS PERIOD 143.53 Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 1,249.25 141.25 1,390,50 Reimbursables/Equipment 21.17 2.28 23.45 Total: 1,270.42 143.53 1,413.95 Thank You For Your Business Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice 4 890 19�_ I N V O I C E CITY OF EDMONDS 250 • 5i.h AVE N • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • 1206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering BILLED TO: Steven Greenbaum INVOICE NO_ 19508 80th Ave W Apt B DATE August 28, 1990 Edmonds, WA 98020 GRANT NO. Landau Associates Invoice # 1701 Schwartz Vibration Testing Landau General Consultation Total Charge $143.53 One Half = $71.76 Total Charge $540.40 One Tenth= $54.04 Total Charge $910.31 One Tenth= $91.03 Total Amount Due $ 216.83 PLEASE ENCLOSE ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. THANK YOU_ Accounting: 001.000.000.322.40.00 r BUILDING LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. AU G 2 4 1990 P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1701 Greenbaum SFR, *3 Harbor Hills August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Amount Senior Geologist 1.50 78.00 117.00 Word Processor &. Operator .25 39.00 9.75 Support Staff --------- .50 29.00 ----------- 14.50 Total Personnel Charges 2.25 141.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Amount Copies Project Billing Summary 2.28 Total Expense: 2.28 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 1,249.25 141.25 1,390.50 Reimbursables/Equipment 21.17 2.28 23.45 Total: 1,270.42 143.53 1,413.95 Thank You For Your Business I 141.25 2.28 143.53 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice SIGMUND D. SCHWARZ Consulting Geologist/Geophysicist P.O. Box 82-917 Kenmore. WA 98028 (206) 823-5596 AUG 131990 July 10, 1990 S84-90IB City of Edmonds Building and Planning Department 250 5th North Edmonds, Washington Att: Dick Mumma INVOICE: Prorata share of services performed in connection with vibration measurements, analysis of data and preparation of "Report of Additional Vibration Testing, Harbor Hills Development, Edmonds, Washington" dated July 8, 1990. Senior geophysicist Recording instruments Recording chart Film and processing Truck 16 hrs @ $70.00/hr 1 day @$100.00/day 42 ft @ $1.00/ft 30 mi @ $0.35/mi Total Homestyle Construction share 58%= City of Edmonds Share 42%= $1120.00 100.00 42.00 14.15 10.50 $1286-65 $746.25 $540.40 ,T1771- C�,s��f �`�yo. yo lo Fors =may oy °U -9 1,D�h LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. o v P.O. BOX 1029 19 A EDMONDS, WA 98020 �99p (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-011.10 General Consultation Invoice No. 1702 Harbor Hills Sub and Adj. Lots August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress. Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Associate 6.00 88.00 Senior Geologist 3.50 78.00 Project Coordinator .75 41.00 Word Processor & Operator 1.25 39.00 Support Staff .75 29.00 Total Personnel Charges 12.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Facsimile Machine Project Billing Summary Amount 528.00 273.00 30.75 48.75 21.75 902.25 902.25 Amount 4.56 3.50 Total Expense: 8.06 8.06 TOTAL THIS PERIOD 910.31 Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 2,305.75 902.25 3,208.00 Reimbursables/Equipment 28.98 8.06 37.04 Total: 2,33.4.73 910.31 3,245.04 Thank You For Your Business Tor�< Cr'/A-' Fie & 11,03 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice 11 September 1990 Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Dick, I am in receipt of your bills concerning: 1) Additional Landau work on my lot (inv #1701), 2) Schwartz vibration testing, and 3) Landau work on the Plat (inv #1702). Please send me more information on item U. When my permit was issued I was billed for Landau's work on my lot. Before paying for additional work I need to know why the work was necessary. As to item #2, I was contacted some time ago by Mark McNaughton and agreed to pay one tenth of the estimated $700 bill for testing. This I will do. I cannot agree that I should be charged for redundant testing (please see enclosed letter) that the city decided to have done and for which the city stated it would pay. Regarding item #3, this is plat work. Throughout, Landau has raised plat issues. When I bought my lot the plat was �221����. If Landau has problems with the plat that is between Landau and the city and perhaps, if indeed problems were found regarding the plat, the developer, Kevin Hanchett. It has nothing to do with me or my lot. Yours sincerely, t� Steven E. Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue W Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98020 cc: Mark McNaughton, Homestyle Construction William Goodwin, Montgomery, Purdue Jeannine Graf, Permit Coordinator, City of Edmonds 1 Ka�TR,I. fON. ; September 11, 1990 Steven Greenbaum 19508 80th Ave. Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Greenbaum, As you are aware, the City of Edmonds required a vibration analysis at -Harbor Hills before they would allow any construction vehicles or equipment to access the site for construction. The test was performed on July 7, 1990 and a report issued on July 8, 1990. We took the initiative to complete the vibration study as requested by the City of Edmonds for the 10 lot owners at Harbor Hills. On Wednesday, July 5, 1990, Dick Mumma, the City Building Official, was informed by telephone that we would be conducting the vibration study on Friday morning. The reasons for informing him were two -fold, 1) in the event concerned neighbors called and requested information on the activity at the site and 2) in case any special arrangements needed to be made with the City. Mr. Mumma was appreciative of the call and glad to hear the study was going to be completed. On the morning of July 7, 1990 while we were conducting the vibration analysis -.Mrs. -Hall called the City and talked with Mr. Mumma and was concerned that our testing was causing vibration on her property. Mr. Mumma went to the test site and met with Sigmund D. Schwarz after the testing, required by the City, was completed and requested that Mr. Schwarz reset his equipment to analyze the vibration on the neighbor's site. Mr. Schwarz explained that he had not contracted with Homestyle Construction or any other lot owners in Harbor Hills to complete a study on the adjacent properties and that Mr. Mumma's request would be additional cost. Mr. Mumma agreed that the City would be responsible for the cost of the additional testing and the testing and billing from Schwarz were conducted accordingly. The City is responsible for the additional billing and had agreed to pay the costs of the additional. testing. Any additional billing beyond the testing performed by Hcmestyle Construction at the direction of the City is unfounded and incorrect. If the City 221 James St., Suite 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 778-6866 TR IOIV _y had wanted the adjacent properties tested they should have informed us rather than rehiring the vibration analyst after we had completed the work requested by the City. Please call if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Z�'-')_�� Mark A. McNaugh on, Authorized Agent Hcmestyle Construction cc: Kevin Hanchett 221 James St., Suite 100 Edmonds. WA 98020 �206) 778-6866 ���i%���� ���` ~ 11 September 1990 Ms, Jeannine Graf Permit Coordinator City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 9802O Dear Jeannine, I have received three bills from the city of Edmonds and was told to remit my checks to you. No checks are enclosed but I thought that a copy of the letter as to why I have sent no checks should be sent to you. Please �o find enclosed the materials you asked me to file with the county. Yours sincerely, Steven E. Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue W Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98020 enc: letter to Richard R. Mumma Covenant to Notify Idemnity and Hold Harmless r I N V O I. C E CITY OF EDMONDS 250• 51h AVE N • EDMONDS. WA 98020 - (206) 771•3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: o) - Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation Engineering 89.p-19 BILLED TO: STEVEN GREENBAUM INVOICE N0. 19508 80th Ave W #Apt B DATE 9/27/90 GRANT NO. Landau Invoice #1701 $ 71.76 Landau General Consultation 91.03 TOTAL $162 39 PLEASE ENCLOSE ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. THANK YOU. -890_.19�- I N V O I C E CITY OF EDMONDS 250. 5j1% AVE N - EDMONDS. WA 98020 - 1206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering BILLED TO: Steven Greenbaum 19508 80th Ave W Apt B Edmonds, WA 98020 Landau Associates Invoice # 1701 Schwartz Vibration Testing Landau General Consultation A// 11Rid0-e 1l'*//1 Ld15 6� w,//1-4r Awl INVOICE NO. DATE August 28, 1990 GRANT NO. Total Charge $143.53 One Half = $71.76 Total Charge $540.40 One Tenth= $54.04- Total Charge $910.31 One Tenth= $91.03 Total Amount Due $ 216.83 PLEASE ENCLOSE ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. THANK YOU. BUILDING LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. AUG 24 1990. P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1701 Greenbaum SFR, #3 Harbor Hills August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Senior Geologist 1.50 78.00 Word Processor &. Operator .25 39.00 Support Staff .50 29.00 Total Personnel Charges 2.25 R.eimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Project Billing Summary Amount 117.00 9.75 14.50 141.25 Amount 2.28 Total Expense: 2.28 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Prior Current Total Personnel Charged 1,249.25 141.25 1;390.50 Reimbursables/Equipment 21.17 2.28 23.45 Total: 1,270.42 143.53 1,413.95 Thank You For Your Business 141.25 2.28 143.53 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice SIGMUND D. SCHWARZ Consulting Geologist/Geophysicist P.O. Box 82-917 Kenmore. WA 98028 [206) 823-5596 City of Edmonds Building and Planning Department 250 5th North Edmonds, Washington Att: Dick Mumma INVOICE: BUILUlN9 AUG 131990 July 10, 1990 S84-90IB Prorata share of services performed in connection with vibration measurements, analysis of data and preparation of "Report of Additional Vibration Testing, Harbor Hills Development, Edmonds, Washington" dated July 8, 1990. Senior geophysicist Recording instruments Recording chart Film and processing Truck 16 hrs @ $70.00/hr 1 day @$100.00/day 42 ft @ $1.00/ft 30 mi @ $0.35/mi Total Homestyle Construction share 58%= City of Edmonds Share 42%= $1120.00 100.00 42.00 14.15 10.50 $1286-65 $746.25 $540.40 7,7,il- c11,4,Q,6f J'`3yo. yo ; lo .4ajs = I&�'y, oy . . f LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 19U/t04^ v 1029 EDMONDS, WA98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-011.10 General Consultation Invoice No. 1702 Harbor Hills Sub and Adj. Lots August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Associate 6.00 Senior Geologist 3.50 Project Coordinator .75 Word Processor & Operator 1.25 Support Staff .75 Total Personnel Charges 12.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Facsimile Machine Project Billing Summary Rate Amount 88.00 528.00 78.00 273.00 41.00 30.75 39.00 48.75 29.00 21.75 902.25 Total Expense: Amount 4.56 3.50 8.06 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 2,305.75 902.25 3,208.00 Reimbursables/Equipment 28.98 8.06 37.04 Total: 2,33.4.73 910.31 3,245.04 Thank You For Your Business 902.25 8.06 910.31 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering f890-199 September 27, 1990 Steven E. Greenbaum 19508 80th Avenue W., Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: ADDITIONAL FEES FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Mr. Greenbaum: I have reviewed your letter of September 11, 1990, and have the following response to your three concerns: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Regarding Item 1, I will request a detailed explanation of the work performed by Landau on your lot. The work was conducted at my request to determine if events taking place on your lot were in compliance with the plans and specifications and with generally accepted engineering practices. Regarding Item 2, I did agree to pay for the cost of the testing done on the three properties fronting Olympic Avenue and will direct the Permit Coordinator to adjust the billing to delete that charge. Regarding Item 3, there is a close relationship between the individual lots and the development of the short plat. There were conditions established in the short plat that required satisfaction during the development of each individual lot. Soils reports made specific mention to installation of drainage during the development of individual lots. Review of these plat conditions was necessary to insure that: 1) development on your site did not impact surrounding sites in the short plat; and, 2) construction on your site specific, and in the short plat in general, did not impact surrounding properties. A Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Steven E. Greenbaum September 27, 1990 Page Two Pursuant to Ordinance 2728, we have charged you 50% of the fees for our consultant to review the items mentioned above in Items 1 and 3. I have enclosed a copy of this ordinance for your review; also, a revised bill. If you have any further questions,'feel free to call me at 771-3202. RICHARD R. MUMMA Building Official RRM/sfn Enclosures GREENBAU/TXTSFN61 .890 19C- I N V O I C E CITY OF EDMONDS 2 50 - 5ih AVE N - EDMONDS. WA 98020 • 4206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering BILLED TO: STEVEN GREENBAUM INVOICE N0. 19508 80th Ave W #Apt B DATE 9/27/90 GRANT NO. Landau Invoice W1701 $ 71.76 Landau General Consultation 91.03 TOTAL $162.79 PLEASE ENCLOSE ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. THANK YOU. Accounting: 001.000.000.322.40.00 INUING OCT 4 IND Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Mumma, 3 October 1990 I am in receipt of your letter dated 27 September. I appreciate your including a copy of ordinance #2728. Though I am familiar with the ordinance, it is good to have the specifics of the lan- guage at hand for reference. There remain two rather separate concerns, and one new one. The first matter is the additional charge from Landau for work done regarding my lot. I appreciate your continuing efforts to secure from Landau what this charge regards and await that infor- mation. As you know, on 1 August I paid the required plan check fee, as submitted to me by the city of Edmonds. As to Landau's charge for work on reviewing the plat, you might wish to check with Mr. Snyder as I believe he will concur that this is not my liability. Landau persistently brought up what it believed #b developer should or should not have done regarding the plat. Be that as it may, the city approved the plat before I purchased the lot. Also: 1) Referring to its scope, ordinance #2728 states, "The city shall require review of the submittals accompanying the applica- tion . . . to determine whether the submittals were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice or the practice of the particular speciality." There is no reference to work regarding the plat--nD-L would one expect mention aat1je city had already approved ±j1a plAf. 2) The work Landau refers to was, according to Landau's own records, undertaken after 1 July. This takes on weight because at the 27 June meeting attended by you, Landau and others, the representative from Landau expressly stated J�a my architect &In-d to me, that Ila wanted t see only .4 detail Qf one proposed chance regarding tbg house, that there were = further concerns with ID-t three And that tbg problems Landau hAd with tbg plat did not affect 1-Qt three Thus: 1) The city had approved the plat before I bought the lot, and any problems Landau has, had or will have with the plat is between the city, the developer and Landau and should be billed accordingly. page 2 2) Even if there were at one time some justification for a pro rata billing of lot three for Landau's work concerning the plat, that justification ended with Landau's statement on 27 June that any problems with the plat did not concern lot three. Mr. Mumma, you have been placed in a supremely difficult if not ulcer producing position and I appreciate the work and frustra- tion you have faced --not to mention the flack. I truly have no desire to add to it. But the billing regarding Landau's work on the plat has no relation to ordinance #2728 and simply is not my liability. Speaking of liabilities brings us to the new concern. Among my bills from Cascade Geotechnical is a charge for $151.80 for site work that thg gi-ty D, Edmonds requested on 23 August (it was a day that no work was going on on the lot --when I asked both Cas- cade and my builder about it I was informed that your office had requested the site visit). Whereas the city of Edmonds requested the visit, and whereas ordinance #2728 specifically cites city - requested geological review as an expense to be shared equally, this is clearly supposed to be a shared expense. The city's share of this billing is $75.90. Yours sincerely, r Steven E. Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue W Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98020 cc: William Goodwin, Montgomery, Purdue Karen Weisman, The Weisman Studio P 890.19y CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR April 18, 1991 Steven Greenbaum 19508 80th Ave. W #Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Lot 3 Harbor Hills Dear Sir: As you requested by telephone on 4/17/91, enclosed are copies of bills and the invoice for professional services rendered on your building permit. Please remit amounts due at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sincerely; 4Aean'n i ft ne Graf Plans Examiner Encls. 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan V 4. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 4& %n P.O. BOX 1029 Gig v EDMONDS, WA 98020 /99O (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-011.10 General Consultation Invoice No. 1702 Harbor Hills Sub and Adj. Lots August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Associate 6.00 Senior Geologist 3.50 Project Coordinator 75 Word Processor & Operator 1..25 Support Staff .75 Total Personnel Charges 12.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Facsimile Machine Project Billing Summary Rate Amount 88.00 528.00 78.00 273.00 41.00 30.75 39.00 48.75 29.00 21.75 902.25 Total Expense: Amount 4.56 3.50 8.06 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 2,305.75 902.25 3,208.00 Reimbursables/Equipment 28.98 8.06 37.04 Total: 2,33.4.73 910.31 3,245.04 Thank You For Your Business %T�1L. C//,n-f(7e S q/O. 3/ /r / c71s = 'J� i /, 0 902.25 8.06 910.31 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice 1NV010E CITY OF EDMONDS 250 • 51-1 AVE N - EDMONDS. wA 98020 - (206) 771•3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: 89.0 9 9 " Public Works - Planning -. Parks and Recreation • Engineering _ -1 BILLED TO: STEVEN GREENBAUM INVOICE NO- 19508 80th Ave W #Apt B DATE 9/27/90 GRANT NO_ Landau Invoice #1701 $ 71.76 Landau General Consultation 91.03 TOTAL $162.79 PLEASE ENCLOSE ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE- THANK YOU- } BUILDING LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. AUG 24 MO.. P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1701 Greenbaum SFR, *3 Harbor Hills August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ---------------- Hours Rate Senior Geologist 1.50 78.00 Word Processor & Operator .25 39.00 Support Staff .50 29.00 Total Personnel Charges 2.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Project Billing Summary Amount 117.00 9.75 14.50 141.25 141.25 Amount 2.28 Total Expense: 2.28 2.28 TOTAL THIS PERIOD 143.53 Prior Current Personnel Charged 1,249.25 141.25 Reimbursables/Equipment 21.17 2.28 Total: 1,270.42 143.53 Thank You For Your Business Total 1;390,50 23.45 1,413.95 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice Steven E. Greenebaum Writer / Musician 23 April 1991 Scott Snyder, City Attorney City of Edmonds Ogden, Murphy and Wallace 2100 Westlake Center Tower 1601 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-1686 Dear Mr. Snyder, I have, over the last two years, attempted to have my home built in what is called the "Harbor Hills" area of Edmonds. I have in that time experienced delays, hindrances and other difficulties with the city that have cost me well in excess of $10,000 and quite probably in excess of $20,000. But the latest tactic of the Building Official is the last straw. Enclosed you will find copies of the relevant letters but in brief: 1) In early September of 1990 I received a bill from the city of Edmonds requesting payment of $216. 2) On 11 September I wrote the Edmonds Building Official stating that --a) I needed more information regarding the bill for $71 as it did not appear to be reasonable, b) that the bill for $54 was uncalled for as the Building Official himself had taken responsibility for it and c) that the General Consultation fee of $91 was in no way my responsibility. 3) On 27 September the Building Official sent me a letter stating --a) he would request a "detailed explanation of the work performed", b) that he had indeed agreed to pay for the expense reflected by the $54 and c) that he still felt the General Con- sultation fee was my responsibility. In his opinion I therefore now owed the city $162. He enclosed a copy of ordinance #2728. 4) On 3 October I wrote the Building Official stating that I awaited the promised "detailed explanation," and carefully laying out why the General Consultation had no relevance to me whatso- ever (not to mention the fact that the figure is wrong on the face of it --though as the bill has no relevance to me I have not concerned myself with the Building Official's arithmetic). .1 also requested that ha contact you 1f ha were unsure aa ±La my reasoning. Beyond this, thanks to a careful reading of ordinance #2728, I realized that the Edmonds owed me $75 for a $150 bill I paid in full and for which Edmonds had a 50% liability. I re- quested reimbursement. I received no reply to my letter, no reimbursement for the $75 Edmonds owes me, no "detailed explanation" for the charges the 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper 1 Building Official had asked me to pay and no response to Jay detailed explanation as to why the General Consultation might well concern the developer but in no way concerned me. I assumed that the Building Official had let the matter drop and decided to let the $75 owed me drop as well. This brings you up to the present. I returned home from vacation last week to find a letter from the Building Inspector on behalf of the Building Official dated 5 April. I had been required by the city of Edmonds to place dur- ing construction $25,000 into a frozen account for "site restora- tion." I was now informed that unless I paid $162 to the city the Building Official would not allow the release of the funds -- funds placed aside solely #_Qj tbg purpose D-f site restoration. I checked with my builder. The house has passed every inspection including all final inspections from the city's own inspectors as well a the geo-technical engineer (this had yet to be done at the time of the 5 April letter but was done immediately thereafter). I called the Building Official on the phone. I was told that he never answered my 3 October 1990 letter because he didn't feel it worthwhile. I was further informed that in spite of all the re- quired inspections having been performed and passed that he, as Building Official, would hold up all final paperwork on the house --including the release of the site restoration funds --until I capitulated and paid the $162. Thus despite the fact that my letter was never answered and despite the fact that the promised "detailed explanations" were never forthcoming, I was instructed to pay as directed under the threat of not having the frozen site restoration monies returned to me. The sole response to my phone call was to send me still another copy of the bill (as if that was what the call concerned) and demand payment. There is one and only one word for such behavior: extortion. I have taken a lot from the city of Edmonds. This I will not take. Still, I believe a lawsuit should always be the last resort. I will, therefore, make one final attempt at reconciliation. Within five business days of your receipt of this letter I re- quire from the city of Edmonds: 1) Final approval of all necessary paperwork as to the com- pletion of the house. 2) A letter from the Building Official to Security Pacific Bank, Edmonds branch (with a copy to me), instructing that insti- tution to release the frozen funds to me at once. 3) A check from the city for $75.90. Failing the above, I will be left with no recourse other than legal. In preparation for that I have secured with Security Pacific a line of credit --as the frozen $25,000 is needed to pay the builder for completing the house. Clearly, if further action is needed no settlement will be possible without reimbursement for legal fees, loan fees and interest, and any and all other costs incurred. Yours, Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 encls. cc: Mayor Larry Naughten William Goodwin, Montgomery, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin CITY OF EDMONDS OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 447-7000 FAX: 447.2015 890-199 April 30, 1991 Mr. Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Greenebaum: I received yesterday, April 29, 1991, your letter of April 231 1991, and a packet of information. I was out of the office from April 24 until April 29. I intend to review this issue with the City staff on Tuesday, April 30, and will attempt to respond to you by the end of this week, May 3. I am writing to inform you that we will review the issues you have raised in a timely fashion but cannot comply with the deadine set forth in your April 23 letter. Very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE qo7t[ W. Scott Snyder WSS/klt cc: Mayor Naughten William Goodwin WSS53297L/0006.040.034 2100 Westlake Center Tower, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • Incorporated August 11, 1890. • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 890-194 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering May 2, 1991 Steven Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue West Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Bond release Mr. Greenebaum, LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR I am writing to confirm our phone conversation this morning. As I explained during our phone conversation, Landau Associates notified the City, on April 30, they have discovered a bookkeeping error in our favor. At our request, Landau attempted to determine which account had been overcharged, with no success. Landau was able to ascertain the overcharge was made on the Harbor Hills project. Since the project charges were spread evenly over the ten lots, a credit should also be evenly distributed over the ten lots. As a result, the charges remaining on your file would be about $20. Because of the confusion about charges made on your site, I am willing to adjust the fees due on your file to reflect a zero balance. A release of your frozen fund account has been forwarded to your bank and a copy has been enclosed in this letter. I you have any further question, feel free to call me at 771-3202. Sin.cer- C Richard R. Mumma CBO Building Official City of Edmonds cc: Scott Snyder, city attorney grnbm.rrm • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan A Steven E. Greenebaum Writer / Musician 14 May 1991 Scott Snyder, City Attorney City of Edmonds Ogden, Murphy and Wallace 2100 Westlake Center Tower 1601 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-1686 Dear Mr. Snyder, In my letter to you of 23 April, 1991, I wrote that within five days I required from the city of Edmonds: 1) Final approval of all necessary paperwork as to the com- pletion of the house. 2) A letter from the Building Official to Security Pacific Bank, Edmonds branch (with a copy to me), instructing that insti- tution to release the frozen funds to me at once. 3) A check from the city for $75.90. Since that time I have been contacted by the Building Official; but while the first two items has been taken care of, item 3 remains. In your letter you asked for patience. Patience frays. A 2 May letter from the Building Official (copied to you) stated: 1) that a "bookkeeping error" by Landau Associates has now been credited evenly over the ten Harbor Hills lots, 2) that I still owed the city about $20, but 3) that he was willing to adjust this to zero to clear things up. It becomes necessary to address the Building Official's arithmetic. You will note from the packet I sent you (#1), that Landau billed $910.31 for a General Consultation (which had and has no rela- tionship to me and is not my responsibility). My lot was charged one tenth of that amount: $91.03. Whereas the Building Official freely admits in his 27 September letter to me (p. 2, 1. 1) that under Ordinance 2728 I should be billed 50% of the Landau fees charged to my lot, it is clear that i-t the lot should be charged at all it should be charged 50% of $91.03, or $45.52. Thus when the Building Official states that I still owe the city about $20 he is incorrect. By his own figures the city owes me $25. This, of course, in addition to the $75 owed me that the Building Offi- cial has yet to address. In the spirit of reconciliation, having corrected the Building Official's arithmetic, I too am willing -- if we can settle this now --to ignore the additional dollars owed. 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper There was a time when I would have been willing to let the matter drop completely. You will understand that this is no longer the case. May we not clear this up and get it behind us? Yours, Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 cc: Richard R. Mumma Mayor Larry Naughten William Goodwin, Montgomery, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin Scott Snyder, City Attorney Ogden, Murphy and Wallace 2100 Westlake Center Tower 1601 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-1686 Dear Mr. Snyder, Steven E. Greenebaum City of Edmonds Writer / Musician 21 May 1991 Upon advice of Counsel, I now realize last letter to you (dated 14 May) was deficient in that it stated no time frame for re- sponse. You have had that letter for one full week. As stated in my previous two letters to you, as well as my letter to the Building Official in September of 1990, the City of Ed- monds owes me $75.90 as its half of the Cascade Geotechnical site check that it requested. I require from the City of Edmonds $78.90 ($75.90 + $3.00 incur- red by me in certified letter charges). Given that you have had my previous letter for seven days, it is not unreasonable and I do ask that you respond within two days of receipt of this letter and that I receive from the City of Edmonds $78.90 within five business days of that response. In my previous letter I stated that despite the fact.that the City owes me more, in the spirit of reconciliation I would ask only the $75.90 that I have been trying to recover since last September. You will understand that if it is necessary to pursue further action, I must and will withdraw the offer of reconcilia- tion. Yours, Steven E. Greenebaum (206) 778-2152 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper 890-19°t CITY OF EDMONDS OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 447-7000 FAX: 447-2015 _ 1 May 23, 1991 Mr. Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Dalay Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Greenebaum: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR Copies of your communications have been forwarded when received to Dick Mumma in the City's Building Department. You need to resolve your dispute with him. Given the relative amounts of money involved, if you cannot work this out with the Building Official, you will be proceeding in small claims court. In that situation, neither you nor the City will be represented by counsel. Therefore, please work this matter out with Mr. Mumma or take whatever action you feel is appropriate. very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE I( . Scott Sn er WSS/klt cc: Dick Mummma WSS53341L/0006.040.034 2100 Westlake Center Tower, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • Incorporated August 11. 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan EST NAM r� mil' i1 r10 `_SSA SCIENTIA P Steven E. Greenebaum Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Mumma: Writer / Musician 18 June 1991 I am in receipt of your letter dated 29 May and, as in the past, am more than willing to try to work things out if such is possi- ble. The compiled history of my file that you sent me is most interesting. One of the complicating factors is that once again the figures have changed. But let us deal with the numbers we now have. In all cases I have used the figures your office provided me, and while I've questioned (and still question) the arithmetic used I have always assumed that you would provide accurate figures. On page two of the memo to you from your Building Inspector is the comment, "Mr. Greenebaum did not provide the City a copy of the alleged bill." Alleged bill? Such statements are not helpful, particularly when the accounting provided on page one of that same memo contains no substantiation for the new figures or ex- planation of why the old figures you supplied were inaccurate. There are, it seems, two areas of contention: 1) what I may owe the City of Edmonds, and 2) what the City of Edmonds owes me. 1) What I may owe the City of Edmonds a) It is claimed I still owe $80.41. This, however, includes the disputed charge from Landau for $71.76. To quote the memo, "The remaining charge of $71.76 is valid." Indeed? Has the Building Inspector at last uncovered the details of the bill that I had asked for and was promised last October --eight months ago? If so, I would be happy to see them. b) The Building inspector states that "in checking my math Mr. Greenebaum really owes the City $80.41." If she would continue to check her math she would find that her correction of Invoice #1670 is incorrect. As per Ordinance #2661, half of the profes- sional review charges are to be paid by the applicant. Yet the 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper page ( 2 ) Building Inspector divides Invoice #1670 by ten (ten lots). This would mean that z1. the charges would be paid by the applicants. Thus the correction to invoice #1670 should be one half of $103.79 or $51,90. This still overlooks the fact that the issues raised by Landau in their "general consultation" were plat issues and, if charged to anyone, should have been charged to the devel- oper. c) Again, just using your figures"(and assuming they are cor- rect), and assuming for sake of politeness that the Building In- spector has indeed come up with the details of the bill for $71.76 that were promised me eight months ago, and for the moment even assuming that Invoice #1670 should be charged to the appli- cant at all, it may be seen that at most I would owe the city of Edmonds not $80.41 but $28.52 ($80.41 - $51.89). d) But this overlooks the notification on 4/30/91 that the Build- ing Official received from Landau that there had been an over- charge. Surely this can't refer to the overcharge mentioned in the memo on page one, as that notification is dated 10/23/90. Whatever, even allowing a charge from Landau that I believe should have been billed the developer or no one, and allowing the inclusion of the bill for $71.76 for which no details were ever provided, and assuming all City figures are correct at the abso- lute maximum I could possibly owe is $28.52. 2) What the City owes me a) The Building Inspector refers to the "alleged bill." To re- move any question I will happily give you the invoice number. The bill is contained in Cascade Invoice number 2463. b) The Building Inspector also states that weekly reports are re- quired and that "If the Building Official had to remind Mr. Greenebaum of the Geotech's responsibility to submit the weekly reports that does not oblige the City to accept responsibility for the subsequent bill." My, my. First: the Building Official did not "remind" Mr. Greenebaum of anything. He called Cascade and sent the Geotech to the site. Second, Invoice #2463 records for posterity that Cascade visited the site on 20 August. Thus it had been only three days since the Geotech had visited the site and not a week. Whereas no work was going on on the site, and whereas neither I nor my builder requested Cascade come to the site but rather the Building Official of Edmonds, and whereas it had most definitely not been a week since the last site visit or field report the bill for the site visit must according to Ordinance #2661 be split between the Edmonds and` "the applicant." page (2) Like you, the City Attorney asked me to try to work this out. Very well. I'll go the extra mile. I'll accept your newest set of figures. If we can bring this to a close I'll even let pass the fact that the bill for which I requested information more than eight months ago is still on your list of charges despite no information whatever. Using your figures and your ordinance: I would owe the city $28.52 and the city owes me $75.90. $75.90 _28.52 $47.38 Thus, using your figures, the minimum the City of Edmonds owes me is $47.38. I want to be reasonable. If it is received within two weeks of the date of this letter, I will accept $47.38 as payment in full and consider the matter closed. Sincerely, Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 cc: Scott Snyder, City Attorney CITY -OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering `890-194 May 29,, 1991 Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Greenebaum: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The City Attorney has sent me copies of your correspondence with a request that we work out the problems between ourself. I have compiled a history of your file (copy enclosed) and I can't substantiate your claim that the city still owes you money. In fact our records show a balance still due the city. Therefore I will not be able to honor your request for a check from the city for the amount of $75.90. I hope our research will help you better understand the history of your project. �l - Richard R. Mumma CBO Building Official City of Edmonds cc: City Attorney grnbaum.rrm • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • �� ( f Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan r;/J M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 23, 1991 TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official FROM: Jeannine L. Graf, Building Inspector SUBJECT: Daley Place Professional Review Lot 3 Greenebaum Charges Per your request the following breakdown represents the charges received by the City for professional review of the subject project. As required by Ordinance #2661 one-half of all professional review charges are required to be paid by the applicant exclusive of the normal plan review fees. Site Specific Charges to Lot 3 3/15/90 Invoice Amount $ 279.29 WJA 4/18/90 Invoice #1545 Amount $ 1080.70 Landau C�9/ 6/25/90 Invoice #1618 Amount $ 94.48 Landau 7/25/90 Invoice #1669 Amount $ 95.24 Landau 8/1/90 Invoice _ Amount $ 49.00 Whitcutt — 8/22/90 Invoice #1701 Amount $ 143.53 Landau Total $ 1742.24 One -Half = $ 871.12 General Harbor Hills Consultation Charges from Landau/Schwartz 6/25/90 Invoice #1619 Amount $ 590.54 Paid in full by City 7/25/90 Invoice #1670 Amount $ 1744.19 8/13/90 Amount $ 540.40 Schwartz (Paid by City) i 8/22/90 Invoice #1702 Amount $ 910.31 Paid in full by City \ 10/23/90 Amount $ 706.25 Overcharge *Correction of Invoice #1670 $ 1744.19 -,$ 706.25 = $1037.94 divided by 10 lots = $10 Landau/Schwartz Total Charges $3,079.19 Paid in full by City 2,041.25 Remaining Fees Divided by 10 Lots $1,037.94 Page Two To: Dick Mumma From: Jeannine Graf Date: May 23, 1991 Total Charges $ 871.12 Professional Charges 103.79 Landau General Consultation 617.00 65% Plan Check Fees based on Permit Fee of $950 22.50 Grading Plan Review Fee Total $ 1614.41 1534.00 Paid when permit issued 8/1/90 Due $ 80.41 The City received bills on 8/22/90 ($910.31) and ($143.53) from Landau. One for general consulation and the other site specific to Lot 3, both were received by the City after the permit was issued. On 8/28/90 I billed Greenebaum for $91.03 ($910.31 divided by 10 lots), $71.76 ($143.53 divided in half) and $54.04 for the Schwartz bill, ($540.40 divided by 10 lots). The building official later decided to pay the two bills in full from Landau. The remaining charge of $71.76 is valid. However, in checking my math Mr. Greenebaum really owes the City $80.41, (see above). Mr. Greenebaum wrote a letter dated October 3, 1990 whereby he requested reinbursement of 50% from a Cascade Geotechnical bill that he received. He states that the "City" requested Cascade to make a site inspection and therefore the City should pay for one-half of the bill. The charge was $151.80, (one half $75.90), Mr. Greenebaum did not provide the City a copy of the alleged bill. Ordinance #2661, requires that the Geotechnical Engineer submit field reports on a weekly basis to the Building Official. These reports are made by Mr. Greenebaum's engineer and he is soley responsible for fees charged by his own consultant. If the Building Official had to remind Mr. Greenebaum of the Geotech's responsibility to submit the weekly reports that does not oblige the City to accept responsibilty for the subsequent bill. CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR 890-194 June 25, 1991 Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: June 18, 1991 Demand Letter Mr. Greenebaum: I am in receipt of your June 18, 1991 letter and have reviewed your request for a refund. I, again, reviewed the history of your account that was sent to you on May 29, 1991. I believe the accounting of your file is complete and accurate and I support my staff's findings. Therefore, I cannot honor your request for a refund of $47.384 Si. ncerel Richard Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan CITY OF F.L: M(DNDS LORRY 5. NAUGNTEN C�VIG CENTEfi EOMC lVDr.. W^ 90020 � 42 ) 77--S32r, M.4Yow q O � B 90 1 9 TELECOPIER COVER PAGE TO: d DATE TRANSMITTED: `9 `,,7S- /r)� rO a NUMBER OF PAGES: c (Including cover page Recipients Telacopier No.: FROM -- Sender's Telecopiev No.: 206-778-5322 r � RE:_�.�3 FACSIMILE EQUIPMENT:. Automatic/Group II (2,3 mins.): Group III_ IT there are any pvoblertts during transmission or docu- ments are received incomplete, please call 206-771-.3202 and ask for + Into Z�razad Aug at 11, 1890 - Stator C.ttfes fntarr.attona�l HaSctnan- Japan - TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT COUNT 2 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION StPAGES C)MMENT 1 2064470215 10-28-91 9--15AM 1'24" 2 TOTAL 0:01'24" 2 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 Steven E. Greenebaum Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Mumma: VJi Writer / Musician 23 October 1991 As you rejected my final attempt at compromise (my letter of 18 June 1991) I see little reason to hope for a positive response to this letter. However, I find myself in the position of needing to put a few things in order. The City of Edmonds, through your office, owes me in overcharges and costs incurred by me that were your responsibility, a total of $269.44. This figure does not include unwarranted hindrances to construction by your office that I am unable to calculate at this time. As my letter of 18 June and previous letters show, I have made every effort to settle this matter, including a pro- posal that more than split the difference in your favor. In re- turn you have sent me new figures and calculations at every turn, and even attempted to extort additional money from me, all the while refusing even my proffered compromise. The offer of compromise is, therefore, withdrawn and void. The City of Edmonds owes me $117.64 in overcharges and $151.80 in charges by Cascade Geotechnical that were the City's responsi- bility to pay. I require a check for the total, $269.44 within five working days. Sincerely, Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 LARRY S.NAUGHTEN MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation e Engineering DIRECTOR g90_19" November 1, 1991 Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: October 23 demand letter. Mr. Greenebaum I am in receipt of your October 23, 1991 letter and have reviewed your request for a refund. I again reviewed the history of your account that was sent you on May 29, 1991. I believe the accounting of your file is complete and accurate and I support my staff s findings. Therefore, I cannot hor}or your new request for a refund of $269.44 Sin<Var_el�; ' Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds cc: Scott Snyder, City Attorney grnbum3.rrm • Incorporated August 11, 1890 - Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan sow- 1'012 IZILs- Memo To; Art Housler, Finance Director From; Dick Mumma, Building Official Date; December 17, 1991 RE; Greenebaum Claim/Plan Review Fees The purpose of this memo is to clarify the situation on the reference subject. Mr. Greenebaum applied for a building permit for a new single family residence; his lot was located in an Earth Subsidence area and subject to Ordinance #2661 which requires applicants to pay for one-half of all charged consultant fees for professional plan review. During the plan review and site inspections made by the City's professional consultants, the total bill charged to the City was $3,228.82. Mr. Greenebaum paid $1,534.00 on 8/1/90. One half of $3,228.82 is $1,614.41; therefore Mr. Greenebaum owes the City an additional $80.41. Attached is a memo dated 5 / 2 3 / 91 that was written to me, with a copy provided to Mr. Greenebaum, which breaks down all the billings. My position is that Mr. Greenebaum's arguements are not valid and he owes the City an additional $80.41. page 2 2) Even if there were at one time some justification for a pro rata billing of lot three for Landau's work concerning the plat, that justification ended with Landau's statement on 27 June that any problems with the plat did not concern lot three. Mr. Mumma, you have been placed in•a supremely difficult if not ulcer producing position and I appreciate the work and frustra- tion you have faced --not to mention the flack. I truly have no desire to add to it. But the billing regarding Landau's work on the plat has no relation to ordinance #2728 and simply is not my liability. Speaking of liabilities brings us to the new concern. Among my bills from Cascade Geotechnical is a charge for $151.80 for site work that tjla city _Qf Edmonds requested on 23 August (it was a day that no work was going on on the lot --when I asked both Cas- cade and my builder about it I was informed that your office had requested the site visit). Whereas the city of Edmonds requested the visit, and whereas ordinance #2728 specifically cites city - requested geological review as an expense to be shared equally, this is clearly supposed to be a shared expense. The city's share of this billing is $75.90. Yours sincerely, r 4� Steven E. Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue W Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98020 cc: William Goodwin, Montgomery, Purdue Karen Weisman, The Weisman Studio � q%- . C7MO�Yv L� * * WASHINGTON - OREGON CLAIM SERVICE ASSCOATrON * "Claim Administration and Adjustment"PMUENMW D ** n December 23, 1991j P Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds FC 505 Bell St. 2 1991 Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Our Client: City of Edmonds Claimant: Steven Greenbaum Date of Loss: 5/23/91 Our File: 1-9256 Dear Richard: I have been asked to respond to the claim of Steven Greenebaum for the City of Edmonds. There are a few points I need to clear up before responding to the claim. In your May 23 letter you indicate "the remaining charge of $71.76 is valid." Does this mean this is something that should be or should not be charged to Steven Greenbaum? If it should be charged, please tell me what the charge was for and why it should be Mr. Greenebaum's responsibility. He states the $22.50 grading plan review fee should not be included in your figures because it was paid separately. What can you tell me about that? Please give me a call at 367-5580 if you have any questions. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Bob Kerslake, Jr. Seattle Branch BKJ/jk cc: City of Edmonds - Art Housler WCIA FAX (206)363-2332 Bend (503) 484.0441 P.O. BOX 25549 P.O. Box 9490 P.O. Box 9811 8885 S.W. Canyon Rd. #116 P.O. Box 1087 P.O. Box 7187 130 Fast Main St. MB36 P.O. Box 1437 Seattle, WA 98125 Spokane, WA 99209-9490 Yakima, WA 98909 Portland, OR 97225 Pendleton, OR 97801 Eugene, OR 97401 Medford, OR 97501 Klamath Fatls, OR 97601 24 hr. (206) 367-5582 24 hr. (509) 328.1851 24 hr. (509) 966-5926 24 hr. (503) 297.7905 24 hr. (503) 276-3221 24 hr. (503) 484-0441 24 hr. (503) 779-8521 24 hr. (503) 882-6290 WASHINGTON - OREGON CLAIM SERVICE January 9, 1992 "Claim Administration and Adjustment" Jeannie Graff Building Department City of Edmonds 505 Bell St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Our Client: City of Edmonds Claimant: Steven E. Greenbaum Date of Loss: 5/23/91 Our File: 1-9256 Dear Jeannie: '"100 BAN 18 199Z I am still trying to sort this claim out. Attached is some additional correspondence from Mr. Greenebaum. He believes the City has not but should equally share in the August 23, 1990 site visit by Cascade Geotechnical. He also states the $22.50 grading plan review fee you included in your figures was also included as a $23.00 charge in the grading/fill column of the application, and should not have been included in your figures. In his original notice of claim he also claims 1151.80 site visit requested by City but paid for by owner after plan check reviews were completed on a day no work was taking place." Do you know what he is talking about here? Do you know what he is talking about at the bottom of his January 8 letter when he talks about additional site charges from WJA and Whitcutt? Please give me a call at 367-5580 or write to me at our Seattle address. Thank you for your help! Sincerely, Bob Kerslake, Jr. Seattle Branch BKJ/jk Enc. FAX (206) 363-2332 Bend (503) 484.0441 P.O. BOX 25549 P.O. Box 9490 P.O. Box 9811 8885 S.W. Canyon Rd. #116 P.O. Box 1087 P.O. Box 7187 130 East Main St. #836 P.O. Box 1437 Seattle, WA 98125 Spokane, WA 99209.9490 Yakima, WA 98909 Portland, OR 97225 Pendleton, OR 97801 Eugene, OR 97401 Medford, OR 97501 Klamath Falls, OR 97601 24 hr. (206) 367.5582 24 hr. (509) 328.1951 24 hr. (509) 966-5926 24 hr, (503) 297.7905 24 hr. (503) 276-3221 24 hr. (503) 484.0441 24 hr. (503) 779-8521 24 hr. (503) BU-6290 Steven E. Greenebaum Writer / Musician 8 January 1992 Bob Kerslake, Jr. Washington -Oregon Claim Service P.O. Box 25549 Seattle, WA 98125 Re: Your letter of 23 December 1991 Your File: 1-9256 Dear Sir: Enclosed are the requested cancelled check (actually a fax copy as with the holidays Continental was having trouble getting a photocopy to me in a timely fashion) and photocopy of Cascade's bill, documenting the expense in question (it is circled in red). As the check was not for the full amount and so there may be no misunderstanding, please find also enclosed my letter to Cascade regarding what my check covered. You also requested documents showing that the grading plan fee was paid separately. Enclosed, therefore, are copies of the City of Edmonds bill which included the fee (again, circled in red) and receipt from the City for payment. As I was prepared for court before learning that this process must first be attempted, AU items on the list submitted to you have documentation readily available. If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Steven E. Greenebaum P.S. I do look forward to your explanation of: a) Site Charge $279.29 WJA and b) Site Charge $ 49400 Whitcutt. 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper Cascade Geotechnical 12911 N.E. 126th Place Kirkland, WA 98034 206-821-5080 Project 8910-08G Harbor Hills Lot 3 Invoice number 2463 Daley Place; Edmonds August 31, 1990 Page number 1 Steven Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue West #B Edmonds, WA 98020 � rl*- TERMS: NET 30 DAYS Professional Services Hours Rate Amount PRINCIPAL ENGINEER ENGINEERING 8-02-90 .50 85.00 42.50 PROJECT ENG. GEOLOGIST ENGINEERING 8-02-90 4.00 50.00 C200.00 SITE VISIT 8-01-90 4.00 50.00 200.00 8-16-90 2.00 50.00 100.00 GEOLOGIST SITE VISIT 8-08-90 2.00 45.00 90.00 8-20-90 2.50 45.00 11 0 8-23-90 3.00 45.00 135.00 CONFIRM BEARING 8-29-90 2.50 45.00 112.50 REVIEW DATA 8-01-90 4.00 45.00 180.00 8-20-90 1.00 45.00 45.00 8-21-90 1.00 45.00 45.00 ONSITE INSPECTION 8-02-90 8.00 45.00 360.00 8-03-90 8.00 45.00 360.00 8-06-90 8.00 45.00 360.00 8-13-90 8.00 45.00 360.00 8-14-90 8.00 45.00 360.00 PICKUP/DELIVER MATERIALS 8-06-90 .50 45.00 22.50 8-14-90 .50 45.00 22.50 8-20-90 .50 45.00 22.50 GEOLOGIST OVERTIME ONSITE INSPECTION 8-06-90 .50 55.00 27.50 8-13190 .50 55.00 27.50 Services Total 69.00 $3185.00 Lose P�Ga Y� u e YOUppA Project,8910-08G Harbor Hills Lot 3 Invoice number 2463 Daley Place; Edmonds August 31, 1990 Page number 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- Professional Services Hours Rate Amount Expenses TRAVEL MILEAGE 8-01-90 8-01-90 8-02-90 8-02-90 8-03-90 8-08-90 8-13-90 8-14-90 8-16-90 8-20-90 8-20-90 8-23-90 8-29-90 $0.35 per mile Expenses Total Invoice Total Approved by: GEORGE LAMB Cascade Geotechnical WV00E i Amount S10.50 .80 16.80 19.95 16.80 18.20 19.60 10.50 16.80 1 40 80 191.45 3376.45 -atD'YO -0 • �I'b/ Jar( �:Jr '•:t p'�•: :::'! :''i .. '� yy:' • •� ' , ,.: u;•H �y �9]j j,�fy4�' +'�rY; r h{; . y�fl' "F 1 IC"i'i''�'F rl titat.l a. ;� , ,. ..�., rd. :•.:,,- ?"r ',ii'��•�,i'{�'F .T Rls -�?L:• • �/{���•I� Y,� L{� : 1{Y.f }'•� ,L I' �t{ �, "'�I' : '�.�'�' '. ..�SI�"' �a. '",a,.e.3;•*„��'!I!L.'Fq;,,.4�//r.e.y,..: �:i�a'�i0•®,.1'ti+,» ,,,.; '12t71v."•,•:'•;� �'!'.�� t '��.; .err;'it:!'''S''• 41' )V. I„r�q •1';;`, r.r.1� "�r,,'':"%•' .'!: Yit"�!;v''' Ir ,;� ""',. ,. �' y.Y". „` , rv�4.� .. T,::-..f„ ;.i,,, • : ,5.•, �1i`'.'::iv ..y rr a':; � ';�!' . I. ✓' -S :I ';'': r'.:',t„ !''r I•, I.'r •.".'S.:'•: '. :I"�. ��� �r� / • .,t. ,�I;ol';'r.;,ti.(,'• it! "'):'• ;.�' t��r4'�+ .rt'rr;9e .'i''"' ':ir.:.. .'..,. ti � ;•1� ,'I'I'; :5r � ��:`S �.^%i..: :l,i •,I :..+.: .. 4�,'1 4'I ,'tl,� rl t i r, , 'l� I.• ,.,1. ..I,I I%{I: �.i.'.':;.r �'' ,.yr ::, „1� ',�'. :'"ti{;;I "I•.,• :a.' ^I •, CISI1 C.S.•.:.s;:i.:, J .,di :�\.: r , e1 {.,,V'3 �i ,•' t"r.•_,:.''.a�Adl"�9i'b'n�'"•!{y ,'I.i,t?�I�:'•d.::.': <<` r f ,•,�II,d,,. 41 r., i,7, ,,/, �,It 'Yr�,l ,.,•, �, ,..,,' . "I''. 'rr• r•I';�'r f:::.:." ;rri,7: '.':�r.:'li��'l ••;v'•c"; I., F•fl! '�- r. (,n, rl r„I }(��'r +'•.,•" •,fii' In,, 6° •err ., + 5Hi,:,i,+e'ri.dl•:Aii.��•7.::..�5. ;_,, ,. r;4; ' y„"ar' 'I' h, Ct�hL' �,ai.i::+i1..+h+!��' I ' • '' i .' .• ;• � r,- ,' a1Yr.',� „h:.'j�l i1`� ?• :'t 1��111; Jj t,\,:. , , , II 7•� ff .i � ' I' I , � Y ,.T: •'fit �'i� . :L�'�rSpyi���at�!:r�'a••. ' � ! ' > � C „ "•'•� ! � ,, j�,,r, tt� a . L• tit} ' 1 1 � lt�j I _. :..I r,• ,:;I:'.,1,,�r...rr,;1,'rc�, ,i:r1q.;:e'� ,�, ,. .,. •', i 1 ' „t. • a , �, :. .eril,:i�r�lm, I�'Ir'"�{i,�^�... •.1:.',I;t , •pl.l: .. . 174„•�Mr, of .Y",• , •,'4'.: I4' +�. gle7. :••:li::*•"'•:,.. 41y ',� :. �"y','l �:ti' .': i:.:+.; , i. . -,•" "'�!?�•",.';" '.'�'j •'.V,r:M ar.5��,? ':„r ,y+ . Y.•. ' I!`!I": •:!..'•:'•. r+,i;:,r. _ ,t�'•,S•:•.,';: ,�'i�'' 'd,'. "'ri '.'l , *•t� l 1�f• .r; Ll:': ir', • I"J„\ .t1, • 9�h' �r1, a.I1Y�'' ,ni"II, '.:. r; ln, •ip', rll. rfi,,i•, '.,,r r Ir.rr .'1, ':,1::; .'hi. Ow ':.» ,11 .. ^�:�•. i":, •'4:.iK,1.oy, ..yr ..ta •'.: r,'. 'A:;. r; �. i57, ;'1. ~�. ,.,Y,,, �I�,�ar g;, 7': P'A; • I c., i l' ' "' � y iii�, ... 1• ^ ,; `Na ,.'',�+ r;: .�'. k ,1,., t.•I:.i:'I S1• "' :« � 'cit"; r r,,,, Si.. �'1,�,K�yI •x.::'�.`.iar. �r Rr tl, .� / ': r�., , �, ,5., +.� ':: T i%i'":r 4ry i ::�"•..•�,1� '..t::•f� •, y14 �,'r }•p,,. r. 'r,�'^:4�,'. rJ' 1,r: ,� h, k,,rr,{, .+ti.+iT +�.70t.{. .:AiI ilr. ; th,�:• j.'.; ^i,' + ', nn,r' .I 5i' d '�5':••" `.'3i•� 1 ':1' l•1 :.�4•' {' t L'. A}r: '. +rd ••.h •:: ".,.1�. I'f�i „I'.• ,rh �%r"' r9.' � 1. ;'y ^I': i:�� :I:•�: ''.4 'a P e�y�"rti'ti'`Irt:`'iS' '�. d r:{h,:.�::•.. •11 , " i �,', . v}'. .•.'d•, r>,',C.; :r d;'�`'i .':��� d,r1 +ri ' "'+ • .�,I' II.', IM!�'7•,.t ':r :f,'•� Yr .•.� l' 'ry'�11:.• h. I •'�1s•t'�.''':'r 1'. ,1 .?.: ,�.� ,'�(,'.• ••!rl(( . �-': '• G,•n p,t I,;,rry� .' ;�t'f"': ,•�•1'' •4,'. � IF r T f +: � '��M' ' ..t, ,_ at, �• •, '' •" ,, L.I. '�',i "• 'fc: .� ` ;� :�Y(•.,.• 1 ,,p,,r r "iL�,; ,'.•' ,2'd,rv;," , •'ri<.: :`�,�:,,�;�.;:..�� .,�.' n5rti ��M;;•f;; �'`,,C ••I'..:,,�;;1t��i�t;Y . .'�,y\, � �'•n.,� '�' ;al,. `�I���, r, s'„.7 1 4r .. :,.ti!•;�. n•�:'.r 1'r': ; I t S•.'{� ' y ;,;••. t rn• 5 ;:',f,r •t ' �'�'•'f 'i ' .::a'r ; '',�� •.,,,, ,•n..i.. MY; ,Idyl",f::.?7lpiY1�::• ,'d;.i ,�Ir.' ;!i'•��I',!�' :71.,r,"�sr":. ,•, ;pb :.,; •'{ .°,PI°' '1J+2�1'.'u7:.;.�i ����•4 r',Y4ltr,. L' .di(iai'.i. •"'!. �+v.'r!:',.J' ;'I'. ..�"'f�'.'• E�•t,o.�,:irVd � ,;I;.Ir:y!,''' 'tv.•$r•1`. Y!l.+' •).;,,r.'` �, :i ••�I:C'••(,"' .I,... ra 'r,+,.'r. <•.� �:p, •�r a.v5.!:'e'�' �''I1':eiL'„d..�•• 'n•.:�,', 'T ,au.�.•.; N,:r..gn, r , t "{�' ,r!, ar.;,!.;;:•.•:,. ,;ti••'�' �,v 'nt• '•z. 'i;'Y'h �, I•• y,11,`'�'-..J,L,,. a,, ..,19i.�wf`hfp.1:l. ..!r?'.f�.f: iti]��1. .u:" �,�':,.�VS� [ .,.d:>,i':''i'r' .:r�'>r•;. ';�''Y,.94'�},I t",+y`"-'•r•rs,; '"Iw',a; ,,Sw•. `V,;'.,, .t i N A hll. '�;gxl:a'.��• I';,%; 'i ;5r"d,;:f °`. y,�, '�i',:w ,. _ I�•,,,n !'.. •,1 n 5 :''. •r•' �.• ":if9:r• � I'a. 'ir ;=+r'�+.r. f1}'•" ..4r�., i.y ; ';.I , t ;,r? ah':+� =r , A A F• ►�;•'..'+,.151} r�j:4�:••'l., ; .i •�i'�-', .�p,O,A�+.. ,'^`� a2.':• blf,� ; 4 Z,' �r:;r;t..,. , . �.. , '%�pppl : I" �i� n".ht TYlt.1/, .',�� .. r„ ,, ri'I lYf:' } � rl,•, •a:; 'i .:S,i;":�r_': I!". ..rh:'si::,, ,;t, ':'rf' v.,•r:•.'.ir,,;,a � , •',�i •, � 1�,+j� Y _ •,i. •- YiilMr'l;'::i ''I''� 'fi�:��A�`�" r�.r. ���,'yy� , � '`k`i: r +..>"^-': ei%'�••:'•; ' ' r :."Y.:'•.'.i + gyp. ':Yl .'' S� �'��;4r1 ..y,f4.,a T' .I:, r 1 '�•/;'• •a ',d, r),•1"'•k•."� :.•I':Y!n err„ r 1. '. 14 ;�'. .' •'C: PII '1 '� )) L.,•iy.,. i �:d 3-l11dr 3S = na3Si3 6C:ET 26, L0 Nti C00/C00 z x'IW 3XI gVIN301N0o 88TZ T Z 9 9 0 Z $ 00:2T Z6/40/TO to I :f � 11111.1 ILL" . -A RAW. f: 20 October 1990 Pat Gray, Accounts Manager Cascade Geotechnical 12919 N.E. 126th Place Kirkland, WA 98034 Dear Pat, I am in receipt of your letter of 17 October. Unfortunately, it sheds no light on the two concerns I had raised. 1) How can Amjad's mileage for 1 August be correct? He was not requested (on that day) and had no reason to be on site. Peter was the person who was sent by Cascade to the site on that day, not Amjad, so why I'm being charged for Amjad's mileage? Perhaps there's a good reason. But simply to proclaim that, "Amjad's mileage is correct," and then state, "We trust that this provides sufficient information," is not helpful. 2) You state that, "The engineering on August 2 was for in office design and analysis." Of what? There was already a charge for "Review of Data" on 1 August, so this must have been something new. What? Again, if there is a logical explanation I would be happy to hear it. But you make none. And as neither I nor the builder who was on constantly on site can imagine what this engineering could entail, asking for an explanation is not, I think, unreasonable. You close your letter by stating, "We look forward to receiving full payment by October 31, 1990." I would have gladly paid an accurate bill in full in September. But the first bill you sent me was, for reasons that can only be known to Cascade, remarkably inaccurate. I had two questions concerning the revised bill and immediately posted to you a letter asking for a clarification of it. That was nearly four weeks ago. I had refrained from paying the undisputed balance in the belief that the clarifications I had requested would be quickly forth- coming. As that hasn't happened you will find enclosed a check for $3165.95, which is your invoice total minus $210.50. Sincerely, Steven E. Greenebaum 19508 - 80th Ave W Apt. B Edmonds, WA 98026 City of Edmonds Community Services N2 .12817 Date: �` 90— Received of:v 61W�I'IU44, fo w#,d ,FdMOA/ds Check cash $ Z33 7- _ water wl Trunk Charge Street Use Permit Building Permit: (T} Zoning Applicatio Shoreline Permits Date of Hearing: Time: By: c411kusr,r�u�i'�wrs M" ' USE OERMIT` - CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE NUMBER I 07 'CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION o JOB SUITE/A�T# ADDRESS & y P/ge,6 ' OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS r,efI LK a a 6 a ulw LEGAL DESCRIPTION C EC SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. ' ZMAILINGADDRESS LOT 3 5, ` TESCP o PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. APPROVED BY CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION NAME PROPOSED i RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED ❑ W w ADDRESS STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED 0 Z O SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEW BY w a CITY ZIP NUMBER �;%�_ WEPHONE REMARKS 7. NAMEv p� ! " ) FINA A6 + ¢ ADDPE S i, / P _Z/Y iJ(, T � Z 9 76n METER SIZE, BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE FIXTURE UNITS a� - a:CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER 3 lit REMARKS v STATE LICENSE NUMBER Go SIGN AREA ENV. REVIEW ADB NO. Legal Description of Property - include all easements ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT -• —.._.. i (show below or attach two copies) / SHORELINE# Z 0 a N/ +i7- z i VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE SETBACKS — FEET I �`; 'SIDE LHEIGNLOT COVERAGE(Z 1" Z w FRONT �' REAR ` r Tax Account Parcel No. y r O _ REMARKS�A,�M3 ® W m C�S NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING El ee ADDIALTER COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL APT. BLDG. El *&;wr►t q peosw a or.3 /h its#'4e Ifem wo At Akm*L REPAIR SIGN EXCAVATE, FILL FENCE R CHECKED BY, TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE HEIGHT DEMOLISH OR GRADE (_—x_FT) S 8 '7 L► j CARPORT �•"�^°'� swim REMODEL GARAGE V SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY OCCUPANT POOL REQUIRED GROUP LOAD WOOD,STOVEI ❑ RETAINING WALL/ ❑ RENEWAL YES G NO i REMARKS 111SERT ROCKERY o r (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 Z 9 Q w _ NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF MM& jrIVS111-4—%* nM o m DWELLING / UNITS / J NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED VALUATION FEE i PLAN CHECK FEE s3'y BUILDING Gi / /00 Q PLUMBING Plan Check No. ZZ MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sideW?Iks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE . Permit Application: 180 DaysYY1,_V�j�j� Permit Limit: 1 Year _ Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days �'1hi�YAtE[7 WITHIN "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and 1 o successors in interest, agrees to Indemnify, defend and hold `1:�ICAN w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, RISK 5 employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance Issuance be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT ��.+ of this permit. of this permit shall not ! a modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance ° nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE - 6V /21i7 provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information given is correct; and that 1 am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insurance. INSPECTION acknowledged In space provided. SIGNA U (OWNER OR AG NT) � DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT CITY OF r - OFFIC L'S N DATE iA EDMONDS t.) ATTENTION CALL FOR LEAS DATE INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 771�32�2 UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 102.87 1 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: I Public Works Planning • Parks and Recreation Engineering 890 199 January 20, 1992 Washington -Oregon Claim Service Bob Kerslake, Jr. Post Office Box 25549 Seattle, Washington 98125 RE: Greenebaum Your File No. 1-9256 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR In response to your inquiry, I hope the following information will be helpful to you. (Please refer to the attached letters) ---Greenebaum letter dated 4/23/91 City owes him $ 75.90 ---Greenebaum letter dated 5/14/91 City owes him $121.42 ---Greenebaum letter dated 6/18/91 City owes him $ 47.38 ---Greenebaum letter dated 10/23/91 City owes him $269.44 It appears that Mr. Greenebaum can't seem to make up his mind as to what the City "owes" him; our office has provided him all requested documentation to prove that the remaining fees of $47.38 are due to the City. The City, in an attempt to resolve this issue, sent a letter from the City Building Official on 5/2/91 informing Mr. Greenebaum that the City was willing to call it even, he refused this resolution. Therefore, in defense of the City, I submit the following: Number One: Regarding one-half plan review fees. Mr. Greenebaum chose to build his home on a plat that has some very strict ordinances regarding design and permit review. One ordinance, #2778 (attached), requires that applicants pay one-half of all professional review costs incurred by the City for outside plan review. In this way the burden of review costs are not placed onto the general public, fees are split between the developer and the City. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Page Two Mr. Kerslake January J<5, 1992 Number Two: Regarding his original claim of $151,80. City Ordinance #2661, requires professional inspections by licensed engineers during the construction process. These costs are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Greenebaum's claim stems from the failure of his engineer to submit the required field reports to the City. In an attempt to continue the project without a stop workage, the City Building Official contacted Mr. Greenebaum's engineer and directed him to conduct a field inspection. Mr. Greenebaum was not notified of this request in advance and therefore believes the City should pay for one-half of this inspection charge. However, since this inspection was required by Ordinance #2661, it is not an issue as to who contacted Greenebaum's engineer to make the field inspection. It was a required inspection and the costs of the engineer's time is soley the responsibility of Mr. Greenebaum. Number Three: Regarding the grading/fill fee. As indicated on the face of the building permit that Mr. Greenebaum provided this is a grading PERMIT fee, NOT a grading REVIEW fee, it is not a double charge. All permit fees are to be paid by the applicant. Number Four: WJA and Whitcutt Fees Professional structural review of Mr. Greenebaum's plans was conducted by WJA Associates, review fee of $279.29. Mr. Whitcutt provided professional review of State energy code requirements, review fee of $49.00. Both charges are called out on the 5/23/91 memo by myself to Dick Mumma, I believe you have a copy. Again, as required by Ordinance #2728 the applicant is responsible to pay one-half of all professional review fees incurred by the City. If I can be of further service please don't hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. Thank you, Jeannine L. Gr f Building Inspector Steven E. Greenebaum Ms. Jeannine L. Graf Building Inspector City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 ap101,1 . FFB v7 1 992 Writer / Musician 6 February 1992 I am in receipt of your letter of 4 February. With regard to item #2 and the final concern in my letter of 3 February, the issue is Itt currently under review by the city's claim adjuster. Therefore, I must repeat my request for the information. Namely: 1) As regards the separate grading review fee (as opposed to a grading permit fee) which the city claims has not been paid by me and is still owed. I would appreciate more information regarding this fee. Specifically: what was the fee for, when did this review take place and by whom was the review made? I would also appreciate some examples of single family builders who have paid this separate fee: including names, addresses and dates. 2) As regards Landau Associates' notification to you of their "bookkeeping error." I would greatly appreciate a full copy of that letter and any accompanying documents. I look forward to your timely reply. Steven reenebaum 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper W MEMORANDUM DT: February 13, 1992 TO: Mayor Hall Via: Rob Chave, Planning Manager FM: Dick Mumma, Building Official �OT RE: Mr. Greenbaum This memo is a follow up to your request for information about the Greenbaum matter. Please forgive my abruptness with you during our phone conversation. My department has spent many hours responding to Mr. Greenbaum's many request (whining). Attached you will find all correspondence that we have had with Mr. Greenbaum over the past couple of years regarding his claim of fees due. I will summarize for you now. Mr. Greenbaum first wrote us on 04/23/91 claiming he was due $75.90. We conducted an audit of his account and found, in fact, he owed us $47.38. At that time, I was willing to drop the matter and call the account even. Mr. Greenbaum was not willing to let the matter drop. He has been in contact with the city attorney, my staff and me on a number on occasions. It seemed Mr. Greenbaum was not satisfied with our accounting of his fees. Mr. Greenbaum has made a number of demands for payment threatening he would sue if we didn't respond to his demands. Scott Synder and I talked about the situation and decided to let Mr. Greenbaum sue, thus bringing the matter to a close. Mr. Greenbaum did not sue but filed a claim with the City. I have not been officially notified of the outcome of the claim but it is my understanding the claim was dismissed. It seems Mr. Greenbaum is now attempting to appeal his case to the Mayor in that he has sent you a letter with ten complaints. During our conversation I recall you mentioned two points of ten points; (1) we had double charged for consulting fees and, (2) we didn't provide Mr. Greenbaum with materials he demanded. The stack of documents attached should dispel the second point. Now to the first. The May 29, 1991 letter to Mr. Greenbaum best explains the fees that were charged. A review of section 19.05.060 will justify the fees charged. I will paraphrase the section: 1. The city shall review material submitted by engineers, geotechnical engineers, geologists, architects, and/or structural engineers. �4 2. The Building Official, or his staff, shall not determine if the submittal meets the ordinance but shall rely on outside consultants to review the submittal. 3. One half of the cost of all reviews shall be charged as a plan review fee over and above the regular plan review fees. One half the charge by WJA (for structural review) and Whitcutt (for WS Energy Code review), was charged back to Mr. Greenbaum in accordance with this ordinance section. We have, as a matter of policy, charged in this fashion for permits reviewed under this ordinance since it was adopted. I suppose this policy could be misconstrued as double fees, but it has been established by ordinance. I have gone over the charges as presented in the May 29th letter and am confident they are accurate and valid. I welcome the opportunity to present our case in small claims or any other court and to bring this matter to a close. Steven E. Greenebaum Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Mumma: SUIL01NG FEB 21 1992 Writer / Musician 19 February 1992 Mayor Hall has requested that I contact you regarding getting a photocopy of the city ordinance that allows you to charge twice for WJA's work (both as a part of the plan check and separately). I would appreciate being able to see this ordinance. The Mayor has also requested that I again ask for information previously requested of you. 1) Who is Whitcutt, and for what reason was this "site specific" charge made? 2) What is it that Landau did for which they billed on 8-22- 90, more than three weeks after my permit had been granted? 3) May I please have a full copy of the letter from Landau regarding their "bookkeeping error?" 4) Regarding the separate grading review fee, what was the fee for, when did this review take place and by whom was the review made? I would also appreciate some examples of single family builders who have paid this separate fee: including names, addresses and dates, as thus far I've talked to four builders who are wholly unfamiliar with it. 5) Will the city grant the waiver that I applied for regarding liability insurance, a waiver granted the only other house built in the development? And if not, why not? Thank you. Sincerely, StevenE.. Greenebaum cc: Mayor Hall 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper ,t 1<M r 890-19y CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering March 16, 1992 Mr. Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Greenebaum: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR In response to your letter of February 19, 1992, I'm providing the following information: 1. Whitcutt is an engineering consultant that the City uses on a regular basis to review plans for energy analysis. The charge was for plan review of a portion, or all, of the plans for your project. 2. The billing on 8/22/90 was the date we received the bill. The review was done prior to the issuance of the permit. It's not uncommon for consultants to take three or four weeks to bill us for work that was done. 3. There was no letter from Landau regarding the bookkeeping error. We only received a notification of a credit that indicated a bookkeeping error was made. No explanation, other than that, was offered. You have already received a copy of that notification. 4. The grading fee was charged for grading work done on your property. The plans check was done during the review by the Planning, Building, and Engineering departments; specifically, I assume that Lyle Chrisman did the review for the Engineering Department, that Jeannine Graf did the review for the Building Department, and that John Bissell reviewed for the Planning Department. As far as providing names, addresses, and dates of other builders, my staff does not have time to do this research. You are welcome to come to the department and review the files for the information you feel you need. 5. As I indicated in my letter to you on February 19, 1992, I was awaiting response from the City Attorney's office on your request for waiver. My department did not have a problem with granting the waiver, but requested a recommendation from the City Attorney on the change in the language that you requested. The City • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Steven E. Greenebaum March 3, 1992 Page Two Attorney advised us that changes to the Covenant would be permitted and prepared an amendment. I have enclosed a copy of the Amendment of Covenant and Notice, signed by Peter E. Hahn, Community Services director. Also, I have enclosed a copy of the section of the Edmonds Community Development Code that requires the capture of one-half of the consulnt's fees in additioh to the plan review fees. coely, R,rcht(rd R. Mumma Building Official RRR/sfn enclosures cc: Mayor Hall NAM ET I' AS EST 5 PSA SCIENTIA POT .a Mr. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds 205 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Mumma: Steven E. Greenebaum Writer / Musician 2 April 1992 In your letter of 16 March, you responded to my query regarding the reasonableness --of the special grading fee charged me. You stated that you and your staff did not have time "to do this research" (one wonders if the grading fee in question, that thus far no Edmonds builder I have contacted is aware of, is so unusual that the information is not immediately available to you --therefore requiring research) and invited me to come to the department and review the files for the information ✓ I came to your department this morning, but was informed that neither the files nor you were available. I will be in your office at 10:30 am on Wednesday 8 April and would appreciate the files being available at that time. If for some reason they will not be available, please notify me. Sincerely, ?Steven'E_.7Green�ebaum cc: Mayor Hall 1114 Daley Place / Edmonds, WA 98020 100% recycled paper st&v F_ kKN{Ga-on ---- ----- - I iV e wA i f �Ko M La 1v_Av ! o_v-2-e.x-a.MrS—G_n_I�—�RoU_r My �%U//� �ipV_ak—Gt51�iw� /�► t' fu n v ,7�hr— _— 'tjw>� ,( Q/ 7�/2►v�s_v�-1 � �pv—wo_v_�G( Q_�r_�5.�—�r(a Vc �9o.j�_G�pir� i i ,cii f�S� v Voiz�e AP_R � � 1992 COUNTER BULL p1Na MAY InterOffice Memo 2,,199Z To: Art Housler From: Dick Mumma Date: May 27, 1992 Subject: Greenbaum small claims midigation On May 20, I appeared in court to represent Mayor Hall in a small claims suit brought against her by Steven Greenbaum, a resident of the city. Mr. Greenbaum has been in disagreement with the building section for about a year over fees he was charged. Mr. Greenbaum's permit was reviewed under Chapter 19.05 of the ECDC. This section provides for recovery of 1/2 of consultant's fees associated with plan review. Mr. Greenbaum believed the City had overcharged for certain building fees and he had a refund due him of around $800.00 (amount of small claim). The city believed Mr. Greenbaum had a balance due of around $80.00 (see enclosed fee summary). While in court, Mr. Greenbaum and I were able to resolve many of the disputed fees. Here is a summary of our discussion: 1. Mr. Greenbaum believed the City should not have charged him separately for an "energy plan check", that an energy review is part of the normal plan review process and not a special part of a "Meadowdale" review. I agreed and reduced his fees by $49.00. 2. Mr. Greenbaum felt he had been overcharged for plan review by WJA for a structural review of his home. He believed this fee was also part of a normal plan review. I disagreed and argued a that structural review was required to insure the recommendations of the geotech had been incorporated into the building design. Mr. Greenbaum agreed to pay this fee. 3. Mr. Greenbaum felt he was not responsible for general site charges made for vibration studies in the Harbor Hills development, but that those charges were the responsibility of the developer. I argued the studies were necessary to allow construction to continue in the Harbor Hills development and the City had divided the fees between the ten lots equally. Mr. Greenbaum agreed with my position, but then argued that if we applied the 50% fees reimbursement section of 19.05 then he should only be responsible for 50% of his share. I agreed and reduced his fees by $52.00 (rounded half of $103.79). 4. Mr. Greenbaum believed he had been, (1. incorrectly charged, and, (2) "double charged" ,at best, for a grading permit fee. He believed he was incorrectly charged because the grading should be part of the building permit. I proved the charge was valid. He then argued the charge had been entered twice. Once on the face of the permit as a grading permit fee' and once in the summary of fees as a grading plan review fee. I pointed out there were two separate fees, one permit fee and one plan review fee. To resolve the issue, I agreed to refund the plan review portion and reduced the fees by $22.50. 5. Finally Mr. Greenbaum had paid Cascade Geotechnical for a site visit that he believed was requested by the City and should have been the City's responsibility to pay. He argued that the visit requested by the city was not necessary. He provided records demonstrating no work was being performed on the day in question, and further showing that visits had been made on two separate days before the day in question. I could not justify a site visit for the reason stated in the summary, which was to obtain weekly field reports. Assuming we were justified in requesting the site visit, but unable to document the reason, I finally agreed to split the cost with Mr. Greenbaum; thus agreeing to pay one half of the separate bill of $157.00. Greenbaum small claims midigation 05/27/92 Page 2 Result of our mitigation Please refund Mr. Greenbaum as follows; Energy refund $49.00 Vibration split $52.00 Grading plan fee $22.50 Cascade split $78.00 Total refund $175.50 Less amount due $80.41 Credit Due(rounded) $121.00 Please send a refund check to; Steven E. Greenbaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 CC: Mayor Hall, Rob Chave !V- M E M O R A N D U M June 4, 1992 TO: Devon Drake, Treasury Clerk FROM: Conni Curtis, Project Accounting Coordinator SUBJECT: Greenbaum Small Claims Mitigation Attached you will find a memorandum from Dick Mumma which requests a refund, as a result of small claims court, of a portion of the fees paid for a permit issued in 1990. The original receipt (Community Services #12817) was dated August 1, 1990. Please prepare a treasurer's disbursement in the amount of $121.00 payable to the following: Steven E. Greenbaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, Washington 98020 It should be coded to Plan Check Fees (001.000.000.345.83.00). If you should have any questions, please give me a call. Thanks! q. MAY 2 7199'-) InterOffice Memo To: Art Housler From: Dick Mumma Date: May 27, 1992 Subject: Greenbaum small claims midigation On May 20, I appeared in court to represent Mayor Hall in a small claims suit brought against her by Steven Greenbaum, a resident of the city. Mr. Greenbaum has been in disagreement with the building section for about a year over fees he was charged. Mr. Greenbaum's permit was reviewed under Chapter 19.05 of the ECDC. This section provides for recovery of 1/2 of consultant's fees associated with plan review. Mr. Greenbaum believed the City had overcharged for certain building fees and he had a refund due him of around $800.00 (amount of small claim). The city believed Mr. Greenbaum had a balance due of around $80.00 (see enclosed fee summary). While in court, Mr. Greenbaum and I were able to resolve many of the disputed fees. Here is a summary of our discussion: Mr. Greenbaum believed the City should not have charged him separately for an "energy plan check", that an energy review is part of the normal plan review process and not a special part of a "Meadowdale" review. I agreed and reduced his fees by $49.00. Mr. Greenbaum felt he had been overcharged for plan review by WJA for a structural review of his home. He believed this fee was also part of a normal plan review. I disagreed and argued a that structural, review was required to insure the recommendations of the geotech had been incorporated into the building design. Mr. Greenbaum agreed to pay this fee. Mr. Greenbaum felt he was not responsible for general site charges made for vibration studies in the Harbor Hills development, but that those charges were the responsibility of the developer. I argued the studies were necessary to allow construction to continue in the Harbor Hills development and the City had divided the fees between the ten lots equally. Mr. Greenbaum agreed with my position, but then argued that if we applied the 50% fees reimbursement section of 19.05 then he should only be responsible for 50% of his share. I agreed and reduced his fees by $52.00 (rounded half of $103.79). Mr. Greenbaum believed he had been, (1. incorrectly charged, and, (2) "double charged" ,at best, for a grading permit fee. He believed he was incorrectly charged because the grading should be part of the building permit. I proved the charge was valid. He then argued the charge had been entered twice. Once on the face of the permit as a grading permit fee' and once in the summary of fees as a grading plan review fee. I pointed out there were two separate fees, one permit fee and one plan review fee. To resolve the issue, I agreed to refund the plan review portion and reduced the fees by $22.50. Finally Mr. Greenbaum had paid Cascade Geotechnical for a site visit that he believed was requested by the City and should have been the City's responsibility to pay. He argued that the visit requested by the city was not necessary. He provided records demonstrating no work was being performed on the day in question, and further showing that visits had been made on two separate days before the day in question. I could not justify a site visit for the reason stated in the summary, which was to obtain weekly field reports. Assuming we were justified in requesting the site visit, but unable to document the reason, I finally agreed to split the cost with Mr. Greenbaum; thus agreeing to pay one half of the separate bill of $157.00. Greenbaum small claims midigation 05/27/92 Page 2 Result of our mitigation Please refund Mr. Greenbaum as follows; Energy refund $49.00 Vibration split $52.00 Grading plan fee $22.50 Cascade split $78.00 ZO1.S0 Total refund $ii5-30 Less amount due $80.41 Credit Due(rounded) $121.00 Please send a refund check to; Steven E. Greenbaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 CC: Mayor Hall, Rob Chave 0 F iR�i TIP Volunt*ers of Amorica— Dispute Resolution Center of Snohomish County SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WE- :>L- fia having participated in a and being satisfied that settlement, hereby agree 6r/ . 4'0 1.2 M-0 mediation session(s) on we have reached a fair and reasonable as follows: /-M / 670 �r 121 0 cat 11C_ 12t EGUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY .WE -intend the above agreement to be-a.,,l /pqAlly binding and enforceable settlement contract.g.,-.1 !-� . (our initials) WE are unable to reach agreement on the following issues and these issues are not a paA.,lof our mediation agreement: DATED this,-,/'C') day of 199,7. . M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 23, 1991 TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official FROM: Jeannine L. Graf, Building Inspector .SUBJECT: Daley Place Professional Review Lot 3 Greenebaum Charges Per your request the following breakdown represents the charges received by the City for professional review of the subject project. As required by Ordinance #2661 one-half of all professional review charges are required to be paid by the applicant exclusive of the normal plan review fees. Site Specific Charges to Lot 3 3/15/90 Invoice Amount $ 279.29 WJA 4/18/90 Invoice #1545 Amount $ 1080.70 Landau 6/25/90 Invoice #1618 Amount $ 94.48 Landau 7/25/90 Invoice #1669 Amount $ 95.24 Landau 8/1/90 Invoice Amount $ 49.e9'' Whitcutt 8/22/90 Invoice #1701 Amount $ 143.53 Landau Total $ 1742.24 One -Half = $ 871.12 General Harbor Hills 'Consultation Charges from Landau/Schwartz 6/25/90 Invoice #1619 Amount $ 590.54 Paid in full by City 7/25/90 Invoice #1670 Amount $ 1744.19 8/13/90 Amount $ 540.40 Schwartz (Paid by City) 8/22/90 Invoice #1702 Amount $ 910.31 Paid in full by City 10/23/90 Amount $ 706.25 * Overcharge *Correction of Invoice #1670 $ 1744.19 - $ 706.25 = $1037.94 divided by 10 lots = $103.79 Landau/Schwartz Total Charges $3,079.19 Paid in full by City 2,041.25 Remaining Fees Divided by 10 Lots $1,037.94 Page wo To: Dick Mumma From: Jeannine Graf Date: May 23, 1991 Total Charges $ 871.12 Professional Charges 103.79 Landau General Consultation 617.00 65%, Plan Check Fees based on Permit Fee of $950 22.50 Grading Plan Review Fee Total $ 1614.41 1534.00 Paid when permit issued 8/1/90 Due $ 80.41 The City received bills on 8/22/90 ($910.31) and ($143.53) from Landau. One for general consulation and the other site specific to Lot 3, both were received by the City after the permit was issued. On 8/28/90 I billed Greenebaum for $91.03 ($910.31 divided by 10 lots), $71.76 ($143.53 divided in half) and $54.04 for the Schwartz bill, ($540.40 divided by 10 lots). The building official later decided to pay the two bills in full from Landau. The remaining charge of $71.76 is valid. However, in checking my math Mr. Greenebaum really owes the City $80.41, (see above). Mr. Greenebaum wrote a letter dated October 3, 1990 whereby he requested reinbursement of 50% from a Cascade Geotechnical bill that he received. He states that the "City" requested Cascade to make a site inspection and therefore the City should pay for one-half of the bill. The charge was $151.80, (one half $75.90), Mr. Greenebaum did not provide the City a copy of the alleged bill. Ordinance ##2661, requires that the Geotechnical Engineer submit field reports on a weekly basis to the Building Official. These reports are made by Mr. Greenebaum's engineer and he is soley responsible for fees charged by his own consultant. If the Building Official had to remind Mr. Greenebaum of the Geotech's responsibility to submit the weekly reports that does not oblige the City to accept responsibilty for the subsequent bill. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Claim must be filed with the City Clerk. TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS: 0 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, THAT _(5AeVeAl �, G!{ 6e-/Ve64,ym WHO NOW RESIDES AT 1 PI Pale, PIA ,e �-� (State present a tual address by street, number and ci AND WHO FOR SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO DATE OF INCIDENT HAS RESIDED AT a r/ 1ve residence by street, number and City CLAIMS DAMAGES OF AND FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE SUM OF $ p� q arising out of the following circumstances: Describe Claim, giving DATE and TIME injury or damage occurred, PLACE and full particulars. Accurately locate and describe defects causing injury or damage and all acts of negligence claimed. Accurately describe injuries or damage. State items of damage claimed. Itemize all expenses and losses. (Claim must be sworn to by claimant) P1M;t _eel �a CU3�S /Ncv�R�A gnatur f Claimant Telephone N �; M%%Il, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T o�0> t,,i� before me this J _ day of Ig Z R s� �00V sue; N ary Public i and for the State ••••••••�'��5�= Washington ���TF OF CLAIM/10-5-88 My appointment expires: 9t, � /6, CLAIM AGAINST CITY OF EDMONDS--STEVEN E. GREENEBAUM (1) 1 Total Charges per City of Edmonds (23 May 1991) 2 $ 871.12 Professional Charges 3 103.79 Landau General Consultation 4 617.00 Plan check fee 5 22--.5-6---Grading Plan Review Fee 6 $1614.41 Latest Edmonds Total 7 Refund due r j 8 a)-103.79 Landau's charged "General Consultation" should not be r 9 b) - 71.76 Landau's plans approved never "Site Specific" charge incurred af±&L explained 10 11 $ - 198.05 Total Adjustment to Edmonds figures 12 Total therefore owed City of Edmonds = $1614.41 - 198.05 $1416.36 % S/ 13 7 v� ' Total Paid City of Edmonds is 1534.00 14 Therefore City owes a refund of $117.64 ($1534-1416.36) 15 Additional Costs Owed by Edmonds 16 $151.80 Site visit requested by City but paid for by owner after plan check reviews were completed on a day no work was taking place. 17 Total therefore owed Steven E. Greenebaum by City of Edmonds: $117.64 + 51.80 18 $269.44 CLAIM AGAINST CITY OF EDMONDS--STEVEN E. GREENEBAUM (2) Explanation of Claim Lines 1-5 are the latest Edmonds calculation of charges. Line 6 is the total. I stress the "latest" calculation as the City has rather consistently changed it calculations. Line 8 -- the charge for Landau's "General Consultation" is whol- ly inappropriate. Landau's problem was with the original devel- oper and the City of Edmonds for approving the plat as it was de- veloped. When I bought the lot the City had approved the plat. If their own consultant thought that was wrong that is not my problem. Nor should it be my expense. Line 9 -- This site specific charge occurred after the City of Edmonds approved my building plans. I asked for and never re_ ceived a reason the City of Edmonds would want, let alone bill me for a Landau consultation after approval of my plans. I was promised, in writing, on 27 September 1990, that the reason for this additional consultation would be explained. It never was. Under those circumstances it is outrageous that I be charged for it. Line 10 -- I have been charged twice for the Grading Plan Review. Once as a part of the original plan check, and then again in new City of Edmonds calculation of charges. Once is sufficient. Line 12 -- Subtracting line 11 from line 6 results in what I should have been charged by the City of Edmonds. Line 14 -- Subtracting what I should have paid from what I was charged results in the refund due for overcharging. Line 16 -- On 23 August the City of Edmonds, on its own initia- tive, called Cascade Geotechnical and requested a site visit. There was no work going on. Cascade had visited the site only two days before and filed a report. This visit and the expense incurred were the results of the City's curiosity. It should have been billed to the City. Cascade, however, billed me and I did not catch it until after the fact. This cost was wholly and completely the City's responsibility. Line 18 -- the total of the refund (line 14) and the cost of Cas- cade's visit to the empty site (linel8) equals the amount of the claim. In addition, the amount on Line 2 includes two unexplained charges. a) Site Charge $279.29 WJA (who is WJA, what is charge for?) b) Site Charge $ 49.00 Whitcutt (what is charge for?) I have assumed these to be legitimate charges and have not in- cluded them in the claim. But I would appreciate an explanation. Lastly, on 2 May, 1991, the Building Official wrote to me about a "bookkeeping" error by Landau and the resulting overcharge. De- tails have never been provided. CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering May 29,,1991 Steven E. Greenebaum 1114 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Greenebaum: LARRY S.NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The City Attorney has sent me copies of your correspondence with a request that we work out the problems between ourself. I have compiled a history of your file (copy enclosed) and I can't substantiate your claim that the city still owes you money. In fact our records show a balance still due the city. Therefore I will not be able to honor your request for a check from the city for the amount of $75.90. I hope our research will help you better understand the history of your project. 1<7 S mcrel T- 7 ' Richard R. Mumma CBO Building Official City of Edmonds cc: City Attorney grnbaum.rrm • fncorporoted August 11, 1890 • l/'✓�` „(_ Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 23, 1991 TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official FROM: Jeannine L. Graf, Building Inspector SUBJECT: Daley Place Professional Review Lot 3 Greenebaum Charges Per your request the following breakdown represents the charges received by the City for professional review of the subject project. As required by Ordinance #2661 one-half of all professional review charges are required to be paid by the applicant exclusive of the normal plan review fees. Site Specific Charges to Lot 3 3/15/90 Invoice Amount $ 279.29 WJA 4/18/90 Invoice #1545 Amount $ 1080.70 Landau 6/25/90 Invoice #1618 Amount $ 94.48 Landau 7/25/90 Invoice #1669 Amount $ 95.24 Landau 8/1/90 Invoice Amount $ _40- — Whitcutt 8/22/90 Invoice #1701 Amount $ 143.53 Landau Total $ 1742.24 One -Half = $ 871.12 General Harbor Hills Consultation Charges from Landau/Schwartz 6/25/90 Invoice #1619 Amount $ 590.54 Paid in full by City 7/25/90 Invoice #1670 Amount $ 1744.19 8/13/90 Amount $ 540.40 Schwartz (Paid by City) 8/22/90 Invoice #1702 Amount $ 910.31 Paid in full by City 10/23/90 Amount $ 706.25 * Overcharge *Correction of Invoice #1670 $ 1744.19 - $ 706.25 = $1037.94 divided by 10 lots = $103.79 Landau/Schwartz Total Charges $3,079.19 Paid in full by City 2,041.25 Remaining Fees Divided by 10 Lots $1,037.94 Page Two To: Dick Mumma From: Jeannine Graf Date: May 23, 1991 Total Charges $ 871.12 Professional Charges 103.79 Landau General Consultation 617.00 65% Plan Check Fees based on Permit Fee of $950 22.50 Grading Plan Review Fee Total $ 1614.41 1534.00 Paid when permit issued 8/1/90 Due $ 80.41 The City received bills on 8/22/90 ($910.31) and ($143.53) from Landau. One for general consulation and the other site specific to Lot 3, both were received by the City after the permit was issued. On 8/28/90 I billed Greenebaum for $91.03 ($910.31 divided by 10 lots), $71.76 ($143.53 divided in half) and $54.04 for the Schwartz bill, ($540.40 divided by 10 lots). The building official later decided to pay the two bills in full from Landau. The remaining charge of $71.76 is valid. However, in checking my math Mr. Greenebaum really owes the City $80.41, (see above). Mr. Greenebaum wrote a letter dated October 3, 1990 whereby he requested reinbursement of 50% from a Cascade Geotechnical bill that he received. He states that the "City" requested Cascade to make a site inspection and therefore the City should pay for one-half of the bill. The charge was $151.80, (one half $75.90), Mr. Greenebaum did not provide the City a copy of the alleged bill. Ordinance #2661, requires that the Geotechnical Engineer submit field reports on a weekly basis to the Building Official. These reports are made by Mr. Greenebaum's engineer and he is soley responsible for fees charged by his own consultant. If the Building Official had to remind Mr. Greenebaum of the Geotech's responsibility to submit the weekly reports that does not oblige the City to accept responsibilty for the subsequent bill. CITY OF EDMONDS TARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR �890-109 April 5, 1991 Steven Greenebaum 19508 80th Avenue W, Apt B Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Lot 3 Harbor Hills Permit #900607 The City is in receipt of the required insurance policy for the subject residence. This policy is required to be continually posted with the City for a period of ten years. The policy may not lapse at any time during this period or the occupancy of home may be jeopardized. The following items are outstanding as required by the Earth Subsidence Ordinance: A final construction report from the geo-technical engineer is required. The report must contain a statement that, based on site observation, testing and monitoring, the completed development is in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the geo-technical report. All outstanding progress field reports should be immediately submitted for Building Department review. A final construction report is also required from your structural design engineer. A statement must be included that provides verification that the as -built home complies with the design. Professional service fees of $162.79 are due from invoice of September 27, 1990. After all items are submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Building Official, the site restoration bond can be released. A separate letter of bond release will be mailed to you at that time. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Inspector LOT3FINL/TXTDOS62 • Incorporated August II, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan I N V 0 1 C C CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - St-+ AVE N - E01,.10NOS. %VA 98020 - (206) 2 %1.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: ca _ Public Works - Planning - Parks and Recreation - Engineering 89.0-19 BILLED TO: STEVEN GREENBAUM INVOICE NO_ 19508 80th Ave W #Apt B DATE 9/27/90 GRANT NO_ Landau Invoice #1701 Landau General Consultation $ 71-76 91.03 TOTAL $162.-09 4 PLEASE ENCLOSE ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE_ THANK YOU_ BUILDING LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. AUG 2 4 1990 P.O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-009.10 Geotechnical Review Invoice No. 1701 Greenbaum SFR, #3 Harbor Hills August 22, 1990 Page number 1 City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Amount Senior Geologist 1.50 78.00 117.00 Word Processor & Operator .25 39.00 9.75 Support Staff --------- .50 29.00 14.50 ----------- Total Personnel Charges 2.25 141.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Amount Copies 2.28 Total Expense: 2.28 TOTAL THIS PERIOD Project Billing Summary Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 1,249.25 i4 .25 1;39ono Reimbursables/Equipment 21.17 2.28 23.45 Total: 1,270.42 143.53 1,413.95 Thank You For Your Business 141.25 2.28 143.53 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice UU� LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 4&0 P.O. BOX 1029 �g EDMONDS, WA 98020 /so, (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-011.10 General Consultation Invoice No. 1702 Harbor Hills Sub and Adj. Lots August 22, 1990 Page number i City of Edmonds Attn: Mr. Dick Mumma 250 5th Ave No. Edmonds WA 98020 Progress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 28 Jul 1990 Personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Rate Associate 6.00 88.00 Senior Geologist 3.50 78.00 Project Coordinator .75 41.00 Word Processor & Operator 1.25 39.00 Support Staff .75 29.00 Total Personnel Charges 12.25 Reimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Copies Facsimile Machine Project Billing Summary Amount 528.00 273.00 30.75 48.75 21.75 902.25 902.25 Amount 4.56 3.50 Total Expense: 8.06 8.06 TOTAL THIS PERIOD 910.31 Prior Current Total Personnel Charges 2,305.75 902.25 3,208.00 Reimbursables/Equipment 28.98 8.06 37.04 Total: 2,33.4.73 910.31 3,245.04 Thank You For Your Business 7207/W C/�A�ehe qio. 31 -- /e��7s //, c3 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice 0006.040.034 WSS/klt 07/14/89 ORDINANCE NO. 2728 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 19.05.060 RELATING TO ENGINEERING COMPLIANCE REVIEW IN AN EARTH SUBSIDENCE IN THE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA IN ORDER TO DIVIDE THE COST OF SUCH REVIEW BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the cost of engineering reviews for projects initiated within areas of earth subsidence and landslide hazard are highly technical reviews conducted by experts, and WHEREAS, the cost associated with such reviews can be large, and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds believes that such fees should not be born solely by the taxpayer of the City of Edmonds, but should be divided equally between the applicant and the City, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 19.05.060 REVIEW TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING PRACTICE of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.05.060 REVIEW TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING PRACTICE. The City shall require review of the submittals accompanying the application by an engineer, geo- technical engineer, geologist, architect, and/or structural engineer as may be necessary and determined by the City in order to determine whether the submittals were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice or the practice of the particular speciality. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Director. The Building Official shall not be required to inquire further into vp WSS515700 -1- the adequacy of any report, but rather may rely upon the submittals as warranted by the owner and reviewed by the City's consultant. Nothing herein shall relieve the owner of the obligation to submit a completed application fulfilling all the requirements of this chapter in the Uniform Building Code. One half of the cost of such review or reviews shall be paid by the applicant as a plan check fee in the manner provided by the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 15 of the Edmonds Community Development 'Code, provided, however, that this plan check fee shall be in addition to the fee established by ECDC 15..00.020(C)(1). Section 2. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of the ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CI Y CLERK, JACQUELINE G. PARRETT APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY Ali Ilti FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: 7-30-89 EFFECTIVE DATE: 8-4-89 ORDINANCE NO. 2728 WSS515700 -2-