[00:00:01]
IT IS 1236.WE'LL CALL OUR MARCH 28TH, UH, 2022 TAC MEETING TO ORDER.
WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? MR. MOORE.
[Public Comment ]
GREAT.IS THERE ANYONE, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE? WE RECEIVED ZERO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR, UM, FOR TODAY'S AGENDA.
THERE'S NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, AND WE HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL TO PLAY.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND PLAY THAT? AND NOBODY HAS SIGNED IN TO SPEAK ON THE SIGN IN SHEET? AWESOME.
I RESIDE, RESIDE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2.
OUR STATEMENT IS FOR AGENDA ITEM THREE, FOUR, AND SIX.
THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE SUPPORTS AMENDMENT 27 DASH 11, 27 DASH 10, AND 27 DASH 13.
THESE AMENDMENTS WILL ADVANCE A CONSISTENT AND UPDATED METHODOLOGY FOR URBAN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST P T A C TO SUPPORT AMENDMENT 27 DASH 10, 20 DASH 27 DASH 11, AND 27 DASH 13.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UM, SINCE THERE'S NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE WILL, UH, MOVE ON AND TAKE CARE OF THE MINUTES.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? IF NOT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
LOGAN, ARE THE FOOD POLICY FOLKS HERE? SURE ARE.
WE'RE GONNA JUMP AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF THEM RIGHT AWAY, AWAY SINCE WE CAN GET THEM OUTTA THE ROOM.
[New Business ]
SO THAT IS GONNA BE, I BELIEVE, STARTS WITH ITEM NUMBER 24.DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT SIX DASH TWO, AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 1 0 2.
SHOULD I SPEAK OR? YES, YOU'RE GOOD.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PRESS AND HOLD
UM, SO IN THIS, UM, PROPOSAL, WE'RE SEEKING TO, UM, ESTABLISH, UM, EQUITY AND COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY AS, UM, BASIC VALUES IN THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT SECTION.
UM, EQUITY HAS BEEN, UM, A FOCUS OF THE CITY, AND I FEEL THAT UNLESS IT'S IN THE CODE SOMEWHERE, IT COULD POSSIBLY JUST BE LIP SERVICE.
SO WITH REGARD TO FOOD SECURITY, UH, WHICH SAN ANTONIO, UM, HAS A KNOWN PROBLEM WITH, UH, THIS ALSO, UM, PUTS, IT, ELEVATES IT TO SOMETHING THAT'S TOP OF MIND AS WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? ENTERTAIN A MOTION? UH, QUICK QUESTION.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF LEGAL HAS ANY COMMENTS.
UH, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY THIS LANGUAGE IS HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, GENERAL WELFARE.
DOES THE ADDITION OF THIS LANGUAGE HAVE ANY CONCERNS FROM, FROM LEGAL? NO.
THERE'S NO CONCERNS FROM LEGAL OR REORDER IT
[00:05:01]
OR REORDER IT TOWARDS EQUITY.COMMUNITY FOOD, THEN PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY LAWS.
IT, UH, MY QUESTION WASN'T THE ORDERING JUST WHETHER OR NOT, UM, IT ADDS ANY EXTRA COMPLICATIONS FOR DEFENSIBILITY AND OKAY.
SO, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY SUSAN WRIGHT.
OH, AND FOR THE RECORD, IT IS 1242 AND MR. ZUKI HAS JOINED THE MEETING.
UH, ITEM 25, DISCUSSION ACTION ON ITEM SIX DASH THREE, AFFECTING SECTION 35 DASH 3 0 1.
AND IN THIS ONE WE'RE, UM, CALLING OUT COMMUNITY GARDENS AND URBAN FARMS AS A LAND USE.
THAT'S, UM, THAT'S VALUED AND RECOGNIZED.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM, GEORGE? I DO.
UH, UH, RIGHT ABOUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THING, IT SAYS, PROVIDE FOR LAND USES, WHICH SERVE IMPORTANT NEEDS BY SUCH AND SUCH, INCLUDING COMMUNITY GARDENS, URBAN FARMS. TOWARD THE END OF THE THING, IN THE ONES IN BLUE, IT SAYS, PROMOTE EQUITY AND PROMOTE THIS.
I'M GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING IF GONNA SAY IT NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE THINGS THAT ARE LISTED THERE, INCLUDING COMMUNITY GARDENS AND URBAN FARMS. THE WORD PROVIDE THERE KIND OF MAKES THAT A REQUIREMENT TO ME.
IT, SO MY QUESTION IS, IT'S NOT HAVING, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY GARDENS AND URBAN FARMS IN A, SAY, A COUNCIL DISTRICT, IS THAT A FAILURE TO PER TO ABIDE BY THE ORDINANCE? PROMOTING IS ONE THING PROVIDING SEEMS TO ME SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, SO, SO, SO THIS LANGUAGE IS BEING ADDED TO THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, WHICH EXISTS AS A, ALMOST A COMMENTARY ON WHAT THIS CHAPTER SERVES TO DO.
SO IT LAYS OUT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT BULLETS.
NOTHING IN THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE WILL EVER BE INTERPRETED AS A REQUIREMENT OR REGULATION.
SO THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE THAT WOULD COMPEL ANY DECISION MAKING, UH, BASED UPON ITS INCLUSION HERE.
SO OUR, OUR, UM, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UM, THEY ALL ADDRESS THE, UM, ESSAY TOMORROW, FOOD SYSTEM GOALS AND THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, SUSTAINABILITY GOALS.
SO IN, UH, INSERTING THEM INTO THE U D C, UH, WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR THOSE THINGS TO MOVE FORWARD.
SUSAN, YOU HAD A QUESTION? WE JUST, UH, THIS IS TECH, UH, JUST, UH, CORRECTIONS, BUT WE NEED A SEMICOLON AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN.
AND THEN THE SAME THING AFTER PROMOTE EQUITY AND COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY.
YOU READY FOR A MOTION? AND THEN, ALL RIGHT.
UH, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION, BIANCA? NO, JUST A MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BIANCA FOR APPROVAL AS AS AMENDED.
NOW MOVING ON TO THE, UH, FUN ONES HERE.
UM, ITEM NUMBER ONE, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 27 DASH EIGHT AFFECTING APPENDIX H 5.2 0.2.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? UM, THIS SECTION IS JUST, IS YOUR MICROPHONE WORKING? IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S WORKING.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? AVI? CAN WE TRY TURN UP HER, HER AUDIO? DO YOU WANNA TRY AND PULL IT CLOSER TO, IS THAT BETTER? YES.
SO THIS SECTION IS, UM, JUST PROVIDING SOME REFERENCE, UM, CLARIFICATION HERE.
IS THERE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? DEBBIE? JUST A COMMENT TO CHANGE THE DIRECTOR OF T C I TO
[00:10:01]
PUBLIC WORKS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THERE? YES, MA'AM.I DID NOTE THAT MYSELF TOO WHEN I WAS WAITING HERE,
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ENTERTAIN A MOTION? BIANCA? MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BIANCA FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
ITEM TWO, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 27 DASH NINE, AFFECTING APPENDIX H 5.3.
ALRIGHT, SO THIS PARTICULAR, UH, SECTION OF THE CODE IS PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE FOR A MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD FOR USE IN DESIGN OF DETENTION PONDS.
UM, THE CODE WASN'T VERY SPECIFIC CURRENTLY ON THE DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES, AND SO THIS IS JUST PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE HERE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MOTION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. TAPIA.
ITEM THREE, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON 27 DASH 11 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 5.4.
ALRIGHT, SO THIS SECTION IS, UM, WE'RE AMENDING THE OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH, UM, FROM 300 FEET, WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN THE CODE TO A HUNDRED FEET, WHICH IS MORE TYPICALLY USED FOR URBANIZED AREAS.
UH, WHEREAS THE 300 FEET MAX FOR OVERLAND TIME, TIME OF CONCENTRATION FLOW WAS MORE FOR A, UM, RURAL TYPE USE.
WE ARE ALSO PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCES HERE FOR SABRINA.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 27? DID I STICK WHAT? I THINK SO, YEAH, I'M, YEAH, THE 27 11 IS THE DENVER LAG ONE.
SO THIS IS A, UM, PROVIDING SOME, A CONSISTENT WAY OF CALCULATING THE POST.
UH, THIS IS THE DENVER LAG POST, UH, CONSTRUCTION TIME OF CONCENTRATION PROVIDING JUST SOME GUIDANCE HERE.
UM, CAN YOU GIVE MAYBE A BRIEF FOR THE NON-ENGINEERS IN THE ROOM? JUST A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF MAYBE A, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? DO THE NON-ENGINEERS CARE? I DON'T KNOW.
ARE THE, ARE YOUR CONSTITUENTS ASKING FOR THIS FORMULA? SO THIS WAS, UM, THE WAY THAT THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION IS CALCULATED RIGHT NOW, THE ENGINEERS, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE YOUR SITE PLAN.
YOU COME UP WITH YOUR, UM, YOUR LINKS FOR YOUR OVERLAND FLOW, AND YOU COME UP WITH THE, UM, UH, A ASSUMED VELOCITIES, RIGHT? TO CALCULATE YOUR, YOUR OVERALL TOTAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION.
SO THERE WAS SOME ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN THOSE CALCULATIONS.
AND SO THIS IS PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE ON KIND OF COMING UP WITH A BETTER DEFINED TIME OF CONCENTRATION.
SABRINA, IF I COULD ADD, IF I COULD ADD THIS BASICALLY OPENS UP, GIVES ANOTHER TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX, IF YOU WILL, THAT ALLOWS, UM, THAT ALLOWS US TO BETTER DEFINE THAT THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT KNOW.
WE, WE USE THAT TO CALCULATE THE OVERALL PEAK WHEN LOOKING AT, AT, AT FLOOD CONDITIONS.
WHAT IS THE OVERALL DISCHARGE? SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR OUR FOLKS THAT ARE WORKING ON THIS NEFFIE.
WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO USE DENVER LAG EVERYWHERE.
ISN'T THIS JUST, IT MAY BE USED AND IN PARTICULAR IT SHOULD BE USED IN WATERSHEDS WHERE YOU ULTIMATE CONDITION ISN'T KNOWN.
I MEAN, SO CAN WE EITHER ADD A SENTENCE UPFRONT OF WHERE THIS IS APPLICABLE GENERALLY AND CAN WE CHANGE SHADE SHALL TO MAY? I MEAN, LIKE FOR WATERSHEDS WE'RE PROPOSED SLASH ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS OR NOT DEFINED THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION MAY USE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SAYING USE THIS EVERYWHERE.
AND IT READS IN THE ABSENCE OF WITH A SHALL IT READS AS IF WE'RE SAYING EVERYWHERE.
[00:15:01]
I AGREE WITH THAT, CORRECT.AGAIN, THIS IS, UH, AN ADDITIONAL TOOL AS A REFERENCE.
SO DO I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT ADDITIONAL QUESTION? SO ARE WE ADDING A SENTENCE WHERE RECOMMENDS IT SHOULD BE USED? OR ARE WE JUST GONNA LEAVE? SHALL TO MAY.
I THINK WE SHOULD ADD A SENTENCE SAYING WHEN IT SHOULD BE USED.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I, I MEAN, THE WAY THAT WAS MY QUESTION ON THIS ONE IS I READ IT AND IT WAS, WELL, MY QUESTION WAS, ARE WE DOING THIS EVERYWHERE? BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY IT READ.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO PRETTY MUCH DEFINE WHEN IT'S GONNA BE USED.
FOR WATERSHEDS WHERE PROPOSED ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS ARE NOT DEFINED.
ISN'T THE INTENT HERE OBVIOUSLY TO FOCUS ON BUILT OUT AREAS TOO, TO PROVIDE MORE BETTER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN OUR URBAN CORE? I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE ULTIMATE IS, IS IT NOT? I MEAN, THIS IS DEEP IN THE WEEDS HOW YOU CALCULATE ONE LITTLE ITEM AND WHERE YOU'D USE THIS.
THERE'S MULTIPLE OTHER WAYS TO USE.
AND FRANKLY, IN A DEVELOPED WATERSHED, THIS ISN'T THE ONE THAT MAKES SENSE.
THERE'S OTHER TOOLS THAT SHOULD BE USED.
AND I THINK THERE'S SOME AMENDMENTS THAT COME LATER THAT DO A BETTER JOB OF DEALING WHERE NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO EXISTING KIND OF THING.
SO NOW SAY YOUR SENTENCE AGAIN FOR WATERSHEDS WHERE PROPOSED SLASH ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS ARE NOT.
AND THEN I WOULD SAY THE COMMA GOES RIGHT INTO SENTENCE AS IT IS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND A NO, I'M, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
WHAT DID THE ENGINEERING REFERENCE THAT YOU USE FOR THIS EQUATION MM-HMM.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REGIONAL MODELING STANDARDS, UM, THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND CREATED, UM, BY THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY, BEXAR COUNTY AND THE RIVER AND THE CITY.
BUT I THINK THERE IS A TECHNICAL, I THINK THEY HAVE A TECHNICAL SOURCE.
WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S DENVER.
THEY USED TO BE CALLED URBAN DRAINAGE.
COMMISSIONER DKI, IF YOU WANNA MOVE TO WHERE THERE'S A MICROPHONE OR GRAB A MICROPHONE.
THERE'S SOME EMPTY MICROPHONES OVER HERE.
JUST, JUST TO ADD THE REFERENCE TO THESE DOCUMENTS, UH, WE COULD ADD THE REFERENCE IN ALSO.
BUT IN MOST PLACES, HAVEN'T WE REMOVED THE REFERENCES? YEAH.
I MEAN, DIDN'T WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS AT MOST VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER MEETING THAT WE'RE REMOVING THE REFERENCES? BECAUSE ONE, IF THEY CHANGE, WE'RE NOT CURRENT, BUT WE WERE IN, BEEN VERY INTENTIONAL OF DELETING REFERENCES IS MY ONLY CONCERN THAT WE PUT IT IN, IN ONE PLACE.
I'D BE HESITANT TO ADD A, A REFERENCE TO THIS.
SO, BUT MAYBE THE DIALOGUE FOR THE REFERENCES ABOUT JUST REFERENCING WHERE THE INFORMATION CAME FROM, NOT NECESSARILY LINKS TO THE DATE ITSELF, BUT, YOU KNOW, REFERENCING THE TABLES OR THE, OR THE KNOWLEDGE BASE.
SO MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE GENERIC AND NOT A DIRECT LINK THAT WILL FAIL AT A SUBSEQUENT HEARING, BUT SOMEONE CAN GO LOOK IT UP.
BUT THAT'S NOT AN EQUATION CREATED BY SARAH THAT'S IN THEIR MANUAL.
IT'S NOT THEIR CREATION OF THAT EQUATION, THEREFORE, IT, IT'S NOT REALLY BEARS.
MY, MY COMMENT HERE IS IF AN ENGINEER GOING TO GO WITH THE U D C TO GO OVER THIS EQUATION AND THE BREAKDOWN AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PARAMETER THAT IT'S USED, THE ENGINEER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ACTUAL REFERENCE TO SUPPORT THE NUMBERS AND THE VALUES THAT'S COMING FROM.
AND THE U T C IS NOT AN ENGINEERING REFERENCE FOR THIS EQUATION TO BE USED.
SO IT GOT TO BE, UH, A REAL ENGINEERING REFERENCE THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS REFER TO IN THE FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT BEFORE ANOTHER ENGINEER SEALED ON THE VALUES THAT'S CALCULATED FROM IT.
NO ENGINEER WHO'S GOING TO GO LOOK AT THE REFERENCE 'CAUSE THEY'RE DESIGNING PER CODE TO MEET YOUR CODE.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE DRAINAGE MANUAL THAT GOES INTO MORE DEPTH.
THAT IS AN APPENDIX D THAT IS UPDATED IN MORE DETAIL.
DO WE EVEN NEED TO, I GUESS MY QUESTION, DO WE EVEN NEED TO INCLUDE THIS OR DO WE JUST REFERENCE THE DRAINAGE MANUAL?
[00:20:02]
I KNOW THE, I KNOW THE DRAINAGE MANUAL ITSELF HAS MA HAS FILLED WITH REFERENCES.UH, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO, TO REFERENCE THE DRAINAGE MANUAL BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE ALL OUR REFERENCES ARE AT.
SO CAN WE ADD THAT AT THE END REFERENCE DRAINAGE MANUAL? DO WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL TITLE FOR THE DRAINAGE MANUAL? JUST CORRECT.
THAT'S THAT AND IT APPENDIX D OR H OR Q P D X A SPECIFIC APPENDIX IN THE U D C, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE CODE.
RIGHT? IT'S IN THE DRAINAGE POLICY WHERE WE HAVE ALL THE REFERENCES.
RIGHT? I THINK IT'S CHAPTER TWO.
CAN WE LOOK THAT UP OF APPENDIX? SO IT'S CHAPTER TWO OF, HERE YOU GO.
SO AS NCE IN CHAPTER TWO OF APPENDIX H, THAT'S THE DRAINAGE MANUAL, THE STORMWATER MANUAL OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED.
ALSO UP THERE, YOU NEED TO CROSS OUT, I THINK YOU HAVE AN EXTRA, I THINK IT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE MAY SHALL YOU NEED TO DELETE THE MAY.
ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT MAY AND THEN DELETE THE SHALL MM-HMM.
SO, UM, WE, JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE, THERE IS REFERENCES TO THE SAN ANTONIO REGIONAL, UH, MODELING STANDARDS.
SARAH'S, UM, S A R B THROUGHOUT, UM, CHAPTER FIVE OF, OF THE DRAINAGE MANUAL.
SO, UM, INSTEAD OF CHAPTER TWO WOULD BE CHAPTER FIVE.
CAN WE JUST YEAH, YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.
WHEN CHAPTERS CHANGE, WE DON'T HAVE TO MESS WITH IT.
I THINK THAT DIRECTS 'EM IN A GOOD SPOT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ANSWER ANY? SHOULD WE CONSIDER REMOVING THE H JUST IN CASE THE APPENDIX CHANGES AT SOME POINT AND JUST REFERENCE IT AS BEING THE APPENDIX AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IT IS, BUT, BUT AT LEAST IDENTIFY THAT IT'S THERE.
IF WE'RE GOING FOR THE MORE GENERIC STATING, SORRY, I'M COMFORTABLE AS APPENDIX H 'CAUSE WE'D BE AMENDING IT BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
WHAT'S IN IT MAY, BUT NOT THE REFERENCE.
YEAH, I DOUBT THE APPENDIX WILL EVER CHANGE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I HAVE ONE ON, UM, WHERE IT DEFINES THE, UH, UNITS L SUB CA THERE'S AN EXTRA LITTLE UNDER L TO THE LEFT, LEFT.
AS NOTED, WE HAVE A MOTION BY KARA FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED FORWARD TAP.
ITEM FOUR, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 10 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 5.4 0.1.
BACK TO, UM, THE OVERLAND FLOW
UM, AS I BRIEFLY MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, UM, WE ARE CHANGING THE LENGTH OF THE MAX, LENGTH OF OVERLAND FLOW TO 100 FEET, UM, TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH OUR URBANIZED AREA VERSUS THE 300 FEET, WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN THE CODE FOR A MORE RURAL AREA.
ALL RIGHT, ANY DISCUSSION? MOTION MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
DEBBIE HAS A QUESTION, A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION ABOUT MAKING THE FLOW LENGTH 100 FEET ABOUT RURAL AREAS AND 300 FEET, BUT HOW DOES
[00:25:01]
THIS RELATE TO PRE-DEVELOPMENT, WHICH SHOULD BE LONGER THAN THE POST-DEVELOPMENT? LET ME TRY AND LET ME TRY AND ADDRESS THIS.SO TYPICALLY WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING YOUR TIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR THE, THE OVERLAND FLOW PIECE, WHEN YOU'RE IN RURAL AREAS, UM, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, BY THE FACT THAT IT IS RURAL, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AREAS THAT, UM, CAN EXTEND MUCH LONGER.
AND THE THEORY IS THAT, UH, AS, AS YOU GO SAY, SAY YOU HAVE AN UNDEVELOPED AREA, YOU HAVE A, JUST A NATURAL CREEKWAY THAT LENGTH BEFORE IT BEGINS ACCUMULATING TO MAYBE MORE OF A CHANNEL FLOW OR A DIFFERENT PROFILE CAN BE EXTENDED A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
WHILE IN AN, IN AN URBAN AREA, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MORE BUILT OUT.
SO YOU'RE WATER WILL ACCUMULATE VERY QUICKLY INTO A CURB OR INTO SOMETHING THAT BEGIN, THAT BEGINS ACCUMULATING AND, AND CHANNELIZING.
SO THIS, UM, BY THIS, BY THIS LIMIT, IT FORCES THE ENGINEERS TO GET INTO MORE OF THE DETAILS.
UH, INSTEAD OF JUST SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE EASIER, I GUESS, IF YOU WILL.
THIS, THIS CHANGE REALLY IS REFLECTIVE OF OUR URBAN, URBAN, UH, SCENARIO.
WE, WE HAVE VERY FEW UNDEVELOPED AREAS, EVEN IF GREEN, IT BASICALLY SHORTENS THE DISTANCE OVER WHICH WE CAN USE A GENERIC ASSUMPTION.
AND YOU NOW MORE QUICKLY HAVE TO LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT FLOW PATH OF WATER.
SO IT IS A MORE DETAILED LOOK, WHICH IS A BETTER SITUATION IN MORE URBANIZED AREAS.
BY THIS MEAN THAT BY BY, BY NO MEANS ARE WE SAYING THAT, UH, UH, MAKING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE OBSOLETE OR NOT, NOT ACCOUNTING FOR IT.
THAT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
IT'S HOW WE DO THE CALCULATIONS.
WE WOULD RATHER TO SEE MORE OF DETAILED CALCULATIONS INSTEAD OF JUST USING THESE CHARTS WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO IN THERE AND ACTUALLY CALCULATE THE FLOWS.
UM, CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT? I THINK IT WAS UP.
AND THE NEXT CHART IS GOING TO BE ADDED.
SO THE NEXT CHART IS REPLACING THAT CHART? CORRECT.
OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY 'CAUSE IT WAS NOT XED OUT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
FOR THE NON-ENGINEERS IN THE ROOM, THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION IS BROKEN INTO THREE PARTS AND IT'S, WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING ONE OF THOSE THREE PARTS.
I JUST HAD SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
I JUST WANNA THANK YOU FOR THIS BECAUSE TRULY TO WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS, DEBBIE, AND I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TOO, IS THAT YOU REALLY WANT A REALISTIC SITUATION TO BE ABLE TO MODEL, ESPECIALLY IN A BUILT OUT ENVIRONMENT, SPECIFICALLY IN THE URBAN CORE.
SO THAT'S WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS VERY CRUCIAL AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN, IN ENSURING THAT AS INFILL DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THAT IF DETENTION OR MITIGATION IS REQUIRED, THAT YOU HAVE THE BEST TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO CALCULATE THAT SCENARIO.
SO, UM, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND I'D LIKE TO SECOND IT.
WE HAVE A BY KARA, A SECOND BY BIANCA.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, SIR.
UM, SO THESE ARE ALL COMING FROM, THEY SAY THEY'RE COMING INTERNALLY, UM, BUT LIKE THE LAND USE ONES WHEN IT WAS INTERESTING, UM,
WHAT DO YOU REALLY THINK? WELL, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND STAFF, YOU KNOW, HAD RUN INTO THESE ISSUES AND HAD SORT OF DISCUSSED THEM AND, AND THEY WERE BROUGHT FORWARD BY STAFF.
IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE? YES.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 27 DASH 12 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 5.5 0.3.
THIS IS PROVIDING JUST SOME REFERENCE INFORMATION FOR A SPECIFIC TYPE OF, UH, USE, UM, AS IT PERTAINS, OR, I'M SORRY, UH, CURVE NUMBER CALCULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, UM, IDENTIFYING PARKING AREAS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT MAY INCLUDE GRAVEL, DECOMPOSE, GRANITE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, WHERE THE CODE WASN'T CLEARLY DEFINED.
ANY QUESTIONS? BIANCA? MOTION FOR APPROVAL? WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA.
[00:30:01]
ITEM SIX, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON 27 DASH 13 AFFECTING APPENDIX H FIVE.ALRIGHT, WE ARE IN THIS SECTION.
WE ARE, UM, MODIFYING TO INCLUDE SOME REFERENCES TO THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING HANDBOOK, UM, AS WELL AS PROVIDING THE GREEN AND AMPS METHODOLOGY THAT WILL NOW BE PART OF THE NEW, UH, FLOODPLAIN MAPPING EFFORTS THAT THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY IS, UM, MANAGING.
EVERYTHING IN THE BIG RED BOX GOES AWAY AND THE NEW BOX IS THE SUBSTITUTE.
AND THIS IS TO REFLECT, YOU SAID, GREEN AND AMPT RIGHT TO PRO TO CODIFY THE GREEN AND AMPT METHODOLOGY FOR FLOODPLAIN MAPPING.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM MOTION? IT'S BEYOND MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA ROBERT.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 14 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 5.6 0.2.
THIS IS A QUICK, UH, REFERENCE AGAIN, UM, REMOVING THE TR 55 AND INSTEAD REPLACING IT WITH THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING HANDBOOK.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY KARA BIANCA.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 15 AFFECTING APPENDIX EIGHT, 6.2 0.2.
THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO IDENTIFY, UM, WHERE STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN.
UM, AND WE'RE ADDING LANGUAGE HERE WHERE THE CROSS SECTIONS OF WHICH THE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR THE STREETS ARE TAKEN, WHERE THE A D A RAMPS ARE LOCATED OR WHERE THE BACK OF THE RAMP IS LESS THAN THE CURB HEIGHT WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? I HAVE A GENERAL COMMENT, UM, AND MAYBE A LITTLE MODIFICATION IN THE SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH.
IT SAYS, UM, IF THE STREET INTER, UH, THE STREET INTERSECTION SHALL BE GRADED SO TO, TO AVOID WATER FLOWING OVER THE CURB OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH, CAN WE ADD A LITTLE CAVEAT TO THAT? THAT SAYS, UM, INSTEAD OF SAYING OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH? 'CAUSE IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S FLOWING LESS THAN CURB FULL, BUT THERE'S, IT'S UP ON THE CURB, IF IT GETS TO A DRIVEWAY APPROACH, IT'S GONNA FLOW OVER THAT DRIVE THAT APPROACH.
SO CAN WE INSTEAD OF SAY OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH SAY OR EXCEEDING A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE CURB HEIGHT WITHIN THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH? 'CAUSE THE BUILDERS SHOULD BE ELEVATING BETWEEN THE CURB LINE AND THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE HEIGHT THAT THE CURB TO AVOID IT.
TECHNICALLY COULDN'T MAKE OR EXCEEDING A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE CURB HEIGHT WITHIN THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YOU GUYS GOOD WITH THAT? SABRINA AND NEFFY? YEAH, I LIKE IT.
ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? BIANCA? MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED MOTION BY BIANCA FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
ITEM NINE, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 16 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 6.2 0.9.
OKAY, SO, UM, THIS WAS, UM, LANGUAGE THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONFUSING AND, UM, INTERPRETATION OF IT WAS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
SO THIS WAS OUR ATTEMPT TO CLEAN UP THAT,
[00:35:01]
UM, THAT LANGUAGE AND PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE, UM, ON WHAT IS UN FLOATED ACCESS AND HOW IT SHOULD BE ANALYZED.SO, UM, SO THE WITHIN EACH IS CONFUSING TO ME.
CAN IT SAY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS? YES.
WHAT I HAVE AND THEN THE NEXT ONE'S EVEN MORE CONFUSING BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE YEAH.
THE NEXT ONE IS MORE CONFUSING.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE, THOUGH, IT ENDS THAT SENTENCE SAYING, DURING A REGULATORY FLOOD EVENT, IS THAT MEANING THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD OR WHAT? SO SHOULD IT JUST SAY THE SHOULD NOT OR SHOULD YOU SAY THE A HUNDRED YEAR OR THE 1%, THE THE 100 YEAR OLD.
WELL, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW HOW WE CHANGED THE REFERENCE TO CHANGE THE REF 100 OLD REGULATORY IN THE CO IN THE APPENDIX THEFT.
MAKING SURE THAT, UH, STILL MAKES SENSE THERE.
TELL ME WHAT THE NEXT ONE'S SUPPOSED TO SAY.
SO NOT IN EVERY CASE WILL YOU HAVE, UM, UH, YOU MAY HAVE, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'LL, YOU'LL HAVE, UM, YOUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MAY MEET THE FIRST CRITERIA ITEM A, WHERE YOU CAN GET TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S HIGH AND DRY, BUT THEN YOU GO, UM, OFF OF, I DON'T KNOW, BENDERA ROAD AND PAR PORTIONS OF BENDERA ROAD ARE COMPLETELY INUNDATED BY THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
SO NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE TO GET FROM YOUR SITE TO THAT FIRST PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO GO TO AN ARTERIAL STREET.
THAT MUST BE A PROCEED WITH CAUTION RANGE FOR THE FIVE YEAR STORM EVENT.
ULTIMATE FIVE YEAR STORM EVENT.
SO IT HAS TO BE PASSABLE IN A SAFE CONDITION ON THAT MAJOR ARTERIAL.
SO WHAT'S CONFUSING TO ME IS IT AUTOMATICALLY IMPLIES THAT ARTERIAL IS NOT NEXT TO YOU, BUT IS A QUARTER MILE AWAY.
ARE WE JUST TRYING TO SAY WITHIN A QUARTER MILE YOU HAVE TO GET AN UN FLOODED ACCESS OR A PROCEED WITH CAUTION TO AN ARTERIAL DURING THE FIVE YEAR STORM? YES.
WE, WE TRY TO MAKE IT TO WHERE IF, IF YOU HAVE AN ARTERIAL THAT'S NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SITE OR A DISTANCE OF A QUARTER MILE WHICHEVER'S LESS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE NEXT ARTERIAL AND ANALYZE THAT.
BUT WOULDN'T IT JUST BE EASIER TO SAY AN ARTERIAL WITHIN ONE QUARTER OF A MILE? SO THAT IMPLIES THAT BECAUSE IT'S CONFUSING.
YOU MEAN AN ARTERIAL THAT IS NOT ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OR TO, IT'S JUST CONFUSING.
I I, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TO, TO CLEAN THIS UP.
UM, YEAH, I I'M FINE WITH THAT.
N SO IF, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHY WE, WE ADDED THAT STATEMENT.
WHICHEVER IS LESS, BUT YEAH, WE NEED TO CHANGE IT.
I'D SAY AN ARTERIAL STREET WITHIN ONE QUARTER MILE OR LESS.
SO IF THERE'S NOT AN ARTERIAL STREET WITHIN A QUARTER MILE, IS SOMEONE GOING TO SAY, WELL THEN YOU NEED TO MAKE ONE WITHIN A QUARTER MILE YES.
REMEMBER, IT'S A PROCEED WITH CAUTION, NOT A FULL CLEAR.
AND THAT'S A FIVE YEAR STORM, NOT A HUNDRED
[00:40:01]
BECAUSE THIS IS BASICALLY SORT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING ALREADY, RIGHT? I MEAN IT'S THE CODE.WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY IT 'CAUSE NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS NOW.
WE'LL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
SEE, I CAN SEE EXACTLY
YOU CHANGED PW PUBLIC WORKS GREAT.
YEAH, WHAT DO YOU MEAN WITH THE, DURING A FUTURE CONDITION, 20% ANNUAL CHANCE THAT'S REFERRED TO THE FIVE YEAR, FIVE YEAR RETURN INTERVAL STORM, FUTURE C H F A.
RIGHT? SO THEY HAVE TO ANALYZE THAT ENTIRE WATERSHED OF WHICH THAT CROSSING APPLIES.
NOW LET'S JUST SAY IT'S LEON CREEK AT BENDERA ROAD, THEY HAVE TO ANALYZE THAT ENTIRE WATERSHED FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS WITHIN THAT WATERSHED AND DETERMINE IF IT'S A SAFE CROSSING FOR THAT FORM OF IT.
DON'T WE HAVE THE DEFINITION OF FUTURE CONDITION? 20%.
I MEAN, ISN'T THAT IN THE DEFINITIONS? YES MA'AM.
ANOTHER COMMENT ON THE PUBLIC WORKS MAY WAIVE, UH, ON WHAT BASIS HE OR SHE COULD WAIVE JUST BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE, OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HAVE THIS UN FLOODED ACCESS REQUIREMENT IS IN THE SITUATION THAT THERE'S AN EMERGENCY.
IF, UH, IF THE DEVELOPMENT WAS TO BE, UH, THERE'S AN ACTIVE FLOOD GOING ON AND GOD FORBID SOMEBODY IN THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS A HEART ATTACK AND WE NEED TO GET EMERGENCY VEHICLES IN THERE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CHECKING TO THAT VEHICLES CAN GET IN AND OUT IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.
UM, THE TIMES THAT WE WOULD, UM, PROVIDE ANY KIND OF VARIANCE, UM, WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC SITUATIONS WHERE MAYBE THEY, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S A FREEWAY OR SOMETHING, SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS US TO STILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT, UM, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS OF, THAT'S WHY WE'RE REAL CAREFUL WITH THIS.
I WILL ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THAT SPECIFIC SENTENCE HAS BEEN IN THE CODE.
UM, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT ALLOWANCE THAT IT'S BEEN THERE.
WE'VE JUST BEEN STRUGGLING WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF IT.
REALLY THIS REASON FOR THIS, IT'S JUST CLEAN UP REALLY.
SO IT IS JUST REASONABLE TO HAVE THIS STATEMENT IN THE WAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? A MOTION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED MOTION.
SECOND MOTION BY BIANCA FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 10, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT 27 DASH 17 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 7.2 0.5.
ALRIGHT, THIS IS PROVIDING SOME, THIS SECTION OF THE CODE IS PROVIDING SOME CLEAR GUIDANCE ON HOW TO DO A PEAK ON PEAK, UM, HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS.
UM, THE CODE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY, UM, GUIDANCE THERE, SO WE'RE JUST PROVIDING SOME, SOME GUIDANCES HERE FOR THE ENGINEERS.
ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION AND MAYBE I'M NOT THE BRIGHTEST BULB IN THE CHANDELIER OR SOMETHING, BUT, UM, THE LAST LINE IN BLUE SAYS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BOTH WATERSHEDS BEING COVERED BY THE STORM BEING MODELED IS 10 SQUARE MILES OR LARGER.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN? 'CAUSE IT'S SAYING THE ASSUMPTION OF COINCIDENT PEAKS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IF THE FOLLOWING ARE TRUE.
AND THEN SO YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF BOTH WATERSHEDS BEING COVERED BY THE STORM BEING MODELED AS 10 SQUARE MILES OR LARGE, SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THERE, YOU RHETORIC? YEAH.
SO IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT'S 10 SQUARE MILES OR IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT BOTH WATERSHEDS ARE BEING COVERED? BOTH WATERSHEDS ARE 10 SQUARE MILES.
I DON'T, I'M CONFUSED ON THE WORDING.
WE'VE GOT TWO EXTRA MERGED TOGETHER.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE.
[00:45:01]
SO WE WERE, YOU ORIGINALLY DIDN'T HAVE THE 10 SQUARE MILES IN IT.SO IT SHOULD SAY THE LIKELIHOOD MAY BE APPROPRIATE IF BOTH WATERSHEDS ARE BEING COVERED BY THE STORM.
IS THAT ALL IT SHOULD SAY? BEAR WITH ME HERE.
I SEE AND UNDERSTAND THE FIRST TWO POINTS.
I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE THIRD ONE.
IF THEY WERE SMALLER SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE CHANGE AND IT'S SMALLER, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION IS SHOULD IT BE SMALLER INSTEAD OF LARGER?
I KNOW, RIGHT? GO BIG OR GO HOME, HUH? THE WATERSHED BEING COVERED BY THE STORM BEING MODELED IS 10 SQUARE MILES.
WATERSHEDS ARE THE WATERSHEDS BEING COVERED BY THE STORM BEING MODELED ARE 10 SQUARE MILES OR SMALLER.
SINCE THE OUTFALLS SEEM TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS FOR DEGRADING THE, UH, RECEIVING STREAMS BELOW THAT, UM, OUTFALL, I'D LIKE TO ADD AN AMENDMENT THAT CLEARLY DEFINES IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE THERE WITHOUT CAUSING DOWNSTREAM EROSION OR ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE NATURAL DOWNSTREAM ECOLOGICAL OR THE DOWNSTREAM, UM, RECEIVING BODY'S ECOLOGICAL IN INTEGRITY OR FUNCTIONING.
JUST SOMETHING TO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, UH, THAT FIRST PART CAUSING DOWNSTREAM EROSION BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN CALCULATE THAT AND WE CAN MAKE DETERMINATIONS.
I WONDER HOW WE CAN CALCULATE, UM, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION.
UM, I, I DON'T KNOW ANYWHERE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CALCULATE,
[00:50:01]
UM, ADVERSE IMPACT TO ECOLOGICAL OTHER THAN OBSERVATION AND SAYING, WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE IT.RIGHT? AND WITH EROSION WE CAN CALCULATE SHEER, WE CAN CALCULATE VELOCITIES.
UM, I JUST, I I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE ADVERSE IMPACT TO ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE THAT AND HOW TO MEASURE THAT FOR SOME DEVELOPMENT.
AND THAT COULD TAKE YEARS TO DETERMINE AN ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ON A STREAM.
THE CITY HAVE THE STAFF TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THAT AND MANAGE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
I THINK JUST HAVING IT, UM, BEING RECOGNIZED AND THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT METHODS FOR ASSESSING STREAMS, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING.
SO IT WOULDN'T BE THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY, IT WOULD BE SOMEBODY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY.
AND MAYBE A TERM IT'S ROBERT TOP MAYBE A TERM FOR THE GLOSSARY OF TERMS JUST TO START A DISCUSSION POSSIBLY DOWN THE ROAD.
AND WE ADDED THOSE CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY INTO THE DEFINITION.
SO IT IS START BEING A CONSIDERATION.
I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW I WOULD DETERMINE WHAT THAT IS.
WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT'S THE CURRENT ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE REMOTELY LOOK AT OR THAT'S CLASSIFIED FOR ALL OF OUR STREAMS. SO THE EROSION PART, OKAY, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE REST.
SHOULD IT SAY WITHOUT CAUSING ADDITIONAL DOWNSTREAM EROSION.
SEE, FOR COMPARISON'S SAKE, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A FLOOD CONDITION, ADVERSE IMPACT IS DEFINED AS ACTUAL ARISE IN THE FLOODPLAIN FOR SAYING, THIS IS JUST A ONE EXAMPLE.
UM, IF WE, WE HAVE A RISE IN FLOODPLAIN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR EVEN PUBLIC PROPERTY, UM, THAT RISE, THAT CALCULATED RISE IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ADVERSE IMPACT.
SO I CAN HOLD THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY OR, OR THE ENGINEER THAT'S SUBMITTING, I HOLD 'EM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT RISE IN FLOODPLAIN AND CALL THAT ADVERSE IMPACT.
UM, I THINK THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER IS IF, UM, IS IT JUST, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE, UM, ADVERSE IMPACT ON ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION? WELL, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IN MOST STREAMS. HOW WOULD YOU CLASSIFY THE CURRENT ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING OF THAT STREAM TO KNOW YOU'VE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED IT? AND WHEN THE VEGETATION IS STRIPPED OFF OF THE STREAM, THEN THAT'S NOT REALLY A CALCULATION.
IS THAT THE ISSUE WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHAT, WHAT EVENT CAUSED A STRIPPING OF VEGETATION OR, 'CAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT GOING ON, IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PINPOINT WHICH DEVELOPMENT WAS THE CAUSE OF THAT.
WE USE SHEER STRESS TO, TO MODEL SOME OF THAT, INTO UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HOLD, UH, ENGINEERS ACCOUNTABLE IS WITH THE SHEARER STRESS.
BUT HOW DO YOU NOTE THAT IT WAS A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT THAT CAUSED THAT DUE TO SHEER STRESS WHEN CALCULATING H HYDRAULICS, SAY AT A BRIDGE, SAY SOMEBODY IS PROPOSING TO PUT IN A NEW BRIDGE.
WE DO REQUIRE FOR SHEER FORCES TO ONE, TO UNDERSTAND HOW DEEP THE PEERS HAVE TO GO FOR SHEER STRESS.
SO WE KNOW YOU'RE INCREASING THE SHEER FORCES SO WE KNOW WHAT, WHAT THEY CALCULATE.
SO, BUT IT, MY POINT IS THAT IT'S A MEASURABLE THING THAT WE CAN HOLD ACCOUNTABLE.
UM, AND WE CAN DENY OR APPROVE BASED ON THAT.
UH, TO ME THE CONCERN IS IDENTIFYING WHAT IS THE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF AN EXISTING CONDITION AND THEN THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS THAT REALLY GOES BEYOND MY WHEELHOUSE BECAUSE THAT NOW BRINGS IN HAVING NEEDED AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THAT CREEK BEFORE, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS.
AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE, I'M REQUIRING RIGHT NOW.
I MIGHT PROPOSE WE'VE GOT A LATER SECTION WHERE WE ARE CON YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE SHEER STRESS LANGUAGES IN WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, HOW WE CALCULATE THAT EROSION AND IMPACT TO THE CHANNEL.
AND THAT APPLIES FOR THE CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION, CULVERT, OUTFALLS, EVERYTHING THAT, MAYBE WE DON'T ADD THIS SENTENCE HERE, BUT WE LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE THERE BECAUSE I MEAN, IT'S WHERE ALL OF THAT CAL HOW YOU CALCULATE YOUR IMPACT ON THE CHANNEL LANGUAGE FALLS THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
[00:55:01]
OF OUR POSITION, WE GET A LOT OF THE CALLS OF IN OUR OFFICE FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND ONE OF MY FAVORITE, I CAN BRING UP A, THE NAME OF A REAL ONE, RIGHT? UM, THE PRESERVES AT CASTLE HILLS AND THAT IMPACT, THAT, THAT RELEASE OR OUTFALL HAD ON THE, NOT ONLY THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, BUT FLOODED TWO OUR THREE NEW HOMES IN CASTLE HILLS ITSELF.SO I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF, I THINK THEIR CALCULATIONS PAST THE MUSTER WITHIN THE REVIEW PROCESS.
BUT HOW DO YOU, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, HOW DO YOU GO BACK? THOSE ACTUALLY WEREN'T PER THIS CODE.
'CAUSE THAT'S CASTLE HILLS, THE PRESERVES THAT CASTLE HILLS WAS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND CAUSED FLOODING IN CASTLE HILLS.
FOR ME, THAT LANGUAGE ONE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SECOND HALF MEANS.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ADDING THE FIRST, BUT WE'RE, WE HAVE AN ENTIRE SECTION THAT ADDRESSES THAT, WHERE THIS AMENDMENT WAS REALLY ABOUT DEALING WITH PEAK ON PEAK.
I'LL BE FINE WITH STRIKING OUT THE SECOND PORTION AND LEAVE CAUSING ADDITIONAL DOWNSTREAM EROSION.
UH, ONE, WHAT IS THE, WHAT WOULD THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS BE LIKE, UH, AFTER CONSTRUCTION IF PERHAPS THE CALCULATIONS WERE A LITTLE OFFERED, THERE WERE OTHER CHANGE, UH, CONDITIONS THAT, UH, I MEAN THAT THE, THE SITE NO LONGER MEETS THOSE CRITERIA.
AND THEN PART TWO, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUALITATIVE, MAYBE WATER QUALITY OR OTHER PROXIES THAT, UH, YOU CAN THINK OF THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST THAT MIGHT SERVE AS A PROXY FOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING? NOPE.
TO ADDRESS THE SECOND, UM, PORTION OF YOUR QUESTION, REALLY, WE, WE LOOK AT THE CALCULATE THE, THE HYDRAULIC MODEL THAT'S DEVELOPED AND LOOKED AT THOSE SHEER FORCES AND VELOCITIES AND, UM, IS REALLY WHAT WE HAVE AN ENFORCED, UH, WHAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT UPFRONT.
THIS, THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT KIND OF ENFORCEMENT DO WE HAVE? WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS WHERE WE'VE SEEN WHETHER IT'S A CHANGE, UM, IN THE FIELD OR, OR MAYBE MAYBE A MISTAKE SAY IN THE CONSTRUCTION.
UM, WE TYPICALLY, WE, WE HEAR IT FIRST THING WHEN, WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS LIKE THAT, AND MANY TIMES IT HAPPENS WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE TAKING SHEET FLOW WHERE WATER TYPICALLY SHEET FLOWS OVER AND THEN CONCENTRATED INTO A POINT SOURCE, UH, TO AN OUTFALL.
UH, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I CAN SUPPORT THAT FIRST PART, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE EROSION DOWNSTREAM.
'CAUSE IT, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHEN WE GET INTO ENFORCEMENT.
I'M GONNA TURN TO MY COLLEAGUES AT D S D FOR HELP WITH THAT ONE.
YEAH, TYPICALLY THIS IS STEVEN STOGER, SORRY.
TYPICALLY STORMWATER ENFORCEMENT DOES FALL TO SAWS.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE AN ARM AND IT'S NOT PART OF OUR, OUR CODE.
WE GET CALLED IN QUITE A BIT ON SOME OF THESE, BUT TRYING TO ENFORCE IT AND FINDING WHERE THAT, THAT SQUARE PEG FITS IN THAT ROUND, OUR ROUND HOLE IS, IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT WITHOUT SOME SPECIFIC PRESCRIBED STUFF THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN EITHER OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT WING OR OUR ON OUR INSPECTORS.
BUT WE HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED, THIS IS MELISSA RAMIREZ.
WE HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE FOUND SOME, UM, LACK OF RESPONSE, IF YOU WILL.
AND WE DO WORK TOGETHER WITH SAWS, STORMWATER, UH, AND D S D STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS COMPLIANCE.
AND I GOT ONE MORE THING ON THE FIRST SENTENCE THAT YOU GUYS ARE LEAVING IN.
IS THERE, IS THERE A BOOKEND TO THAT? IS THERE A DISTANCE A SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED IN WITH THAT SENTENCE SO IT'S NOT OPEN-ENDED FOR THE ENTIRE CHANNEL OR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, WHICH IS WHY I'D RATHER LEAVE THOSE REFERENCES TO THE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT CHANNEL IMPACTS.
WE COULD ALWAYS GO BACK TO THAT 2000 STREET FEET DOWNSTREAM.
WE, I THINK WE'RE MODIFYING THE CODE.
I THINK WE'RE REMOVING THE 2000 FEET DOWNSTREAM A BROKEN RECORD.
WE LOOK AT A WHOLE SECTION LATER THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW WE CALCULATE THE IMPACTS IN A CHANNEL
[01:00:01]
IN STREAM BEFORE THE YES IN THE WRONG.THIS IS TALKING ABOUT WHERE, NOT THE, HOW THE FUTURE SECTION TALKS ABOUT THE HOW, WHAT IF WE WERE TO ADD A PARENTHETICAL COMMENT AT THE END OF THAT ADDITION, UM, REFERRING THEM TO THE OTHER SECTION SO THAT IT'S A REDUNDANCY BUT IT HELPS, UH, INTERCONNECT THINGS.
YEAH, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S, UH, I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THAT AND, AND THAT WE CONSIDER IT IN THE MORE APPROPRIATE AREA FURTHER DOWN THE LINE.
WHERE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SHEAR STRESS? PARDON? ABOUT SHEAR STRESS.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE AMENDMENT BY MS. WRIGHT, A SECOND BY MR. BROWN.
WAS IT, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
WELL, I THINK THE MOTION NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.
WE'RE NOT DEF WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT DENYING THE AMENDMENT NOT ADDING, PROVING THIS AMENDMENT WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF THAT SENTENCE.
BUT IS THAT WHAT THE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE OR THAT, BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER AMENDMENTS ON THE, ON THE AMENDMENT OR CHANGES ON THE AMENDMENT.
THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION.
ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED? OKAY, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL.
VOTE MS. WRIGHT IN FAVOR? MR. BROWN.
YOU DIDN'T CALL MY NAME, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
I'M JUST FEELING LEFT OUT OVER HERE.
ITEM 11, DISCUSSION, A POSSIBLE ACTION ON UDC AMENDMENT 27 DASH 18 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 7.3 POINT 11.
THIS IS JUST PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE, UM, WHEN YOU HAVE A UTILITY TRENCH OR FRENCH STRAIN.
YEAH, SABRINA MINE HERE, INSTEAD OF SAYING A PROJECT MAY CROSS, LIKE YOU'RE GIVING IT PERMISSION, I'D EITHER SAY WHERE A PROJECT, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU CROSS OTHER UTIL OR A PROJECT MIGHT CROSS UTILITY.
WE'RE TRYING TO SAY, WHEN YOU CROSS, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS.
WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO CROSS.
AND I ALSO SAID INSTEAD THING A PROJECT, CAN WE SAY A FRENCH DRAIN MIGHT CROSS OTHER UTILITY TRENCHES.
UH, I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY TO UH, IMPLEMENT THIS UH, TECHNIQUE? NOT TERRIBLY OFTEN, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT OF GROUNDWATER AND YOU END UP HAVING TO PUT FRENCH DRAINS TO PROTECT THE STRUCTURE OF THE ROADWAY.
AND THEN IT'S PRUDENT TO CONSIDER HAVING A TOOL TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT WHEN THAT RARE EXCEPTION COMES UP.
IT'S WHERE YOU HAVE WATER SERVICES OR C P S SERVICES CROSSING THE ROAD.
AND BECAUSE OF NOW C P S IS USUALLY OUTSIDE OF, AND THE DEPTH YOU'RE PICKING UP CROSSING THOSE TRENCHES ALWAYS, NOT ALWAYS.
A LOT OF C P S IS NOW IN AN EASEMENT IN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ACTUALLY FOR STAFF BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS BECAME A
[01:05:01]
SERIOUS ISSUE OVER WHERE I LIVE.UM, SAWS CAME AND DID AN SS S O PROJECT AND DID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF REPLACING SEWER MAINS.
AND IN THE PROCESS THEY ABANDONED OLD SEWER MAINS.
BUT THEY WERE ACTING AS FRENCH DRAINS BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING INFILTRATED BY, BY GROUNDWATER.
AND THIS BECAME A HUGE ISSUE ON WHO OWNED THE GROUNDWATER RESPONSIBILITY.
AND THE CITY HAD TO COME IN AND PUT IN FRENCH DRAINS AFTER THE FACT TO ADDRESS A HUGE ISSUE.
IT WAS LIKE A SPLASH PAD ON DONALDSON AVENUE.
YOU COULD DRIVE THROUGH AND GET YOUR CAR LITERALLY SPLASHED IN TWO CERTAIN LOCATIONS BECAUSE THERE WAS THAT AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER THAT WAS SEEPING UP THROUGH.
AND WHEN THEY TERMINATED THE OLD SEWER LINES, NO ONE THOUGHT THAT, OH, THERE'S A FLOW OF WATER IN THERE.
WELL, NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY, LET'S JUST PLUG IT.
YOU PLUG IT ONE IN, IT COMES OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SO DOES THIS ADDRESS WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GROUNDWATER IN THOSE PARTICULAR SITUATIONS? NEFFY? NO, IT DOESN'T.
WHAT IT DOES, IT, IT, IT, IT OPENS UP THE ABILITY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT THERE WAS CONCERNS ON.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS WHO'S RESPONSIBLE.
SO THERE'S STILL THAT GRAY AREA IN THE EVENT THAT PROJECTS LIKE THIS WERE TO HAPPEN.
AND YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SZ WENT AND DID THEIR BOAR SAMPLES AND THEY DID IT IN THE DRIEST TIME OF THE YEAR WHERE THE WATER TABLE WAS THE LOWEST.
SO IT WASN'T REALISTIC TO THE CONDITIONS IN A WET YEAR.
AND SO HENCE, YOU KNOW, WE, I THINK WE STILL HAVE A WET SPOT OVER THERE TOO.
SO I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN FRENCH STRAINS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN.
THERE'S ALSO BY THE CHILDREN'S SHELTER, THERE'S FRENCH STRAINS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN ACROSS THE STREET THERE ALSO TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS.
SO, UM, I THINK IT'S A GOOD ADDITION.
AT SOME POINT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONVERSATION OF WHO OWNS THAT GROUNDWATER RESPONSIBILITY.
UM, DID WE, WERE WE GONNA MAKE THE CHANGES RECOMMENDED ON THERE? A MOTION FOR APPROVAL IS AMENDED.
I THINK WE WERE GONNA SAY WHEN A IT'S MIGHT INSTEAD OF MAINE.
AND DO YOU REALLY WANNA CALL IT A PROJECT OR DO YOU WANNA CALL IT A, JUST SAY WHEN A FRENCH DRAIN MIGHT CROSS OTHER UTILITY TRENCHES.
I MEAN IS THERE ANY REASON NOT SHOULD SAY FRENCH STRAIN VERSUS O PROJECT OR, I'M JUST WONDERING MR. PECK, I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.
I GUESS I'D LIKE TO ASK THE STORMWATER PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE SAYING THE DESIGNER MAYBE ME SHOULD EVALUATE THE NEED FOR A FRENCH DRAIN.
HOW WOULD I DO THAT? WOULD YOU EXPECT ME TO DO IT? THERE ARE CONDITIONS AS, UH, AS A MEMBER, UM, MALDONALDO MENTIONED THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S EX EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER IN A PARTICULAR AREA.
UH, WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING THEN? UM, TYPICALLY A, UM, HYDROGEOLOGIST, UH, WILL PROVIDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY, THEY, WE FIND OUT, OKAY, IS IT, IS IT UH, A WATER LEAK? IS IT A SEWER LEAK? ONCE THOSE HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS AND WE IDENTIFY IT'S GROUNDWATER, UM, A HYDROGEOLOGIST WOULD ABLE TO EVALUATE AND TELL US WHAT THAT IS.
AND THEN, THEN WE CAN GO IN THERE AND DESIGN A FRENCH DRAIN FOR THAT AMOUNT.
IT DOES REQUIRE MONITORING TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WATER WE'RE RECEIVING.
UH, SO THEY DO PUT UP THOSE, UM, PEDOMETERS, UH, TO GET A BETTER SENSE OF IT, UH, IN ORDER TO DE TO DESIGN THE SHAPE OR THE SIZE OF THE FRENCH STRING, THEN, EXCUSE ME, THEN Y'ALL WOULD MAKE, MAKE THE CALL.
I'M SEEING THAT SABRINA'S LOOKING AT AND HE'S SAYING, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE NEEDS TO EVALUATE THIS AND, AND THEN FROM THERE IT GOES A HYDROLOGIST TO DO.
SO WHEN A UTILITY TRENCH CROSSES OTHER UTILITY TRENCHES, CORRECT.
AND YOU CAN TAKE OUT THE MIGHT, IS THAT THE INTENT OF WHAT YOU WANTED IT TO SAY? AND THAT'S A, A COMMA, NOT A PERIOD THERE FOR THE DESIGNER.
SO BASICALLY CONTINUATION, RIGHT? YEAH.
[01:10:29]
NOT EVERY SITUATION WILL REQUIRE THAT.CAN YOU REPEAT THAT LANGUAGE FOR US? I THINK IT WHEN A UTILITY TRENCH FOR A FRENCH DRAIN SHALL BE NEED FOR A FRENCH DRAIN SHALL BE, I WILL TAKE OUT AND CAN ACT SIMILAR TO A FRENCH DRAIN IN THE FIRST PART.
BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA SAY FRENCH DRAIN TOO MANY TIMES.
SO YOU WANNA SAY, WHEN A UTILITY TRENCH YOU, YOU, YOU WANNA SAY WHAT? YEAH.
WHEN A UTILITY TRENCH CROSSES OTHER UTILITY TRENCHES THAT ARE BEDDED IN GRAVEL SAYING I'M HANGRY, THE NEED FOR A FRENCH DRAIN, THE NEED FOR A FRENCH DRAIN SHALL BE EVALUATED.
MR. PECK, ONE MORE QUESTION HERE.
MR. LEASEMAN, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE? YEAH.
SO BOB, PART OF THIS ISN'T A NEW SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU'RE CROSSING WATER SEWER WITH GAS OR ELECTRIC OR VICE VERSA VERSUS AN EXISTING LIKE IN BIANCA'S CONDITION.
THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO A UTILITY COMPANY IN THERE AND CUTTING A TRENCH IN EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
I'M JUST ASKING LIKE SHALLOW GROUNDWATER OR SIR.
AND CAN WE SAY SHOULD VERSUS SHALL? 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA HAVE TO TURN IN A REPORT TO BEAIRD COUNTY EVERY TIME TO PROVE I DON'T HAVE, SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SOMETHING.
THIS IS A GENERAL NOT A HOW, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PUT IT IN THE, HEY, THINK ABOUT THIS.
NOT SUBMIT A REPORT TO PROVE YOU DID OR DIDN'T DO IT.
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO COLLECT VERSUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO COLLECT SHALLOW GROUNDWATER OR SURFACE WATER MANNA.
SO, SO NOW YOU PLEASE CAN WE USE OUR MICROPHONES
[01:15:02]
AND SHOULD THIS, AND SHOULD THIS BE LIMITED TO SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ALREADY PRESENT? I MEAN, YOU DON'T DO THIS EVERYWHERE, RIGHT? IT'S ONLY WHEN THERE'S GROUNDWATER PRESENT.SO THEN, SHOULD IT BE, HUH? SO SHOULD WE START OUT BY SAYING THAT WHEN THERE, WHEN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER IS PRESENT AND A UTILITY TRENCH CROSSES OTHER UTILITY TRENCHES, OR DO WE JUST WANNA, THAT'S A GOOD ADDITION.
BUT IT ISN'T ALWAYS PRESENT BASED ON THE WEATHER CONDITIONS.
IT COULD BE A DRY YEAR AND IT MAY NOT BE PRESENT.
I MEAN THAT WAS THE CASE IN THE SAWS ISSUE.
AND ONE QUESTION, UH, FOR THE, WHEN A, WHEN A UTILITY TRENCH, UM, SO IS IT A NEW UTILITY TRENCH? IS IT ONLY WHEN A NEW ONE IS ESTABLISHED OR IS IT, IS IT FOREVER A THING WHERE YOU HAVE TO REEVALUATE ALL YOUR UTILITY TRENCHES COVERING OTHER UTILITY TRENCHES? AND SO, SO IS THIS ONLY DONE WITH A NEW UTILITY TRENCH? THIS WHOLE SECTION IS JUST, HEY, YOU OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT STUFF AND TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION IN YOUR DESIGN.
SO FOR ME, IT, YOU KNOW, PHILIP, IT'S, IT'S ALL OF IT JUST GOING, HEY ENGINEERS, REMEMBER, THINK ABOUT THIS.
IT IS JUST THE ABILITY TO CONNECT UTILITY TRENCHES WHERE BEFORE SOMETIMES PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUSAN FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
IS STAFF GOOD WITH THIS FINAL LANGUAGE WE HAVE HERE? YES SIR.
UH, I THINK DEBBIE HAD TO SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
POSSIBLE ACTION ON NEED TO SEE AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 10 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 9.2 0.1.
OKAY, WE ARE ADDING SOME, UM, LANGUAGE TO THIS TABLE.
9.2 0.41 FOR ROCK, RIP WRAP, RIP WRAP FOR, UM, JUST EASE AND GUIDANCE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? MOVE APPROVAL.
MOTION FOR MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY KARA.
SECOND BY, I THINK IT WAS BIANCA.
ITEM 13, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 20 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 9.34.
AGAIN, WE'RE PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE HERE FOR THE NESTED CHANNEL DESIGN.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY KARA.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? YES.
DEBBIE, AGAIN, SINCE, UM, OUR IMPROVED STRAIGHTENED CHANNELS CAN OFTEN BE A SOURCE OF EROSION AND POLLUTION, CAN WE ADD A STATEMENT THAT A REGULAR SHAPE CHANNELS ARE PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE DESIGNED WHENEVER POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, IS THERE A SUGGESTION? THE REGULAR SHAPED CHANNELS ARE PREFERRED AND SHOULD BE DESIGNED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
THE CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL GEOMETRY MAY BE TRIANGULAR, REGULAR, OR TRAPEZOIDAL IN SHAPE BEFORE WE GO ADDING A WHOLE BUNCH.
CAN'T WE OPEN UP THE WHOLE SECTION OF THE CODE? I MEAN THIS IS JUST MEANT TO, I MEAN TO SEE THIS IS A OH YEAH, ADD AN OPTION.
NOT THE WHOLE, HERE'S HOW YOU DESIGN A CHANNEL AND IT'S IRREGULAR.
[01:20:01]
YEAH, I ACTUALLY DON'T LIKE THE IRREGULAR IS PREFERRED.THERE'S JUST GONNA BE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE THAT ISN'T THE CASE.
IS THIS, IS THIS A, UM, FUNCTIONAL OPERATIONAL, UM, PROVISION HERE OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AESTHETICS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DESIGN AS FAR AS FUNCTIONAL REGULAR? OUR, OUR AMENDMENT, UM, GIVES ALLOWANCES TO BE ABLE TO ADD THAT.
UM, I CALL IT A PILOT CHANNEL, BUT I GUESS WE'RE, WE'RE CALLING IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
UM, TO GIVE ALLOWANCES FOR THAT.
UM, IN OTHER WORDS, ADD MORE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX, UM, AND SOME GUIDANCE ON IT.
THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT OF OUR AMENDMENT.
I DO NOT BELIEVE, I MEAN ADDING THAT SENTENCE, DEBBIE HAS THAT IT SHOULD BE IRREGULAR IS PREFERRED IS A MAJOR POLICY SHIFT FROM STRUCTURED CHANNELS.
I MEAN, I DON'T CARE IF WE HAD THE CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL, MAYBE TRIANGULAR, RECTANGULAR TRAPEZOIDAL OR IRREGULAR.
AND THEN TO CHRISTOPHER'S POINT EARLIER, WE SAY NATURALS MAY BE IRREGULAR.
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS THAT IR, IT SAYS NATURAL CHANNELS MAY BE IRREGULAR IN SHAPE.
I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE AT A PLACE WHERE WE CAN SAY EVERY CHANNEL SHOULD BE A NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN.
WE'RE ALL FOR ENCOURAGING IT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY EVERYTHING CAN BE IRREGULAR.
DEBBIE, WHAT IS THE INTENT OF YOUR MODIFICATION? NO, I'M OKAY WITH IRREGULAR SHAPED CHANNELS.
OUR ARE PREFERRED DOESN'T NEED TO BE, SHOULD.
SO ON PAGE TWO OF THE YELLOW SHEET, UH, THE SUMMARY DOES SAY THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR A NON-MANDATORY OPTION.
SO IT'S ALREADY NON-MANDATORY, BUT THE WHOLE POINT IS TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE.
SO PERHAPS THIS IS THAT GUIDANCE IF AND WHEN THEY CHOOSE THE NON-MANDATORY OPTION.
WELL, THE BLUE WORDS IS ALREADY ADDRESSING ALL OF THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A PARAGRAPH THAT ISN'T JUST ABOUT NATURAL CHANNELS, ISN'T THAT WE'RE IN THE BIGGER PICTURE OF CODE DOES THIS FALL? THE SECTION IS TITLED CHANNEL GEOMETRY THAT APPLIES TO ALL CHANNELS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
NOT JUST FLOODPLAIN CREEKS TYPE NATURAL CHANNELS.
I DON'T PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT A CODE WHICH IS MEANT TO BE THE GUIDELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT, SHOULD HAVE A PREFERRED STATEMENT IN IT.
BECAUSE IF IT'S PREFERRED, THEN IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHY THERE'S THIS FLEXIBILITY PERSONALLY, IS BECAUSE TO ME, A CODE, THE LANGUAGE OF PREFERRED IS, IS KIND OF OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WHAT PEOPLE GO TO THE CODE FOR.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
SO, BUT DON'T WE HAVE INTRODUCTIONS TO A LOT OF PLACES WHERE WE DO PROVIDE SOME OF THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE WHERE WE DO KIND OF SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE THINKING AND, AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE OTHER SECTIONS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND THAT'S WHERE WE'VE SEEN I THINK, SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN THE PAST PART.
BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHAPE AND TO PICK ONE WHEN THERE ARE MANY THAT ARE AGREEABLE SEEMS CONFUSING TO THE USER.
AND THEN, UH, AND THEN YOU'RE SHOWING A PICTURE OF IT TOO.
SO THAT MIGHT THROW SOME PEOPLE OFF TOO AS WELL.
AND NOT TO MENTION IT'S NOT LABELED PROPERLY, IT'S NOT A PLAN VIEW, IT'S AN ISOMETRIC VIEW.
YOU SHOW A CROSS SECTION, BUT YOU SHOULD SHOW A CROSS SECTION.
SO THAT'S WHAT APPENDIX H THE DRAINAGE MANUAL DOES THE, TO ROBERT'S POINT, ALL THE CROSS SECTIONS ARE IN APPENDIX H AND WHICH IS THE DRAINAGE MANUAL.
READY? WE, WE PUT THE PICTURES 'CAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, UM, TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT MAYBE SOME ENGINEERS ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH NESTED CHANNELS.
SO THIS IS WHAT THE, THE REASON WHY WE PUT THE PICTORIALS HERE.
[01:25:01]
ARE THOSE PICTORIALS ALREADY IN THE DRAINAGE MANUAL OR IN SARAH'S NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN PROTOCOLS? THEY'RE SARAH'S, BUT NOT THE CURRENT DRAINAGE MANUAL.DOES SARAH'S NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN PROTOCOL DOCUMENT, DOES IT ADDRESS IRREGULAR SHAPE CHANNELS SINCE WE REFERENCED FIGURE 9.3 0.4, RIGHT? I'M GUESSING? YES, CORRECT.
AND WHAT DOES IT, DOES IT, WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT 'EM? DOES IT SAY IT'S, THAT MAY BE USED OR IS IT PREFERRED? OR WHAT DOES IT SAY? I KNOW, I KNOW.
YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THAT HANDY
IT DOESN'T, IT JUST, THIS IS, IF YOU BUILD IT, THIS IS HOW YOU, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY MAYBE WE TAKE THAT FIRST SENTENCE INSTEAD OF ADDING THE IRREGULAR PREFERRED SENTENCE THAT DEBBIE'S PROPOSED SAYING, A CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL MAY BE TRIANGULAR, RECTANGULAR, IRREGULAR, OR TRAPEZOIDAL.
BECAUSE A NEW CHANNEL COULD BE A NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN THAT'S IRREGULAR.
AND THAT WOULD BE, THAT'D BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN PROTOCOL BY SARAH.
SO, SO JUST ADD YOUR REGULAR TO THE DEFINITION OF THE CHANNEL, CHANNEL A CONSTRUCTION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR A MOTION MOVE? APPROVAL IS AMENDED.
SO CAN WE SEE THE REFERENCE MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY SUSAN? UH, NO.
I, I WANNA SEE THE, THE REFERENCE FROM NEPHI THE SECOND.
BIANCA, CAN YOU GET THE, CAN WE USE THE MICROPHONE? HE'S SAYING AN ENGINEER REQUESTED ADDING THE FIGURE IN THE REFERENCE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CODE AND FOLKS MIGHT NOT OFTEN GO TO THAT PARTICULAR MANUAL.
IS THAT THE DOCUMENT THERE NEPHEW? DIDN'T THIS MAKE EVERYONE WANNA BE AN ENGINEER? NEITHER
I JUST WANNA KNOW WHY THEY CALL IT BACK.
THAT'S WHY I WANNA KNOW HOW MANY MORE OF THESE YOU HAVE.
UH, CHAIRMAN, I, I DO HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
UH, IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS WE'VE BEEN AMENDING AMENDMENTS AND THERE WAS A CUTOFF FOR ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS OF FEBRUARY THE FIRST.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCEDURAL PROCESS HERE OF WHY THESE WEREN'T SUBMITTED UNLESS THEY WEREN'T ACCEPTED BY STAFF TO BRING FORWARD TO THIS COMMITTEE.
WELL, YEAH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
'CAUSE ALL OF THESE WERE SUBMITTED BY FEBRUARY 1ST.
YEAH, BUT NO, BUT THAT'S NOT MELISSA.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE HAVE THE AMENDMENTS, THEY WERE SUBMITTED, BUT WE'RE MAKING MODIFICATIONS AND CHANGES TO THE AMENDMENTS.
AND I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS, WERE THESE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AND THEY WERE NOT ACCEPTED TO GO FORWARD? NO, THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AND PROCESSED, UH, WITH ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS FOR,
[01:30:01]
FOR REVIEW BY PTAC AND THE REST OFBUT ROBERT'S TALKING ABOUT IN HERE, WE'RE AMENDING THE A AMENDMENTS OR PORTIONS OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WEREN'T SUBMITTED AS AN AMENDMENT.
I MEAN, IT'S ONE THING TO TWEAK WORDS FOR CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE ADDING INTENT AND SUBSTANCE.
IF, IF WE, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING EXISTING LANGUAGE WITHIN THE SECTION, UM, HISTORICALLY WHAT WE PREFER IS THAT YOU ARE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE, NOT CHANGING THE INTENT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'RE ADDING SO MUCH IN, UH, LANGUAGE THAT CHANGES THE INTENT.
I JUST HAD A COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, TO YOUR POINT, MR. HANLEY, UH, MR. NEFI GARZA, AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE BEGAN HIS INTRODUCTION SAID THAT HE MET WITH A STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
OKAY? SO WHEN YOU MEET WITH A STAKEHOLDER GROUP AND IT DOESN'T SEE DAYLIGHT OUTSIDE OF COMING TO P TTAC, THIS IS DAYLIGHT.
AND SO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO COMMENT.
AND SO THERE WEREN'T THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP.
AND WE'VE SEEN DEPARTMENTS SUCH AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAME FORWARD WITH SOME REALLY BIG CHANGES THAT HADN'T SEEN DAYLIGHT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF A CATCH 22 TO OUR PROCESS IS THAT IF NO ONE KNEW THESE WERE COMING, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY COME TO US, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A PUBLIC COMMENT TOO ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND, AND I RESPECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THAT'S PART OF OUR, OUR, I THINK OUR RESPONSIBILITY TOO IN, IN THAT RESPECT.
PART OF THAT, BIANCA, I AGREE WITH, UH, PART OF IT, THE PEOPLE THAT DEVELOPED THIS WITH NEPHI AND THE, AND THE CREW AND THE ENGINEERS, THIS IS A EXTREMELY TECHNICAL SECTION.
I'M NOT QUALIFIED, DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO DO THAT.
BUT WE COME HERE TO OPEN IT UP.
AND MY QUESTION IS, IF WE HAVE EXPERTS AND WE WENT THROUGH A PROCESS AND A PROCEDURE, A VERY TECHNICAL PROCESS, I, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF RESERVATIONS ABOUT WHOLESALE CHANGING THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL THING THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO REVIEW.
I THINK IT'S GREAT DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING.
SO I JUST, WELL, HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW FROM THE AGENDA THAT WE WERE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT THIS TODAY, SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS THAT DEBBIE'S PUTTING FORWARD, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW? I MEAN, THE ENGINEERING TEAM, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO BE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS AND KNOW THAT WHEN THEY WERE SUBMITTED, I MEAN, D S D HAS MADE THESE AMENDMENTS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE SINCE THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO STAFF.
BUT THAT WAS, BUT THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE US TODAY, NOBODY KNOWS MODIFICATIONS THE MODIFICATIONS UNLESS YOU'RE FOLLOWING.
SO ROBERT, WAS YOUR QUESTION GENERALLY ANSWERED? MORE OR LESS? OKAY.
DO YOU, DOES STAFF HAVE THE, UH, THE, I THINK IT WAS THE SAN ANTONIO NATURAL, UH, SARA AND NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN PROTOCOL UP ON THE SCREEN? YES, SIR.
OKAY, SAMIR, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED TO SEE.
WHAT, DID YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THAT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IT? UH, NO, I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE CHANNEL IS WITHIN THE DESIGN MANUAL.
AND THERE'S EVEN A SECTION IN THE CODE THAT REFERENCES, UH, NATURAL STREAM DESIGN.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUSAN, A SECOND.
ITEM 14, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 21 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 9.3 0.8.
OKAY, THIS IS, UM, WE'VE BEEN THROWING THIS AROUND, UM, PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS TODAY, THIS AFTERNOON REGARDING GOING FROM CHANNEL VELOCITY REQUIREMENTS TO A CHANNEL SHEAR STRESS REQUIREMENTS.
THIS INCLUDES THE, UH, A SOURCE IN TDOT, UH, HYDRAULIC DESIGN MANUAL WHO DEFINES SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS.
SO THIS GOES BACK TO THE CONVERSATION WE WERE HAVING BEFORE, UM, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SHEAR STRESS AND CHANNELS AND, AND, UH, DEVIATION FROM THE WAY WE'VE ANALYZED CHANNELS IN THE PAST, WHICH WAS VELOCITY BASED TO NOW SHEAR STRESS BASED AS A, YOU KNOW, AND AS THAT RELATES TO EROSION AND VEGETATION REMOVAL AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO IT'S, THIS IS A COMPLETE SHIFT IN THE WAY WE'RE ACTUALLY ANALYZING OUR CHANNELS AND STRUCTURES IN THE CITY TODAY.
SO IT GOES BACK TO THAT CONVERSATION WE WERE HAVING, DEBBIE, WITH THE OTHER COMMENT YOU WANTED TO PUT IN THE, THE PARAGRAPH, THIS IS THE NUTS AND BOLTS BEHIND ALL THAT.
ONE QUICK QUESTION I HAVE, THIS ISN'T, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO LIKE, CONCRETE CHANNELS THAT YOU'VE GOT GOING BETWEEN TWO SUBDIVISION LOTS, RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT THAT, THAT'S STILL GONNA BE VELOCITY
[01:35:01]
BASED ESSENTIALLY UNTIL IT GETS TO THE OUTFALL THAT'S, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PLUMES IN BETWEEN LOTS.UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION POINTS ON THIS ITEM? SO, SO, UM, I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO GO LOOK AT THE TDOT HYDRAULIC DESIGN MANUAL.
AND SO THIS LIST HERE IS DIRECTLY FROM THAT LIST, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.
YEAH, IT'S KIND OF WILD THAT WE'RE INCLUDING EVASIVE SPECIES IN THAT LIST, SO, SO, BUT I GUESS IF TEXAS IS RECOMMENDING THAT, I GUESS YES, SOME OF THESE SPECIES HAVE BEEN DECLARED NOXIOUS WEEDS BY THE FEDS, SO I'M SORRY.
CAN WE, SIR, CAN YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE? THANK YOU.
SO I WAS JUST SAYING AS WE CAN REMOVE SPECIES OUTTA THIS TABLE, THIS WAS JUST WHAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY TXDOT.
SO WE WERE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT AND ORIGINALLY TO PRESENT THE IDEA TO THE GROUP, THE TECHNICAL GROUP.
BUT YES, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF THESE SPECIES THAT NOT REALLY AREN'T EVEN APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO, TO REMOVE, IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES.
IT JUST IS WHAT IS THE GRASS SPECIES, BASICALLY THAT ARE ALLOWED.
SO I HEAR THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO STRIKE OUT SOME OF THE SPECIES AND STILL KEEP THE INTENT AND
IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? NE AND SABRINA, I GUESS WHAT WOULD THAT, THAT WOULD ENTAIL LIKE A REVIEW OF ALL THE SPECIES ON HERE AND WHETHER HOW THEY'RE VIEWED AS A, ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR WHAT ABOUT THE RIVER AUTHORITY? DON'T THEY HAVE A LIST OF WHAT DOESN'T THE RIVER AUTHORITY HAVE A LIST OF APPROVED GRASSES, TREES, SHRUBS, THAT THEY COULD REFERENCE IN THIS ONE? WELL, WE COULD GO AHEAD AND OUT THE WEEPING LOVE GRASS, THE YELLOW BLUE STEM AND THE KUDZU.
AND THAT WOULD GET RID OF THE, UM, THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN DEEMED NOXIOUS WEEDS.
TROY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT THIS WOULD, THIS IS OUTLINING WHAT IS THERE.
UM, SO AS A, AS A DESIGNER OR AN ENGINEER IS CALCULATING SHEER STRESSES, THEY WOULD BE LOOKING TO IDENTIFY THIS SPECIES, TYPE OF SPECIES THAT IS EXISTING.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY PROMOTING A CERTAIN COVER, IS IT? NO, THIS IS, THIS IS THE COVER THAT YOU WOULD BE ADDING BACK.
SO IF YOU ARE CONSTRUCTING A CHANNEL AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE SHEAR STRESS IS AND YOU NEED TO PROTECT THAT CHANNEL FROM ADDITIONAL EROSION.
EROSION, EXCUSE ME, THIS IS THE SPECIES THAT YOU'D BE LOOKING TO ESTABLISH.
SO IT'S SAYING, TROY, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE MAKING THE REFERENCE TO TEXT SPECIES MM-HMM.
UM, WE DID GO THROUGH IT QUITE A BIT DURING THE DISCUSSIONS.
UM, I THOUGHT WE HAD REMOVED MOST OF THESE ALREADY, HONESTLY.
BUT, UM, I, I WAS, I THINK WE WERE WAITING ON A LIST FROM ONE OF THE MEMBERS AND WE NEVER GOT THAT LIST, DID WE? THAT'S CORRECT.
ONE OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS WAS GONNA PROVIDE THAT.
SO THAT LIST, WE NEVER GOT IT.
SO, SO WE CAN, WE CAN STRIKE 'EM OUT.
I MEAN, YEAH, SOME OF THE OBVIOUS ONES ARE KUDZU AND LEMME KNOW WHY THAT'S IN THERE.
MAKE A MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE WEEPING LOVEGRASS YELLOW, BLUE STEM AND KDD ZOO AT THIS TIME.
WHAT DID YOU SAY, MR. MENNO? I CONCUR WITH THAT ASSESSMENT.
THAT'S, THAT'S A SECOND
AND IS THE INTENT TO TAKE OUT THAT ENTIRE RETARDANT CLASS A 'CAUSE THAT BY REMOVING THOSE TOP TWO, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S GONNA DO AND REMOVE OPTIONS THERE? THERE MAY BE ANOTHER RETARDING CLASS A, BUT I THINK THAT THE TWO PLANTS THAT ARE LISTED WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SO I GUESS I, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE APPROPRIATE PLANTS, I
[01:40:01]
JUST DUNNO WHAT THEY ARE.FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BERMUDA KUDZU, EVERYTHING UNDER THAT IS B.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE IS A, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK WHO ESTABLISHED THE A B CLASSES? IS THAT SOMEBODY ELSE? TDOT? IT'S A TDOT CLASSIFICATION THAT'S IN THEIR MANUAL.
CD AND E ALSO HAS SOME CONCERNS ON THE NEXT PAGE.
SO ONE THING YOU MAY NOTICE IS THAT THAT IS FOR AN EXCELLENT STAND THAT IS 30 INCHES TALL OR 36 INCHES TALL.
SO THOSE ARE NOT TYPICALLY ALLOWED IN OUR MAINTAINED CHANNELS.
NFI THIR 36 OR 30 INCH TALL, TALL GRASS IN A MAINTAINED CHANNEL.
SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE ALLOWED.
THEY'RE NOT, YEAH, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT DESIGNING AROUND THAT.
I GUESS WE'RE TRYING TO MOW THEM.
YES, WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THEM DOWN.
BUT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT DESIGNING AROUND THAT.
SO, UM, WE, WE COULD PROBABLY JUST LEAVE THAT ONE OUT, HONESTLY, THAT CLASS.
'CAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE DESIGNING CHANNELS TO THOSE.
SO BY REMOVING A CLASS A, WE'RE NOT HAVING TO MAKE OTHER CHANGES.
'CAUSE THAT'S AN ALREADY DEFINED TXDOT CLASS.
AND THAT'S, DOES THIS REFER TO THAT? I GUESS IT DOES, RIGHT? YES IT DOES.
YOU BASICALLY GO THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT WHAT YOUR CONDITION IS AND THEN YOU SELECT ONE OF THESE CLASSES TO DETERMINE HOW YOU'RE GONNA PROTECT THE CHANNEL.
AND THEN WHEN YOU SELECT THE CLASS BASED ON THE TEXT CALCULATIONS, THEN YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT GRASS TO USE.
IS THERE A CASE WHERE WE MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY YOU'RE PUTTING A CULVERT IN AN EXISTING CHANNEL IN SAN ANTONIO.
IS THERE A SITUATION WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE TO ANALYZE THE SHEER, THE SHEER STRESS ON, SAY KUDZU FOR EXAMPLE? 'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE ON ANALYZE IT.
ON WHAT? ON THE KUDZU OR WHATEVER? 'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE KUDZU IN THIS REGION.
SO JUST REMOVING THOSE THREE IS NOT GONNA OKAY.
WE HAD IT, IT ALL DIED LAST FEBRUARY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT.
'CAUSE IT DOESN'T LIKE COLD AT ALL.
KUDZU, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION, SUSAN? THERE IS, UH, IT TALKS ABOUT IT BEING A SIGNIFICANT COST CHANGE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND I DON'T SEE THAT EXPLANATION IN HERE.
IT SAYS IT'S ATTACHED, BUT I COULDN'T FIND IT.
I HAVE IT HERE IN MY PRINTOUT.
I'LL GIVE IT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND BRINGING THAT UP.
BUT SABRINA BASICALLY WE'RE NOT.
WHAT THIS DOES IS INSTEAD OF SAYING ALL GRASS IS EQUAL AND SIX FEET PER SECOND IS FINE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT VEGETATION YOU PLANT AND USE WITH OPTIONS TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T HAVE EROSION OF THE CHA OF A EARTHEN CHANNEL THAT YOU'RE RECONSTRUCTING.
IT'S LOOKING AT A LIST OF OPTIONS OF GRASS.
IT'S A TDOT APPROACH TO ADDRESS THAT DESIGN CRITERIA.
THE ADDED COST IS, IS FOR DEVELOPERS, THOSE WHO SAY I BUILT A CHANNEL AND EVENTUALLY GRASS WILL GROW BACK.
SABRINA, YOU HAVE, I THINK SHE'S PUTTING, UH, SOMETHING ON THE SCREEN, UM, ON THE BACK END.
IT EXPLAINS THE COST, UM, EXPLANATION.
THERE CAN, CAN YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE? OKAY.
USUALLY I DON'T HAVE TO USE THEM.
SO YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE ACTUALLY IN THIS CALCULATION, WE REMOVE CLASS A.
'CAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO JUST COMPARE BERMUDA, WHICH IS THE MOST COMMON TIME TYPE
[01:45:01]
OF CHANNEL LINING, EVEN THOUGH IT IS CONSIDERED AN INVASIVE GRASS, ALSO DEFINITELY IS INVASIVE IN MY YARD, UM, OR IN MY FLOWER BEDS.UM, BUT SO IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE DID IS SHOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE, WHAT THE DIFFERENT DESIGN CRITERIA WOULD BE FOR A PARTICULAR CHANNEL JUST TO KINDA SHOW HOW IT WOULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE DESIGN FOR A SITE.
AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT ACTUALLY SHOWED, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, UH, YEAH, THE CHANNEL COULD STILL BE DESIGNED WITH THE SAME GEOMETRY IF A SPECIFICATION OF 12 INCHES OF BERMUDA GRASS WAS MADE.
SO I KNOW NEPHI HAS BEEN LOOKING WITH U T S A AT ALLOWING DIFFERENT GRASS LINKS, UH, IN CHANNELS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO HAVE EVERYTHING MOWED DOWN TO THE, THE THREE INCHES.
AND SO IN THIS CASE IT, YOU KNOW, THAT REALLY WOULDN'T BE A DESIGN CHANGE THAT WOULD HAVE A COST.
THAT WOULD REALLY JUST BE A MAINTENANCE CHANGE IF YOU DID REQUIRE IT TO BE MOWED SHORTER THAN IT IS GONNA INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE CHANNEL AND A REDUCTION IN MAINTENANCE, WHICH COULD THEORETICALLY BE A COST SAVINGS FOR THE CITY.
SO IN THAT CONDITION, WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY HAPPEN IS YOU'D HAVE TO GO TO A WIDER CHANNEL, RIGHT? WHICH TAKES UP A LITTLE BIT MORE LAND, WHICH IS A COST.
CAN WE ACTUALLY SEE CALCULATIONS AND COSTS? WHEN DIDN'T YOU SAY IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE? THIS DIDN'T GIVE, UM, I THINK THIS WAS THE OTHER SIDE.
WHO AM I WALKING THROUGH THE PROCESS, SUSAN? OKAY, SO WHAT THIS IS SHOWING IS WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS THIS ABOUT THE RIGHT DISTANCE? I DON'T WANNA TALK TOO LOUD,
UM, SO WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS WHEN WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT SIZING A CHANNEL, WE USUALLY, WE CALCULATE HOW MUCH FLOW WE HAVE FIRST, WHICH IS HOW MUCH RUNOFF THERE IS FOR THE CHUTE OR CHANNEL OR DRAINAGE AREA THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
AND WE TYPICALLY HAVE A ROUGH IDEA OF THE SLOPE OF THE CHANNEL.
AND IN THE PAST WE'VE ALWAYS USED A 0.035 FOR A MAINTAINED CHANNEL.
THAT'S WHAT IS THE CITY REQUIRES US TO USE.
SO WE USE THAT ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT THAT SLOPE.
OUR TYPICAL TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL IS A THREE TO ONE SIDE SLOPE.
UH, WE TYPICALLY HA USE A MINIMUM OF AROUND AN EIGHT FOOT BOTTOM WIDTH.
WE CAN GO A LITTLE BIT SMALLER IN TIMES.
UM, SO WHAT WE DID HERE IS WE TOOK THOSE CONDITIONS AND WE USED AN EXAMPLE FLOW RATE, UM, YOU KNOW, USING SIX FEET PER SECOND, WHICH GIVES US A FLOW OF ABOUT 140 CF SS.
SO THAT GIVES US A CHANNEL TO WORK WITH JUST A, A TYPICAL TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL.
WE USED, UH, A LITTLE PROGRAM HERE THAT'S AVAILABLE FROM F H W FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TO CALCULATE ALL OF THE TECHNICAL, UM, RESULTS FROM THAT TYPE OF A CHANNEL.
AND WHAT WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED THERE IN YELLOW IS THAT THE CALCULATION FOR FLOW DEPTH IS 21.2 INCHES.
SO A LITTLE UNDER TWO FEET AND ALL THE SAME DIMENSIONS THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT.
AND SO WHAT, ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THIS IS ALL THE RESULTS, RIGHT? THAT GIVES US ALL THE, THE TYPICAL RESULTS FOR THIS CHANNEL.
I'M GONNA LET YOU CUT TO THE CHASE.
I WANT YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE THE COST, THE, THE SUBMITTAL SHOWS THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CON, BUT I CAN'T SEE A NUMBER.
YOU'RE GIVING ME THE CALCULATIONS AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT AT THAT.
SO IT DOESN'T REALLY, THAT'S NOT HELPING.
I GUESS I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S ABOUT THE POUNDAGE.
WELL SELECTED OUT YOUR OPTIONS.
NO, REALLY THE COST IS ABOUT IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE TO DESIGN A WIDER CHANNEL TO GET YOUR VELOCITY DOWN, THEN THAT TAKES UP LAND, WHICH IS HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON THE COST OF LAND ON THE PARTICULAR PROJECT.
SO DID YOU ALL EVER PUT IN ANY, ARE THERE ANY NUMBERS IN THIS AT ALL IN TERMS OF THE ATTACHED COST IMPLICATIONS? WELL THIS IS THE TASK ATTACHED.
WELL, I DON'T SEE A DOLLAR FIGURE.
'CAUSE WHAT THIS DOES, SUSAN, IS IT LETS YOU GIVE YOU OPTIONS TO LOOK AT GIVING A CHANNEL OF THE SAME WIDTH WITH DIFFERENT GRASS WITHOUT ADDING COST.
SO YOU MAYBE, IF YOU WANNA STICK WITH ONE GRASS, YOU MIGHT HAVE A WIDER CHANNEL WHICH COMES WITH COST OR YOU MAY SWITCH TO A DIFFERENT GRASS AND KEEP THE SAME CHANNEL
[01:50:01]
AND LOWER SHEAR STRESS AND HAVE ZERO COST OR YOU KEEP THE SAME GRASS AND CHANGE MAINTENANCE PRACTICES INSTEAD OF THE SAME CHANNEL, WHICH IS BASICALLY A SAVINGS FOR EVERYBODY.IT MAY COST THE SAME, IT MAY COST LESS UP TO THE DESIGNER.
WE'RE TRYING TO, IN ALL THESE, WE'RE TRYING TO LEAVE THE OPTIONS UP TO THE DESIGNER TO MAKE, TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR SITE AND NOT TRY TO DEVELOP A REP.
WHEN I SEE SIGNIFICANT COST IMPLICATIONS AND I DON'T SEE A DOLLAR AMOUNT, I UNDERSTAND THAT IS REQUIRE TO ASK.
DEPENDS ON IF THE LAND'S $10 A SQUARE FOOT OR A HUNDRED
AND THEN MANUS, SO GOING BACK TO UH, THE ONE CHART WHERE WE HAD THE GRASSES.
SO ON THE SECOND PAGE, UH, WE REPEATED THE, SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, SO THE UH, KUDZU AND THE WEEPING LU GRASS IS REPEATED THERE.
SO WE STRIKE IT THE FIRST SECTION, WE PROBABLY WANNA STRIKE IT SECOND TOO.
WEEPING LU GRASSES RIGHT THERE AT THE TOP TOO ON THAT.
YEAH, THEY KEPT CUTTING IT SHORTER AND SHORTER.
SO I GUESS THAT WAS, I GUESS I WAS LISTED SEVERAL TIMES.
SO, UM, AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE, UM, IN THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT SECTION, UH, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GIVES IT A TYPE OF PROTECTIVE COVER AND THEN THE VALUES FOR THE, UH, SHEAR STRESS.
IT HAS THAT TP WHAT IS THAT SHEAR? YOU KEEP GOING BY IT.
KEEP GOING UP, KEEP GOING UP, KEEP GOING UP, KEEP GOING UP, KEEP GOING.
IT HAS PROTECTIVE COVERING THAT HAS THE UNITS AND POUNDS PER SQUARE FEET AND THEN THE METRIC UNITS.
BUT THERE'S A TP IN FRONT OF THAT.
NO, THERE'S NO TP IN THE EQUATION.
I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TD, THERE'S A TD.
IS THAT WHAT THAT IS? AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, HOW COME IT ISN'T ON THE OTHER ONE? SHOULD IT BE IN FRONT OF POUNDS PER SQUARE FEET ALSO, OR, I STAND CORRECTED.
AND THE TEXT MANUAL DOES A T P.
REALLY? WHICH IS WHAT, WHICH IS WHAT I MEAN IS IT, IT MIGHT BE REFERENCING THE, THE VARIABLE IN THE EQUATION THAT TD, BUT I DON'T HONESTLY, NO, IT'S A TYPO.
CAN WE GO THROUGH A CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS WITH TDOT? SO IT IS A TD THERE'S AN ERROR IN THE TXDOT MANUAL.
SO IT IS A, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A TD CAN WE EITHER GET RID OF IT OR CHANGE IT FOR WHATEVER WE'VE GOT? SO IT'S, YEAH, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TAU D TAU D YEAH, TAU SUB D THEN DOES THAT ALSO NEED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT? YES IT DOES.
AND THEN ARE THE VALUES IN THAT CHART, ARE THEY MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE OR MINIMUM PERMISSIBLE? AND IS THERE ANYWHERE WHERE IT SAYS THEY'RE MAX MAX VALUES? THEY'RE MAX VALUES.
SO YOU CAN GO LESS BUT YOU CAN'T GO ABOVE CORRECT.
DOES IT SAY THAT SOMEPLACE? IT'S UM, IN, IN THE, UNDER THE CALCULATIONS WE HAVE A SENTENCE THERE THAT SAYS, UM, THESE EQUATIONS SHALL BE USED TO DETERMINE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE.
AND THEN BACK WHEN WE STARTED THIS CONVERSATION, I ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHETHER THIS APPLIED TO CONCRETE FLUMES KIND OF BETWEEN LOTS AND WHATEVER AND IT, IT DOES NOT CORRECT.
UH, SO SHOULD THIS SAY, YOU KNOW, UP AT THE TITLE WHERE IT SAYS 9.3 0.8, SHOULD IT SAY EARTHEN CHANNEL SHEAR STRESS? 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT CALCULATING IT FOR CONCRETE 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T.
BUT THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, YOU'VE REMOVED ALL THE VELOCITY PARAMETERS FROM THE ORIGINAL CHART WITH FOR THE CONCRETE CHANNEL.
SO SHOULD SOME OF THAT GET ADDED BACK IN? I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH CHANGING THAT TO EARTH AND CHANNEL SHEAR STRESS ON THE TITLE THERE.
AND THEN SO THEN DO WE NEED TO ADD BACK IN THE VELOCITY PARAMETERS FOR CONCRETE RETARDS AND CONCRETE LINING OR DROP STRUCTURES OR ANYTHING PERTAINING
[01:55:01]
TO CONCRETE VOL VELOCITY AND CONCRETE CHANNELS? THIS BEFORE I THOUGHT SAID YOU USE THOSE IF YOU HAVE THOSE VELOCITIES.SO OKAY, SO THEN THAT WOULD PRE, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THAT WE HAVEN'T, THE CONCRETE CHANNEL SECTION IS STILL IN THE CODE THOUGH.
SO THOSE DESIGN PARAMETERS ARE STILL THERE? YES.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DEBBIE REED MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE AMENDMENTS MOTION BY DEBBIE.
UM, ON THE SECOND TABLE, ON THE FIRST TABLE, CLASS A, SHOULDN'T WE REMOVE THE FIRST, FIRST ROW RETARDANTS CLASS A VEGETATION? BUT DID WE REMOVE ALL CLASS A OR JUST THOSE TWO? PARTICULAR CLASS A'S I HONESTLY HAVE NO CLUE ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.
THOSE TWO ARE CLASS A'S THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER CLASS A'S MM, NOT ON THE TAXON MANUAL.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPRO, UH, FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY DEBBIE AND A SECOND BY MR. MANNA.
OKAY, ITEM 15, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 22 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 9.3.
SO THIS SECTION IS PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE ON ANALYZING WHERE THERE'S A CHANNEL JUNCTION.
UM, AND HA YOU KNOW, AGAIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHARE STRESS, SO PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE THERE.
ANY COMMENT OR QUESTIONS, MOVE APPROVAL.
SECOND BIANCA, WE HAVE MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY SUSAN, A SECOND BY BIANCA.
ITEM 16, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 27 DASH 23 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 10.3.
OKAY, THIS SECTION AGAIN, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN.
HERE WE ARE ADDING LANGUAGE TO, UM, PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO, FOR CULVERT DESIGN UTILIZING THE SAME CONCEPT FOR NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN.
SO THIS ISN'T A REQUIREMENT, IT'S JUST A OPTION IN THAT SECTION, RIGHT? JUST GUIDANCE, CORRECT? YEAH.
WHERE IS FIGURE 10.3? 18.1? I COULD NOT FIND IT.
IS THAT THE DIAGRAM BELOW? IT JUST NEEDS TO BE LABELED OR THAT IS THE DIAGRAM? YES SIR.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
BIANCA? MOTION FOR APPROVAL? WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA.
ITEM 17, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 24 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 10.4.
OKAY, THIS SECTION IS, UM, REQUIRING, UM, ENERGY DISSIPATION CHECKS AT OUTLETS INTO RECEIVING CHANNELS THAT ARE BELOW CULVERT ELEVATIONS.
WE'RE ALSO RE REPLACING REFERENCES TO THE SIX FEET PER SECOND MAX VELOCITY AND REPLACING THAT WITH THE SHEER STRESS FROM CHAPTER 9.3 0.8.
THIS IS THE ITEM THAT WAS ADDRESSING, UH, EARLIER COMMENTS THAT, THAT JUST WALKED OUT.
THIS IS HER AMENDMENT TOO, THAT LA WANTED TO ADD CONTROL AND WE'LL CALL
[02:00:01]
A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.WE'LL RECONVENE AT UH, TWO 40.
SO AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSSION, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO BACKTRACK A LITTLE BIT TO ITEM NUMBER 14, AMENDMENT DASH 27 21.
UM, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO RECONSIDER SOMETHING ON THERE TO MAKE AN ADDITION 'CAUSE WE INADVERTENTLY REMOVED SOME STUFF OUT OF THE CODE THAT, UH, WAS GONNA CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS. MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER BY BIANCA, A SECOND BY KEN BROWN.
SO THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THE TABLE THAT WE REMOVED? UM, HANG ON, I HAVE TO KEEP ONE FINGER ON THE BUTTON.
UM, SO WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING HERE IS BECAUSE THIS, THIS IS DISCUSSING EARTH AND CHANNELS AND REMOVING, GOING AWAY FROM VELOCITY TO SHEER STRESS IT.
AND THEN THE TABLE 9.3 0.8 ACTUALLY SAID THAT IN THE OLD LANGUAGE, IT SAID ONCE YOU EXCEEDED SIX FEET PER SECOND, WHICH WAS THE OLD TRIGGER, YOU HAD TO GO A CONCRETE OR SOME TYPE OF TURF MAT.
WELL IT REMOVED THAT BY REMOVING THAT TABLE, IT REMOVED THAT FROM THE CODE.
SO WE NEED TO ADD, WE NEED TO PIGGYBACK ONTO THE LAST PARAGRAPH THERE THAT YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO PROVIDE A PROVISION THAT SAYS IF THE MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS CANNOT BE OBTAINED, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO CONCRETE OR TURF MAT REINFORCEMENT.
AND THEY'RE WORKING ON THE LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW.
KEN, WE GOT A WORDSMITH THAT, ARE YOU READY? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE LANGUAGE.
SO WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE ADDING RIGHT THERE IS A SENTENCE, AND I'LL GIVE THIS TO YOU GUYS IF RETARDANT CLASSES B, C, D, AND E CANNOT PROVIDE THE CHANNEL PROTECTION.
AND THOSE ARE THE RETARDANT CLASSES IN THE TABLE BELOW.
RETARD DS CLASSES B, C, AND D AND E CANNOT PROVE, PROVIDE THE CHANNEL PROTECTION AS REQUIRED.
YOU CANNOT PROVIDE CHANNEL PROTECTION.
THEN T R M ABBREVIATION RM CONCRETE.
NO, YOU DON'T NEED ANY PARENTHESES AROUND T R M 'CAUSE IT'S DEFINED.
IS T R M DEFINED SOMEWHERE? YES.
THAT'S THE EROSION CONTROL MATS.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS CONCRETE COMMA OR OTHER LININGS SHOULD BE EVALUATED.
AND THEN WE THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT.
'CAUSE THERE'S A WHOLE SECTION IN THE CODE THAT IF YOU USE CONCRETE, YOU DO THIS.
IF YOU USE THE EROSION CONTROL MAT, YOU DO THIS AND OR SUBMIT ANY OTHER ALTERNATE LINING.
UM, ANYBODY HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR ISSUES WITH THAT SENTENCE? NOW I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA.
UH, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 27 DASH 24 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 10.4.
[02:05:06]
OKAY, THIS, UM, AGAIN, THIS SECTION IS PROVIDING REQUIREMENTS FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION CHECK ENERGY DISSIPATION CHECKS AT OUTFALLS INTO RECEIVING STREAMS WHERE YOU'RE, UM, BELOW THE FLOW LINE OF THE CULVERT OR WHERE THERE IS A CULVERT DESIGNED.UM, AND WE ARE ALSO PROVIDING REFERENCES AND WE'RE REMOVING REFERENCES TO THE OLD SIX FEET PER SECOND.
AND NOW GOING TO THE MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS REFERENCE TO 9.3 0.8.
ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS OR MOTION? SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BROWN AND A SECOND, WHAT IS IT? MR. MANNA? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 18 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 25 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 13 POINT.
OKAY, THIS IS GONNA BE A FUN ONE.
UH, WELL ACTUALLY, UM, JUST SHOULD BE STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UM, THE ONLY SECTION WE'RE CHANGING HERE IS 13.3.
UM, TO PROVIDE A REQUIREMENT FOR A ONE YEAR, UM, FREQUENCY STORM EVENT TO BE ANALYZED.
UM, WE'RE ALSO PROVIDING A CHECK HERE FOR THE 100 YEAR, SIX HOUR STORM TO NOT OVERTOP THE, UH, PROPOSED DETENTION POND DESIGN.
ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? YES, THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY ON PAGE TWO, UNDER COST IMPACT, UM, IT SAYS COST NEUTRAL, BUT IN THE LANGUAGE IT SAYS MINIMUM COST INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 1% FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL CHECK STORM DURING THE, SO I JUST WAS WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION.
I BELIEVE THAT ADDITIONAL CHECK WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL CALCULATED, SO AN ENGINEER WOULD HAVE TO RUN, UM, ANOTHER DOUBLES OUR FEES.
NO
I MEAN, REALLY IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY AN ADDITIONAL UPFRONT COST, UM, POTENTIAL, UM, INCREASE FOR THE, UM, DEVELOPER, THE OWNER.
UM, BUT ON THE LONG RUN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL COSTS THAT THE CITY WOULD INCUR IF WE HAD TO GO IN, UM, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS ANY 3 1 1 DRAINAGE COMPLAINTS AS A RESULT OF THE DETENTION POND NOT BEING DESIGNED ACCORDINGLY.
SO THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF PUT COST NEUTRAL THERE IS IT KIND OF CANCELS EACH OTHER OUT, IF YOU WILL.
SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS ON, ON THE TEXT THAT WE'RE CHANGING OR ADDING HERE FOR THE PONDS WITH DRAINAGE AREAS GREATER THAN 20 ACRES.
20 ACRES IS A STANDARD TAKEN FROM SOMEWHERE, I'M ASSUMING SO THAT, SO THAT, UM, ANYWAYS, IT'S A STANDARD, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, IF I MAY, ON, UH, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS EXTRA CALCULATION IS BEING REQUESTED.
UM, I, I GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT ONLY WORK WITH, UH, GREAT FOLKS LIKE SABRINA AND HER STAFF, BUT I ALSO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH OPERATIONS AS WELL AS THOSE THAT RECEIVE 3 1 1 COMPLAINTS.
UM, SO I HAVE ANOTHER ENGINEERING GROUP OVER AT MUNICIPAL PLAZA THAT RECEIVES THOSE COMPLAINTS AND WE RESPOND TO MANY OF THOSE TONGUES.
AND AT MANY TIMES WE HAVE HOMEOWNERS WHO WILL CALL US AND SAY, THAT'S GREAT THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS A DETENTION POND, BUT WE SEE WATER GOING OVER IT.
UM, SO WHEN WE START ANALYZING
[02:10:01]
AND EVALUATING IN WHAT CONDITION DOES THAT HAPPEN, WE START NOTICING THAT OUR MORE COMMON STORM EVENTS HERE ARE TYPICALLY NOT STORMS THAT LAST 24 HOURS, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR DESIGN AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE DESIGNING OF THE POND.BUT WE NOTICE THAT THE MORE COMMON STORM EVENT THAT WE SEE TYPICALLY LASTS ANYWHERE, UH, IS, IS A, IS A BETTER REPRESENTATION OF A SIX HOUR STORM.
SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE WANT THOSE TO BE CHECKED, TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, WHETHER IT BE OUR DOWNSTREAM ROADS OR NEIGHBORHOODS OR SCHOOLS ARE NOT IMPACTED, NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY, UH, THE, THE PRESENCE OF A DETENTION POND.
SO NEFI, WHAT IF THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT SIX HOUR STORM AND ONE OF THE OTHER STORMS WHICH IS GONNA OVERRIDE FOR SIZING THE OUTLET STRUCTURE? SO TYPICALLY WHEN SIZING IT A 24 HOUR, WE WILL GENERATE THE LARGER OF THE TWO SO THAT THE 24 HOUR REALLY IS USED TO SIZE THE SHAPE, THE, THE, THE VOLUME, THE LARGER VOLUME IF YOU WILL.
UM, THE CHECK FOR THE SIX HOUR IT REALLY GONNA GO, IT'S REALLY GONNA GO TOWARDS THE OUTLET CONTROL, THE, THE STRUCTURE, THE OUTLET ITSELF.
UH, SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT OUTLET IS DESIGNED TO BE ABLE TO PASS THAT STORM EVENT.
SO THE CONFLICT REALLY WOULD BE ON, ON, ON THE OUTLET STRUCTURE? YES.
SO AS NEPHEW'S SAYING, WELL, WHAT, IT'S A CHECK, RIGHT? SO WHAT WE'VE FOUND IS THAT IN A FEW INSTANCES THAT THE SIX YEAR STORM ACTUALLY WILL OVERTOP THE STRUCTURE AND WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE STRUCTURE DOESN'T FAIL.
SO AS LONG AS IT'S GOING THROUGH THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY OR IT'S GOING THROUGH THE MAIN STRUCTURE, THEN IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE DESIGN CRITERIA.
THE THING THAT WE'LL GOVERN WILL BE THE FIVE YEAR, 25 YEAR AND A HUNDRED YEAR 24 HOURS.
THAT'S WHAT GOVERNS THIS WOULD ONLY BE A CHECK.
DEBBIE REED, I HAVE A QUESTION.
CAN THAT BE INCLUDED IN HERE? THE DISCUSSION OF SHEAR STRESS, I BELIEVE WAS THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT.
BUT THE OUTFALL OR THE SPILLWAY FROM THE DETENTION FACILITY HAS CAUSED SOME, UM, ISSUES DOWNSTREAM.
I MEAN, IF, IF THE COMMITTEE IS OKAY, I THINK WE COULD MAYBE PERHAPS REFERENCE THAT PREVIOUS SECTION OF 9.3 0.8.
SABRINA, SINCE THEY'RE, THEY'RE DISCUSSING SOMETHING I WANNA ASK, I'LL ASK A QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND TO YOU, UH, ON, UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO, OUTLET STRUCTURED DESIGN GUIDELINES.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING ATTENTION BASIN AND BY DEFINITION WE CANNOT, UH, DISCHARGE ANY MORE WATER THAN THE EXISTING CONDITION OR THE NATURAL CONDITION, IF YOU WILL DISCHARGE, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO YOUR OUT OUTFALL FLOW SHOULD BE LESS THAN THE LESSON OUR EXISTING, I GUESS I'M WONDERING, I CAN'T QUITE GET 'EM WHAT THE POINT OF THE NUMBER TWO IS.
THE LOCATION OF DISCHARGE POINTS FOR DETENTION BASE MUST BE ANALYZED TO ENSURE THAT DISCHARGE FROM THE DENTURE BASE DOES NOT DIRECTLY DISCHARGE INTO A ROADWAY OR WHATEVER.
IT ALREADY GOES OVER THE ROADWAY AT THAT POINT.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'VE GOT THE DETENTION BASES SITTING ESSENTIALLY AT THE LOW.
[02:15:01]
YOU, WHEN DO YOU DO, WHEN YOU GOT A POND AND NO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AND IT'S SITTING NEXT TO A ROAD? THE THE CONCERN REALLY COMES IN, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE, IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOUR SHEET FLOWING INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE, THE PRESENCE OF A DETENTION POND THAT WILL CREATE A POINT DISCHARGE FOR AN OBER.FOR A, FOR AN OBSERVER THAT IS SITTING THERE WILL ALL OF A SUDDEN SEES TWO PIPE, TWO BARRELS STICKING OUT IS A LOT MORE, IT'S CERTAINLY A LOT MORE INTIMIDATING.
AND WE, WE STRUGGLE A LOT BECAUSE THEY SAY, OH, THEY'RE MAKING THE FLOODING WORSE WHEN IT'S REALLY, IT'S EITHER STAYING THE SAME OR SOMETIMES EVEN LESS, BUT BECAUSE IT'S CONCENTRATED TO ONE POINT, IT BECOMES A REAL ISSUE.
UH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCENTRATION OF, OF THE, OKAY, SO THAT IS, IT'S, IT'S NOT THE QUANTITY SO MUCH, IT'S THE FOCUS THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT.
SO NEFI, COULD THAT SENTENCE READ LOCATION OF POINT DISCHARGES FROM DETENTION BASIN OUTLETS WE'RE SAYING YOU DON'T WANT A CONCENTRATED POINT DISCHARGE TO A STREET.
WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T LET IT COME OUT AND SHEET IF YOU SPREAD IT BACK OUT OUT, CORRECT.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS READS TO ME.
CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT.
IF THAT'S WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY DISCHARGING TO THE STREET, I I DON'T WANT TO APPOINT DISCHARGE.
SO ONE QUESTION I GUESS I HAVE.
SO, SO WHEN, WHEN YOU WERE BUILDING THE DETENTION POND, IS THERE A DESIGN FOR, UM, HOW LONG THE, THE POND ITSELF IS SUPPOSED TO DETAIN THE WATER? UM, SAY YOU HAVE A SIX HOUR EVENT, DOES IT HOLD IT FOR SIX HOURS THEN TO LET IT OUT SLOWLY AGAIN? IS THAT, IS THAT DEFINED HERE? SO TYPICALLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SOMETHING THAT WE REFER TO AS A DRAWDOWN TIME.
THE DRAWDOWN TIME ITSELF IS GOVERNED BY THE OUTLET STRUCTURE.
SO WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING THE TENSION POND, YOU DON'T HAVE JUST ONE PIPE THAT DRAINS EVERYTHING.
YOU GENERALLY HAVE A SERIES OF PIPES THAT DRAINS A SMALL, SHORT, SHORT INTENSE STORMS, LONGER STORMS, EVEN THE BIG STORMS WITH A SPILLWAY THAT REALLY GOVERNS THE DRAWDOWN TIME.
AND YOU'RE, WE TRY AND TYPICALLY LIMIT THAT DRAWDOWN TIME.
UM, IN, IN OUR CASE, UH, ONE OF THE PORTIONS OF THE AMENDMENT.
AND FURTHER UP YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING FOLKS TO CHECK THE ONE YEAR STORM EVENT THAT IN ESSENCE WILL ACTUALLY EXTEND THE DRAWDOWN TIME.
UM, AND WE, WE, WE, WE WANT THAT BECAUSE THAT IS A, THAT WOULD IN IN ESSENCE CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY SEDIMENT OR ANY CONTAMINANTS THAT MAY BE IN THE WATER TO SETTLE, UH, INSTEAD OF BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE, INTO THE BODY, INTO INTO WATER.
SO IS THERE A MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN TIME ESTABLISHED ANYWHERE HERE IN THE CODE? AND THE REASON I'M GOING THROUGH HERE IS WE HAD A 15 ACRE DEVELOPMENT PUT, UH, UPSTREAM FROM US OR UP UPHILL FROM US, AND ESSENTIALLY THEY PUT A ONE ACRE DETENTION POND WITH THREE GIANT CULVERTS ON IT.
AND SO IT DETAINS ZERO, UH, YOU KNOW, AND BASICALLY CHANNELS THE WATER INTO THE, INTO THE, THE SUBSEQUENT PROPERTIES DOWN DOWNHILL.
SO THERE WASN'T ANY DETENTION THERE.
BUT I'VE ALSO HEARD OF OTHERS WHERE WE PUT A DETENTION POND WHERE BASICALLY THERE'S WATER STANDING IN IT FOR A LONG TIME.
AND SO, SO IT DOESN'T COMPLETELY DRAIN.
AND SO IT SEEMS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF GUIDELINES ON BOTH THE, THE, YOU KNOW, MAXIMUM TIME AND THE MINIMUM TIME THAT WE EXPECT FOR THAT DRAW TIME, TIME TO OCCUR.
YEAH, THEY TYPICALLY, OUR DETENTION PONDS USUALLY BASED ON THAT OUTLET STRUCTURE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, IT GENERALLY DRAW DOWNS BETWEEN 24 AND 48 HOURS IS GENERALLY WHAT WE ANTICIPATE.
UM, OUR HOPE WITH THIS, UH, AMENDMENT WITH THE ADDING THAT ONE YEAR IS HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO DRAW IT DOWN SLOWER.
BECAUSE WHAT THE SCENARIO YOU MENTIONED, THE BIG BOX CULVERT STICKING OUT OF THE DETENTION POND, THEY'RE NOT HOLDING VERY MUCH AND, AND STORMS JUST GO STRAIGHT THROUGH THERE AND IN, IN ESSENCE IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REALLY HELPING.
SO BY CREATING THESE TIERED APPROACH OF A ONE YEAR, A FIVE YEAR, 25 YEAR, THAT'S THE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO, TO HOLD BACK SOME OF THAT WATER IN THOSE LOWER, IN THOSE MORE FREQUENT EVENTS.
I GUESS I'M SEEING THE DIALOGUE FOR, FOR THE EVENTS, BUT I'M NOT SEEING THE DIALOGUE FOR, YOU KNOW, REALLY WHAT, WHAT THE OUTCOME IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
YEAH, WE DON'T PIPELINE IS, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT REFERS TO THE DRAWDOWN TIME ITSELF.
IT'S JUST SIMPLY THE, UM, THE OUTLET STRUCTURE ONLY.
YEAH, ONLY ON THE EXTENDED DETENTIONS.
[02:20:04]
UM, I HAVE A WHILE YOU GUYS ARE WORKING ON THAT LANGUAGE.SO IN THE FIRST, UH, IN PARAGRAPH 13.32, IT SAYS TO, UH, RESTRICT THE OUTFLOW RATES TO THE UNDEVELOPED OR EXISTING ONE YEAR, AND THEN IT GOES ON 5 25 A HUNDRED YEAR 24 HOUR STORMS, RIGHT IN THE SECTION 13.3, 0.2 0.9, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE OUTLET STRUCTURE DESIGN.
IT DOESN'T MENTION THE ONE YEAR, SHOULD IT OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING, OR BY DEFAULT DOES THAT, GEORGE, WHERE WERE YOU LOOKING FOR THE ONE YEAR TO BE ON THAT? I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE IN, IN ON THE FIRST PAGE IN THE, THE, UH, THE SUMMARY OF THE PRO PROPOSED UPDATE, IT SAYS IN SECTION 13.39 TO ADD THE REQUIREMENT FOR LOW FLOW OUTLET, RIGHT? AND THEN IN, IN THE DESIGN FREQUENCIES IT ADDS THE ONE YEAR, WHICH WAS WHAT THE INTENT WAS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE WORKING GROUPS, BUT IT NEVER ADDRESSES IT IN 13.3 0.29 AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT NEEDS TO, IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ANY OF THE OTHER DESIGN STORMS. SO, BUT IN THE OVERALL DESCRIPTIONS THAT YOU HAD IT YES SIR.
IT, IT IS A ONE YEAR AND IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT IT INCLUDES THAT.
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY, BY FOR ADDING THAT REQUIREMENT THAT ONE YEAR, UH, STORM BE A REQUIREMENT ALSO.
THIS IS THE CLARIFICATION CAN PROPOSE A CHANGE THERE.
ALL RIGHT, SO THEN ON THAT 13.3 0.2 AGAIN, UM, WE NEED TO MODIFY THAT.
SO IT SAYS CAN BE DETAINED WITHOUT OVER TOPPING THE BASIN.
CAN WE ADD OVER TOPPING THE BASIN AND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY INCLUSIVE OF THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY? BUT WE'RE SAYING, I THINK IT'S SAYING THERE THAT THE OUTLET AND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY COMBINED, SO YOU CAN USE THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY TO PASS THE SIX YEAR STORM, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF PASSING.
IT IS GOING THROUGH THE SPILLWAY.
THE CONCERN WOULD BE IF IT GOES OVERTOP THE ACTUAL DAM ITSELF.
SO AFTER OVER TOPPING THE BASIN, COULD WE PUT LIKE A PARENTHESES EXCLUDING THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY OR HOW THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD, BUT YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD BECAUSE, SO LET'S THINK OF THE SCENARIO.
IF THE DAM WERE TO OVERTOP, THE SPILLWAY IS TYPICALLY DESIGNED TO BE LOWER THAN THE TOP OF THE DAM.
THE CONCERN IS IF IT EXCEEDS THE SPILLWAY CAPACITY AND OVERTOPS THE DAM ITSELF.
BUT I'M WANTING TO MAKE IT CLEAR, YOU OVERTOP THE DAM, THE, THE, UH, THE SPILLWAY WOULD BE ENGAGED ALSO, BUT YOU'RE ALLOWED FOR THIS TO PASS THAT STORM, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO USE THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY.
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S CLEAR HERE.
SO WOULD AN AND OR WORK THERE? NO, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN USE THE SPILLWAY BUT NOT THE TOP OF THE BERM.
SHOULD WE JUST SAY WITHOUT OVERTOPPING THE BERM OR WITHOUT OVERTOPPING THE HIGHEST ELEVATION OF THE BASIN OR SOMETHING? THE TOP OF BERM ELEVATION.
THE BERM ELEVATION, YEAH, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD WORK.
UH, SEE WITHOUT OVER TAPPING THE BERM ELEVATION AND DELETE THE, YEAH.
I WANTED TO CHECK AGAIN WITH MS. REED.
I THINK SHE WAS SUGGESTING WE ADD A SUBSECTION THREE, UH, THAT MIGHT READ SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, UM, UH, DISCHARGE
[02:25:01]
POINTS.UH, SHOULD FOLLOW THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS REFERENCED TO HEADING THE RIGHT SECTION.
WAS IT 9.3 0.1 THAT WE REVISED? I THINK WE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO REFERENCE THE PREVIOUS SECTION.
AND WE'RE GONNA GONNA GO AHEAD AND, UH, WE'RE OKAY WITH IF THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE IS OKAY WITH REFERENCING 13.2 0.6.
IS THAT THE, IS THAT THE, UM, UH, SHARE STRESS, SHARE STRESS ONE SHARE STRESS? THERE IS A STATEMENT, UH, A COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS BEFORE THIS THAT ADDRESSES THAT.
THE DISCHARGE FROM THE OUTFALL STRUCTURE.
SO IT SAYS THE DISCHARGE FROM THE OUTFLOW STRUCTURE, OUTFLOW OVERFLOW STRUCTURE, AND AUXILIARY EMERGENCY SPILLWAY SHALL NOT CAUSE ADVERSE DOWNSTREAM IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND OR STRUCTURES.
IF WE WANNA MAKE THAT THREE AND THEN ADD THE REFERENCE TO THE, TO THAT SECTION THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT UNDER 9.3 0.8, AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO ADD A REFERENCE TO 10.4, WHICH WAS THE EROSION AT JUNCTIONS, IN CASE IT'S DISCHARGING DIRECTLY INTO A CHANNEL.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY EROSION THERE TOO.
YES, THAT SOUNDS, I CAN'T PROPOSE THAT I'M NOT ON THE COMMITTEE, BUT IT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.
YOU BRING THAT? YEAH, I'M GONNA BRING IT UP.
DID WE GET THAT QUESTION ANSWERED? I'M SORRY.
I WAS, WELL, I TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT LANGUAGE TO ADD TO IT.
OKAY, SO THE, THAT SENTENCE THAT IS, UM, JUST, YEAH, THAT ONE, THAT'S THAT YOU HAVE THE CURSOR ON COPYING THAT SENTENCE OR TAKING THAT SENTENCE AND ADDING IT TO POINT NUMBER THREE IN THE, UM, IN THE PROPOSED AND THEN REFERENCING SECTION, THE SECTION THAT DEALS WITH SHEER STRESS AS WELL AS CHANNEL, THE SHEER STRESS IS AT THE JUNCTION, THE JUNCTIONS, THAT WAS, UM, 9.3.
SO WE'RE ADDING IT AS NUMBER THREE HERE, WHICH WE'VE DONE.
ARE WE DELETING IT FROM WHERE WE COPIED IT FROM OR IS IT JUST DUPLICATED? OKAY.
IT'S JUST THAT ONE NINE POINT, 3.1.
IS THERE A REASON WE'RE ONLY SPECIFYING ADJACENT PROPERTIES ABOUT DOWNSTREAM NON-ADJACENT PROPERTIES? WELL, THE ADVERSE IMPACT CONDITION IS DEFINED BY THE PREVIOUS CODE AMENDMENT WE DID, WHICH REMOVED THE 2000 FEET AND YOU DEFINE IT BY A CERTAIN LIST OF CRITERIA, THAT'S YOUR ADVERSE IMPACT LIMIT.
SO A CASE IN POINT IS THAT SAME DETENTION POND I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, UH, WITH THE LAST BIG RAIN THAT DID NOT HOLD BACK ANY, UH, DOWNSTREAM EIGHT PROPERTIES DOWN, BASICALLY TOOK OUT SEVERAL FENCES AS A SEDIMENT BUILT AND WITH THE WATER AND BROUGHT IT DOWN AND ACTUALLY TOOK OUT LOTS OF FENCING, UM, FROM THAT OUTFLOW.
SO, SO IT MAYBE BE MORE THAN JUST ADJACENT AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEFINE THAT.
BUT ESSENTIALLY BEFORE IT GOT TO THE OUTFLOW CREEK, WHICH IS WHERE, WHICH THEY'RE USING THE STREET TO CHANNEL THE WATER ON.
SO IT MAY BE MORE THAN JUST THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
SO WHAT, YEAH, WHAT'S FAIR AND REASONABLE AND HOW FAR, SO, AND, AND ALL THE WATER DIDN'T
[02:30:01]
COME FROM THAT, BUT MOST OF IT DID.JUST FOR, FOR THE SECTION ON THE SCREEN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, ARE WE SAYING AS REFERENCED IN 9.3 OR 9.3 0.19? I THINK IT'S 9.3.
I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, DOES 9.3 OFFER ANY GUIDANCE ON, UH, DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS? 9.3 WAS A SECTION WE JUST WENT OVER WITH THE WHOLE SHEAR STRESSES.
IT WAS GOING FROM VELOCITY TO THIS.
SHE STRESS, MR. CHAIR, CAN SOMEONE PRESS YOUR MICROPHONE BUTTON FOR YOU? SORRY, I NEED ANOTHER HAND LOCATION OF POINT DISCHARGES FROM, UM, DETENTION BASINS, OUTLET OUTLETS, DETENTION BASIN OUTLETS.
UH, AND THEN THE REST OF IT IS GOOD, BUT AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE, AFTER TRAVEL LANES, WE NEED TO ADD CON DELETE THE PERIOD AND CONTINUE WITH OR DISCHARGE IS RETURNED TO SHEET FLOW CONDITION.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? OR DISCHARGE IS RETURNED TO SHEET FLOW CONDITION.
UM, I THINK THIS AMENDMENT CREATES A CONFLICT IN SECTION 4.3 0.2 OF THE STORMWATER MANUAL.
CAN YOU PULL THAT UP? IT SAYS DETENTION FACILITIES.
WELL, THERE, THIS IS THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH ABOUT SYSTEM CRITERIA.
IT SAYS DETENTION FACILITIES AND STREETS ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE FREQUENCY CRITERIA CITED ABOVE DETENTION FACILITY.
OUTFLOWS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR THE 5 25 AND 100 YEAR FREQUENCY STORMS. BUT NOW WE'RE ADDING, WE'RE CHANGING THAT.
ONE IS THIS IS FOR, FOR REGIONAL REGIONAL FACILITIES.
SO WHEN WE MEAN REGIONAL FACILITIES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BIG FACILITIES THAT WE DO WITH SAY WITH BEXAR COUNTY AND THE ATORY IN CON IN CONJUNCTION, THIS SECTION IS ONLY REFERRING TO REGIONAL 4.3 IS REGIONAL NOT? YES SIR.
YOUR EVERYDAY VERSION OF A DETENTION POND, I DON'T SEE IT A CONTRADICTION TO THE ADDITION THAT NEPHEW WANTS TO DO.
IT'S AN ADDITIONAL CHECK TO PREVENT LOCAL CONDITIONS THAT WE EXPERIENCE.
SO, UM, YES SIR, I'M OKAY WITH IT.
AND TYPICALLY THOSE ARE FOR THE, THE INDIVIDUAL DETENTION PONDS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHAT WE'RE REFERENCING HERE IS FOR SPECIFIC FOR REGIONAL FACILITIES, UH, IN THIS CASE, BUT IN THE AMENDMENT IS FOR, UH, INDIVIDUAL DETENTION PONDS.
I THOUGHT OUR WHOLE THING WAS THE REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
NOT, I DON'T SEE WHERE THIS IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO REGIONAL DETENTION PONDS.
AM I WRONG? REGIONAL DRAINAGE 4.3 REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CHAIR FIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CHAIR.
IS YOUR, UM, IS YOUR COMMENT THAT
[02:35:01]
THAT ONE YEAR SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE BE INCLUDED IN THE REGIONAL? YEAH, I MEAN IF THAT SEC IF THIS 4.3 IS REFERRING TO THE WHOLE PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, DETENTION PONDS CONSTRUCTED WITH INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, THEN I WOULD THINK WE, WE'VE ADDED THE ONE YEAR DESIGN REQUIREMENT ON THE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IN SECTION 13.3.SO THAT WOULD THAT IS A GOOD POINT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THIS 4.3 0.2, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT'S, WOULD ANYTHING WORK? CONSIDER CONSIDERING NOW THAT WOULD BE ONLY AMENDMENT.
YEAH, SO I DON'T KNOW, DO WE JUST MAKE A NOTE TO FIX THAT IN FIVE YEARS OR DO YOU WANNA GO BACK AND DO A RID OR HOW DO WE CHANGE THAT? CAN WE THAT OR, OR DO A RID OR, OR CAN WE PROPOSE AN ADDITIONAL D D C AMENDMENT FROM THIS GROUP? WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, I MEAN THIS SECTION IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
SO UNFORTUNATELY WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES.
UM, HOWEVER I ANTICIPATE, UM, THERE IS, AS LOGAN MENTIONED, THE ABILITY TO DO A READ BASED OFF OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE, ARE IN THE PROCESS.
AND POTENTIALLY IF THIS GETS APPROVED BY COUNSEL, WE CAN DO A RULE INTERPRETATION DECISION TO HELP CLARIFY.
WHAT HAS, UM, BEEN AMENDED? OKAY.
CAN YOU GUYS MAKE A NOTE THAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO A, IF THIS GETS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE A, WE'LL HAVE TO DO A RID AT A LATER DATE TO FIX 4.3 0.2.
AND WE WILL WORK WITH, UM, STORMWATER TO GET THAT DONE.
SO WE AS TAC CAN'T PROPOSE THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA BECAUSE WE KNOW ONE THING WE ADOPTED IS A CONFLICT.
IF WE START OPENING UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD MORE AMENDMENTS, IT, THIS MAY OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS. SO, UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND THE PATH OF A, A RID MELISSA.
THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY AND IF I UNDERSTAND RIDS, YOU CAN'T JUST DO RIDS.
THAT USUALLY HAS TO BE A RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION.
CORRECT? WE CAN INITIATE, UH, RULE INTERPRETATIONS, DECISIONS BASED OFF OF KNOWLEDGE OF MAYBE A GRAY AREA OR A CONFLICT WITHIN THE CODE.
UM, WE'VE DONE THAT MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST AND IN THIS SITUATION IT WOULD BE SIGNED OFF BY, UH, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE BEATING A DEAD HORSE ON THIS ONE FOR SURE.
IS THERE ANY MORE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THIS THING, WHAT HE JUST DOES? EVERYBODY ELSE MOVED ON AND WE'RE THE ONLY ONES ON THIS ONE MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA, SECOND BY DEBBIE.
OKAY, ITEM 19, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 27 DASH 26, APPENDIX H 13.6 0.2.
OKAY, THIS IS PROVIDING SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR UM, TRASH RACKS, TRASH SCREENINGS FOR UNDERGROUND DETENTION FACILITIES.
THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS AT THE END WITH IT SAYS WITHIN THE MAIN CHAMBER SYSTEM, SHOULD IT SAY WITHIN THE MAIN CHAMBER OF THE SYSTEM.
IS THE MAIN CHAMBER CONSIDERED A SYSTEM? I'M FINE WITH.
WE'RE FINE WITH THAT MOTION, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAIN CHAMBER OF THE SYSTEM.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? MOTION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA.
POSSIBLE THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 20, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 27 AFFECTING APPENDIX EIGHT, APPENDIX H 13.7.
OKAY, THIS SECTION WE ARE ADDING SOME, UH, LANGUAGE REFERENCING T CQS O AND M, UM, OF DAMS AS THE GUIDELINE FOR, UH, DETENTION PONDS AND EXTENDED DETENTION PONDS.
SO THIS IS JUST IN ADDITION TO 13.7.
IT'S NOT REPLACING EVERYTHING IN 13.7, CORRECT? CORRECT.
[02:40:03]
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED BY BIANCA.
ANY LAST COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 21, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 28 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 13.8.
OKAY, THIS IS PROVIDING SOME CLEAR DIRECTION, UM, TO THE DEVELOPER, UM, WHEN A DETENTION POND SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED.
UM, SO IT'S IDENTIFYING THAT CONSTRUCTION PHASE FOR THAT FIRST, UM, DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE.
TYPICALLY A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
UH, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERS TO MY UNDERSTANDING ARE PROVIDING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONTRACTORS BUT OFTEN ARE NOT, UM, FOLLOWED
SO THE DETENTION PONDS TEND TO BE THE LAST THING THAT ARE BUILT, UM, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SUBDIVISION.
SO WE'RE JUST PROVIDING SOME CLEAR GUIDANCE HERE 'CAUSE THOSE SHOULD BE IN THE GROUND, UM, IN THE EVENT OF A RAIN EVENT.
UM, IT SAYS IT REFERENCES CONSTRUCTION PHASING NOTES ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
AND THEN IT SAYS REFERENCE APPENDIX C.
WHAT IS APPENDIX C? IT LOOKS LIKE THE FEE SCHEDULE.
APPENDIX SEEMS OUR FEE SCHEDULE, BUT IT SHOULD BE APPENDIX A 'CAUSE I THINK WE PROVIDED THAT REFERENCE ON THE CHECKLIST, THOSE SPECIFIC NOTES.
SO IT SHOULD SAY APPENDIX A? YES.
THAT'S WHERE IT RESIDES IN THE DEFINITIONS AND RULES.
THAT'S APPENDIX A, THE CHECKLIST.
IS THE CHECKLIST AN APPENDIX A APPENDIX A OR APPENDIX A? YES.
THE APPENDIX A OF APPEND OF A DRAINAGE MANUAL.
CAN WE JUST SAY APPENDIX H? WE CAN SAY THAT AN APPENDIX OF AN APPENDIX IS GETTING CONFUSING.
SO, SO I KNOW THAT, UH, BEXAR COUNTY ALSO HAS GOVERNANCE ON, ON THE DETENTION AND I GUESS CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES FOR, FOR MANAGING THIS AS WELL.
SO, SO, SO I'M ASSUMING THAT, THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM OR COORDINATING THAT AND YOU KNOW, THEY SUPER, I GUESS THEY PROVIDED OVER AN OVERRIDING STRUCTURE ABOVE OURS THAT WE'RE PROVIDING HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.
WOULD THAT BE A TRUE STATEMENT? BARAR COUNTY WAS PART OF THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
UM, AND SO THEY DID PROVIDE THEIR INPUT AND THEY WERE ON BOARD WITH THIS LANGUAGE.
'CAUSE I THINK THERE STARTS AT FOUR ACRES.
ANYTHING ABOVE FOUR ACRES IS WHEN THEY START PLAYING INTO THE ROLE.
AND SO THAT WOULD CERTAINLY QUALIFY FOR ALL THIS.
SO TO PHILLIP'S POINT IN THAT SECOND SENTENCE WHERE WE SAY SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE PRIOR TO CITY INSPECTION, CAN'T WE SAY PRIOR TO INSPECTION KNOW IF IT'S A PUT OR PRIVATE STREETS, CITY AND COUNTY ARE DOING INSPECTIONS AND THE A T J? IT'S DEPENDS, YOU KNOW? SURE, SURE AGREE.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THIS? NOT ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL IS AMENDED.
SECOND, THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA SECOND WAS MANNA.
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 29 AFFECTING APPENDIX H 15.2.
THERE WAS, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS ONE.
THERE WAS, UM, CONSTANT, UM, INTERPRETATION, CONFUSION ON WHEN, UM, INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND SO WE ARE PROVIDING SOME, HOPEFULLY SOME CLEAR GUIDANCE ON WHEN AN INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND THE REAL PROBLEM GOING FROM
[02:45:01]
NEW LOTS TO EXISTING LOTS BECAUSE THE CODE'S GOT THE LANGUAGE ABOUT SIZE AND LENGTH OF FLOW FROM NEW TO NEW.AND SO THOSE ARE GETTING PUT IN.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU HAVE TWO OR MORE EXISTING LOT NEW LOTS DRAINING TO AN EXISTING, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SEEING THE PROBLEM.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT VERSUS CALCULATIONS FOR EVERY TWO LOTS TO, AND I, I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO, TO IDENTIFY THAT IT SHOULD BE FOR BOTH OF THOSE SCENARIOS WHERE YOU'VE GOT NEW, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN TWO RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE LOT SCREENING ONTO ONE PARTICULAR LOT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
AND ALSO THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU JUST EXPLAINED THAT WE'VE GOT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, OR YOU'VE GOT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT JOURNEY INTO THAT NEW, UM, THOSE NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
SO IT SHOULD APPLY TO BOTH OF THOSE SCENARIOS.
DON'T WE ALREADY, FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAVE LOT DEPTH, SIZE, ALL OF THAT, THAT DEFINES AN INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL.
THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS SAYS TWO, ANY MORE THAN TWO AVERAGE LOT DEPTHS.
I THINK TO FURTHER CLARIFY, WE'RE ADDING THE, THE, UM, IF YOU WANNA SCROLL DOWN, THERE'S TWO, UM, EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE OR TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
I GUESS I'M JUST GETTING THAT TOP EXAMPLE UNDER THIS NEW LANGUAGE WHERE TWO AVERAGE LOTS DRAIN ONTO ANOTHER, YOU HAVE TO DO CALCS, WHEREAS RIGHT NOW THAT DOESN'T 'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT PUTTING THOSE TWO LOTS ONTO IT, BUT NOW YOU GOTTA SHOW THAT YOU'RE NOT VERSUS THE BOTTOM SITUATION WHERE YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THE TOP SITUATION BY ESTABLISHING MY A, B OR C I CAN CONTROL WITH THE BUILDER ON NEW LOTS.
I CAN'T ON EX IF THAT DOWNSTREAM IS EXISTING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE FINISHED FLOOR IS EIGHT INCHES ABOVE FINISHED GROUND.
I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF THAT'S BEEN DONE.
WHEREAS IN NEW TO NEW TOP WORKS BOTTOM NEEDS DEFINITION, BUT UNDER THIS LANGUAGE TOP WOULD REQUIRE CALCULATIONS AS WELL.
IT SAYS WHERE TWO AVERAGE LOTS DRAIN ONTO ANOTHER LOT CALC SHOWING ADEQUATE DRAINAGE CAPACITY EXISTS.
I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT THE CALCULATIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED BUT NOT NECESSARILY A DESIGNED INTERCEPTOR.
NOT NECESSARILY THE INTERCEPTOR.
YOU'VE GOT SIDE SLOPE ON A LOT, YOU'RE NOW IN EVERY SUBDIVISION DOING THAT.
I MEAN, YOU'VE GOTTA COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT DOES THAT.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE INTENT OF THE F H A GRADING CRITERIA IS.
YOU'RE RIGHT, THE, AT LEAST THE, THE INTENT, AT LEAST OUR INTENT WAS, UM, WE'RE FINDING MORE AND MORE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE A NEW, UM, SUBDIVISION UP AGAINST AN OLDER SUBDIVISION.
UM, AND WE'RE STARTING TO SEE SITUATIONS WHERE NEW CONSTRUCTION, YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE CODE.
THEY'RE DRAINING LOT TO LOT, BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE OF POINT DISCHARGE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF PUSHBACK AND A LOT OF CONCERNS AND A LOT OF COMMENTS GOING TO COUNCIL, GOING TO US, COMING TO US ABOUT THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, UH, IMPACTING US.
I A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE AND HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE TWO NEW TO ONE EXISTING NEEDING CALCS.
I JUST DON'T WANNA DO TWO NEW TO ONE NEW WHEN I CAN ADDRESS THAT WITH MY LOT GRADING PLAN.
WELL IN, IN THE IN BECAUSE REMEMBER, I MEAN IF I SPECIFY A, B OR C, I'M NOT GIVING CALCS WITH IT.
I'M, I'M SETTING CRITERIA FOR THE BUILDER SETTING, FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION, THEY'RE DOING THE SWELLS AROUND IT.
I'M NOT DOING THOSE CALCS, THEY'RE GIVEN THAT CRITERIA VERSUS ON AN EXISTING LOT WHERE I DO NEED TO LOOK AT THE FINISHED FLOOR AND I DO NEED TO LOOK AT SIZE OF LOTS AND EVERYTHING.
AND I THINK, I THINK WE'RE CAPTURING THAT IN THE SENTENCE WHERE, WHERE IT SAYS THAT CALCULATIONS SHOWING ADEQUATE DRAINAGE CAPACITY, CAPACITY EXISTS ON THE RECEIVING LOTS SHALL BE
[02:50:01]
PROVIDED WITHIN THE GRADING PLAN.I I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF YOU HAVE YOUR GRADING PLAN SHOWING, YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED GRADES VERSUS THE EXISTING GRADES ACROSS THOSE LOTS MIGHT
ARE YOU TRYING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC TO SAY THIS APPLIES TO TRYING TO SAY THAT WHEN I HAND OVER A LOT GRADING PLAN TO A BUILDER, IF THERE IS SLOPES ON THAT PROPERTY ALREADY AND IT'S NOT SO FLAT THAT I'M HAVING TO FILL IT TO GRADE IT, I DO NOT SET SLOPES OR DO CALCULATIONS.
YOU CALL IT AN A, B OR C LOT GRADING THE BUILDER, THEY'RE, THE NOTES THAT HAVE FINISHED FLOOR HAS TO BE EIGHT INCHES ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AND THE BUILDER COMES IN, SETS THEIR FINISHED FLOOR AND DOES THE SWALE.
THE ENGINEER DOES NOT COME IN ON EVERY SINGLE NEW LOT AND DO A DETAILED GRADING PLAN.
THIS SAYS CALCULATIONS, SORRY BOB BROCK, BUT TO BOB THIS I GOTTA DO A GRADING PLAN ON EVERY SINGLE SUBDIVISION.
IF CALCS ARE INVOLVED, I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED TO EXISTING LOTS.
WE HAVE THAT ON TAPE, RIGHT? SEE I THINK IT'S COM THIS IS MICHAEL.
I THINK IT'S COMMON PRACTICE, UH, TO LET THE, LET THE BUILDER, ONCE HE'S RECEIVED THE LOT, UH, IN A, IN A BUILDABLE FASHION OR SEMI BUILDABLE FASHION, FOR HIM TO USE HIS ELEVATION SHEET TO UH, DO WHATEVER'S NECESSARY TO MAKE THE DRAINAGE WORK WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON OTHER PROPERTIES.
BOB EASTMAN HERE I THINK IS HERE WHAT, WHAT KARA SAID.
I THINK ONE AUTO ONLY HAVE TO MAKE A DESIGN CHECK WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE NOT DOING A, WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF WATER ON ONE PARTICULAR LOT MORE THAN THE LOTS ABOVE IT, MORE THAN A COMPARABLE LOT TO LOT.
WHEN THAT, WHEN THAT TOPO STARTS CHANGING SIDEWAYS LIKE THAT, YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THAT.
YEAH, YOU THE THE GUY DOWN THERE IN LOT IN QUESTION.
HE'S GETTING SOME OF LOT OF IT AND SOME OF IT HE'S NOT.
YOU KIND OF GOTTA LOOK AT THAT IRRATIONAL METHOD.
YOU ONLY START DOING A DE CALCULATION FOR A CHANNEL WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING AN UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF WATER.
OTHERWISE YOU'RE CREATING A CRAZY SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE DOING A CALCULATION OF EVERY LOT.
I THINK IF I'M NOT NOT MISTAKEN, UH, YOU HAVE TO, YOU EXCUSE ME IF H A WON'T ALLOW YOU TO DRAIN MORE THAN TWO LOTS SIDE TO SIDE WITHOUT AN UH, A INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL.
GOING DOWNHILL FROM LOT TO LOT TO LOT.
THEN YOU GOTTA DO SOMETHING LIKE THE PICTURE ON, ON AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE WHERE YOU HAVE TO CREATE A CHANNEL.
'CAUSE YOU'VE GOT UNUSUAL SCENARIO.
SO AS THE ENGINEER, WE'RE PUTTING THAT A, B, OR C IN FOR EVERYBODY A MEANS I'M DRAINING ALL MY LOT TO THE STREET.
B MEANS PARK GOES THE STREET, PARK GOES BACK OR SIDE AND C MEANS ALL OF IT GOES TO THE BACK.
AND SO F H A REQUIRES YOU CAN'T GO MORE THAN TWO LOT DEPTHS OF FLOW FROM ONE LOT ACROSS MORE THAN TWO WITHOUT A CHANNEL OR SOME SORT OF INTERCEPTOR.
BUT THE BUILDER KNOWS WHAT'S THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE THEY'RE PUTTING ON THERE.
WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PUT THEIR S SWALES? WE DON'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME OF DOING SUBMITTING PLANS HERE.
AND SO GETTING INTO CALCULATIONS, WE SPECIFY BASED ON EXISTING TOPO WHAT THE BUILDER SHOULD DO.
BUT THEN THE BUILDER HAS TO COME IN AND ACTUALLY MAKE THAT WORK ON THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
I MAY SAY SOMETHING, I'M JUST TALKING TO CARER, BUT WE UH, WE DO QUITE FREQUENTLY SEE SCENARIOS WHERE THE BUILDERS DON'T DO IT RIGHT.
WHERE BUILDER A IS LETTING THE GRAIN ONTO THE SIDE NEXT TO HIM AND BUILD, HE'S LETTING IT RIGHT SITE NEXT TO HIM.
AND THEN WE GET A CALL, KARA GETS A CALL, I GET A CALL AND SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING SCREWED UP HERE.
NOW WE HAVE TO POINT OUT TO THE BUILDERS, YOU GUYS AREN'T FOLLOWING YOUR GRADING PLAN AS WE GAVE IT TO YOU.
MY CONCERN IS HERE, HOW DO I DO CALCULATIONS SHOWING
[02:55:01]
ADEQUATE DRAINAGE CAPACITY MEANS I HAVE TO KNOW HOW THE LOT'S BEING GRADED AND WHAT IT'S RECEIVING AND WHAT IT'S DOING WITH IT.THE, THE CHALLENGE, KARA, IS THAT TYPICALLY AN AB LOT WE UNDERSTAND, BUT WHEN IT'S A C C LOT, UH, WE'RE WE'RE GETTING KICKED, YOU KNOW, WE WILL MAKE COMMENTS.
'CAUSE MY MY COMMENT HERE WAS IS ISN'T THAT SOMETHING WE CAN CAT CAPTURE DURING REVIEW? AND WE DO.
THE PROBLEM COMES IN THAT WHEN WE CATCH IT AND WE MAKE THAT COMMENT, WE GET PUSHBACK, UH, WITHIN FROM THE ENGINEER ABOUT REQUESTING THIS ADDED CALCULATION.
AND WE DON'T WANNA SEE A SITUATION WHERE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS DRAINING MORE THAN THREE LOTS TO DIRECTLY TO A TO ONE ONE LOT.
SO THEN LANGUAGE THAT FOR NEW LOTS TO EXISTING IS TWO AVERAGE LOTS ONTO ONE.
AND FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IT'S THREE ONTO ONE OR SOMETHING.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW'S THE ENGINEER, YOU GET PUSHBACK BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO GIVE YOU A CALCULATION.
WHATEVER I GIVE YOU IS MEANINGLESS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BUILDER'S GONNA DO AND IT'S NOT WITHIN MY CONTROL.
IT'S IN THE BUILDER'S CONTROL.
AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS I CAN'T EVEN CONTROL IT.
I CAN GIVE YOU SOMETHING BUT IT'S NOT WORTH THE PIECE OF PAPER IT'S PRINTED ON.
'CAUSE THE BUILDER'S GOT THAT CONTROL.
YOU ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE OF THERE BEING MORE THAN ONE BUILDER BUILDING SIDE BY SIDE AND BUILDING DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS, DIFFERENT SIZE HOMES AND UH, IF THEY WHERE THEY CAN MAYBE DOING SOME DIFFERENT GRADING PLANS.
KARA, I'M I'M FINE IF WE ADD THAT CLARIFICATION WHERE IT'S FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT MORE THAN THREE AVERAGE LOTS DRAINING ONTO ONE AND FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TWO LOTS DRAINING ONTO ONE.
I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT CLARIFICATION.
THE CODE ALREADY SAYS NO MORE THAN TWO AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS CAN DRAIN ONTO ANOTHER.
I'M SURE THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU'RE SEEING THEY ARE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THE CALCULATIONS TO PROVE THAT IT IS.
BUT I HAVE NO ISSUE SAYING TWO TO EXISTING, STILL HAVE TO GIVE CALCS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE, I MEAN THAT THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD BE PUTTING IN INTERCEPTOR CHANNELS ALMOST ALWAYS NO MATTER WHAT.
SO WHAT'S THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE? ARE WE MOVING THIS SENTENCE OR ARE WE ADDING A SENTENCE? WE'RE REVISING THIS SENTENCE TO SAY, UM, WE'RE TWO.
NO TWO AVERAGE LOTS DRAIN ONTO AN EXISTING LOT AND FOR NEW TO NEW.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IF WE ARE RENUMBERING FIGURE 15.2 0.2 WE NEED TO SAY C FIGURE 15.2 0.12 LINES ABOVE.
YEAH, FOR NEW TO NEW LOTS IT WOULD BE WHAT? THREE.
SO FOR NEW, WITHIN NEW OR WITHIN, CAN WE SAY WITHIN NEW DEVELOPMENT? THREE LOTS TO ONE LOT.
THREE LOTS DRAINING TO ONE NEW LOT.
[03:00:18]
YOU REPEAT THAT REAL QUICK? WITH A NEW DEVELOPMENT, THREE LOTS DRAINING ONTO ONE NEW LOTS.SO YOU'RE BASICALLY DUPLICATING THE SENSE ABOVE, RIGHT? I JUST WANNA SHARE A BIT OF GOOD NEWS WHILE THEY DO THAT NEXT WEEK WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING ONTO A C.
KARA, DOES THAT WORK? YOU'RE I WAS SAYING YOU'RE SPOILING.
I WAS GONNA SAY YOU'RE SPOILING OUR NEWS.
CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS CORRECT? SHOULD IT HAVE UH, THREE AVERAGE LOTS TRAIN? MM-HMM.
AND IT'D BE UH, WITHIN, UH, WOULD IT BE WHERE THREE AVERAGE LOTS.
SO CAN WE SAY EXISTS ON THE DOWNSTREAM LOT? YEAH.
SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S ALMOST THE SAME FULL FIRST.
THE SENSE ABOVE IT, SAME THING ABOVE.
DOES THAT LOOK OKAY, SABRINA? THAT'S GOOD.
AND WAS THERE AN ISSUE WITH THE FIGURE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE TO CORRECT TOO? WE FIXED THAT IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE.
YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY BIANCA.
ITEM 23, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT ITEM 27 DASH 30 AFFECTING APPENDANT APPENDIX H, CHAPTER 19.
ALL RIGHT, THIS IS OUR LAST AMENDMENT.
UM, THIS IS JUST, UM, UH, MAKING REFERENCES TO DEFINITIONS THAT WE WENT OVER FOR APPENDIX F SO THAT THEY ALL MATCH UP IN LINEUP.
MR. BROWN, WAS IT? I DON'T EVEN KNOW.
DOES THERE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT? YEAH.
[03:05:01]
THINGS TO MENTION.SO, UH, WE ARE DONE MEETING WEEKLY.
UH, SO WE MOVE TO EVERY OTHER WEEK FROM HERE ON OUT.
UH, OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE APRIL 11TH, THEN THE 25TH, THEN MAY 9TH IS OUR LAST MEETING PROVIDED NOTHING ELSE IS CONTINUED, EXTENDED THAT WOULD REQUIRE SCHEDULING AN ADDITIONAL MEETING.
UH, SO WE'RE ON PACE TO WRAP UP ABOUT SEVEN WEEKS EARLY.
UM, WE WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE INFORMED AS AMENDMENTS GO THROUGH THE BALANCE OF THE PROCESS ONCE TAC IS DONE.
UH, JUST LIKE HOW WE SEND OUT UPDATES TO STAKEHOLDERS, NEIGHBORHOODS, ET CETERA.
UH, SO WHEN ITEMS GO BEFORE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU ALL ARE AWARE OF IT AS WELL AS COUNCIL, UH, COMMITTEE AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL, UH, OCTOBER, LATER THIS YEAR.
SO JUST THREE SCHEDULED MEETINGS LEFT, UH, UNLESS THERE IS A NEED TO SCHEDULE SOMETHING BEYOND THAT, THAT'S ALL.
ALL RIGHT EVERYBODY, IT IS 3 56 AND WE'RE ADJOURNED.