Laserfiche WebLink
O’Connell: “I mean, I think if you change it to a chain link, like it <br />was before, you’d be fine.” <br />The Schwob July 22, 2024 agreement (Exhibit M — short CMU base + <br />fence under 7 feet total) is the direct response to this safety <br />conversation. That agreement was later repudiated, leaving the 3-foot <br />demolition demand standing — exactly the death-trap configuration <br />O’Connell himself acknowledged. <br />JJ-4. Public Works disowned the fence and pushed responsibility to <br />Burns (Lines 36-46): <br />Burns: “The kids were crawling under here and going into the <br />creek under this fence. So City Works was out there, and I go, who <br />owns this fence? The Public Works guys were looking. I go, who’s, <br />it’s on my property. My property line is to the middle of the creek. I <br />had a survey done. The wall’s on my property. It’s not in the <br />easement… And the guy says, you own the fence. It’s on your <br />property. We don’t own it.” <br />The CMU wall and gate exist because Public Works disowned the City <br />fence and refused to act on a child-safety hazard at City <br />infrastructure. Burns built a wall to protect children. The City later cited <br />him for the wall. <br />JJ-5. Public Works offered to pay for the gate relocation (Lines 83- <br />90): <br />6.A. - Page 42 of 64 <br />44