Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenant advocate alleges flawed hearing, contractor shortcuts and safety hazards at council public comment
Summary
A legal agent for an elderly tenant told the council the administrative record for a recent permit is deficient, alleged false testimony by a director, and accused a contractor of ignoring engineered plans and creating imminent balcony and stair hazards; he filed a new complaint and asked the city to enforce building code and state law.
Sean Sheridan, who identified himself as the legal agent for an elderly tenant at 290 North Thor Street, asked the council to pull item 6b and said the packet for that item “is materially defective, compromising the administrative record and exposing the city to severe procedural liability.” Sheridan alleged staff published a withdrawn 86‑page document instead of his operative 95‑page amended addendum, that the clerk withheld an additional June 23 addendum and 22 exhibits, and that those omissions deprived the council of his asserted rights under the municipal code.
Sheridan also alleged the building‑safety director (named in his remarks as Director Warner) gave testimony that public records now show to be false and said the contractor, Armando Garcia Jr., operator of Westside Landscape & Concrete Inc., ignored architect‑engineer plans. Sheridan described splitting in a balcony frame and stairs he characterized as imminent hazards beneath his mother’s feet and said the city had excuses for deviations as “field changes” rather than enforcing repairs.
He said he filed a new complaint (case number referenced) to trigger closer scrutiny of permitting and insisted the city must enforce the building code and applicable state law to protect the tenant. The council did not take action on the allegations during the meeting; Sheridan framed his remarks as historical context and an appeal to staff and the council to address alleged unsafe conditions.
Because these allegations were made during public comment, they remain claims in the record. The transcript contains detailed accusations about omitted exhibits, the content of the administrative record, and contractor conduct; the meeting record does not contain an on‑the‑record rebuttal or administrative determination in response during this session.
