Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells council LMA annual-report order would ignore alleged slope hazard
Summary
During public comment, resident Peter Ming said resolution 2026‑5975 directing the city engineer to prepare the annual LMA report would result in a deficient filing unless it includes a remediation plan for a documented life-safety hazard at the Chicago Avenue slope; he said he submitted technical attachments dated March 16.
At the start of public comment, resident Peter Ming addressed resolution 2026‑5975 (an order for the city engineer to prepare the annual landscape maintenance assessment (LMA) report for 2026–27) and urged the council to amend the resolution to require a fuel‑modification and remediation plan for the Chicago Avenue slope.
Ming said he is a California licensed professional engineer and told the council the city engineer is in "administrative default" related to a documented life‑safety hazard on the Chicago Avenue slope. He said he warned the council during a March 3 consultation and that the LMA filing as drafted would be "deficient and potentially fraudulent" unless the slope remediation is included. Ming said he submitted formal correspondence on March 16 with three attachments: a September 15, 2025 professional engineer safety report, January 12, 2026 technical interrogatories the city engineer allegedly did not answer, and a December 19, 2025 notice to residents.
Ming argued that only a licensed professional engineer can legally certify a slope as safe and demanded the council amend the resolution to require remediation planning and fuel modification in the engineer's report. He warned of potential liability to the city and asked the council not to "pay for beautification while ignoring a documented threat to pre‑1980 homes and regulated pressurized gas mains." The council acknowledged the comment; no formal action was taken on this public comment during the meeting record.
The council did not indicate a change to the resolution as part of the public-comment response, and staff or the city engineer did not provide an on‑the‑record technical reply during the comment period.
Because the statement is a public accusation about a technical hazard and the scope of staff reports, the council may pursue follow-up with staff or legal counsel; the transcript records the claim and the attachments Ming said he provided.
