Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Retaining Wall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say city process failed them after repeated retaining‑wall citations; council heard two hours of public comment
Summary
Two residents told the council the city’s code‑enforcement and legal response to a retaining wall citation left them without a clear appeals path and forced legal fees; one speaker also presented a private geotechnical report saying the wall is stable and that moving it would reduce compaction and raise safety concerns.
Two members of the same family spoke during non‑agenda public comment on March 12 to contest the city's handling of a retaining wall citation and to raise safety and process concerns.
Deborah Gilchrist said she was cited beginning on Nov. 15, 2022, received multiple citations through April 2023, and had trouble obtaining the city’s appeals process. She alleged that the city attorney’s actions escalated matters and wrote, "she has paid your firm over $20,000 to defend her interest to date," and said the city attorney threatened criminal prosecution on April 14, 2023, which prompted her to hire counsel. Gilchrist told the council that citation paperwork she received referenced fines without listing amounts and that she incurred legal fees to clarify how to appeal.
Julie Gilchrist followed with technical and safety concerns about the proposed requirement to move the retaining wall. She said a soils/geotechnical engineer, retained at private expense, concluded the CMU retaining wall "is stable under current conditions and is necessary in order to reduce erosion." Julie Gilchrist told the council that moving the wall back five feet would remove critical compaction and could leave little to hold the remaining wall, and she raised questions about whether a shorter fence would meet pool enclosure safety standards.
Council did not take immediate action in response to the comments during the meeting. The inputs raised procedural questions (how the city's appeal process is communicated and administered) and technical questions (engineer findings and safety/liability implications) that would ordinarily be addressed in follow‑up with city code enforcement and legal staff.
No formal response from the city attorney or a staff representative clarifying the appeals timeline appears in the public‑comment block in the transcript; staff and council acknowledged the comments but did not announce a follow‑up schedule on the dais during the meeting.
