[00:00:01]
THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.UH, WE ARE CURRENTLY AT 1 0 7 AND WE ARE RECORDING BROADCASTING LIVE.
SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND START THIS COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE BUILDING CODE COMMITTEE.
LOOKING AT THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
WE'LL START OFF WITH OUR INTERPRETATION VIDEO.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL TO CHECK FOR QUORUM.
WE HAVE FOUR OUT OF SIX CURRENTLY.
JEREMY, I THINK YOU SKIPPED MR. HANLEY.
THAT GIVES US FOUR OUT OF SIX, UH, FOR THE COMMITTEE.
UH, CURRENTLY WE DO NOT HAVE THE CHAIR OR THE CO-CHAIR.
THE CHAIR SAID HE'LL BE HERE IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
SO IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO, UH, VOLUNTEER TO KIND OF LEAD THE MEETING UNTIL WE, I I THINK I GOT IT ELECTED.
MARK SAID, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO AN OFFICIAL VOTE FOR THAT.
RIGHT? WE CAN JUST KINDA HAVE, YEAH.
WE HAVE SOME OF THE, UH, ITEMS THAT WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS TODAY.
'CAUSE WE'RE STRUCTURE RELATED.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE'LL LET HIM, UM, LET'S SEE IF YOU'LL INITIAL GRAB A WATER, GRAB YOUR THING AND I WILL OFFICIALLY SWEAR YOU IN WITH A, I'M HERE.
JUST FOR MAKING SURE WE HAVE IT.
SO NOW WE HAVE FIVE OUTTA SIX MEMBERS PRESENT AND I THINK WE ARE HANDING IT OVER TO WHO'S GONNA PLAY THIS INTERIM CHAIR TRANSLATION.
ALRIGHT, SO, SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO NUMBER 59.
UM, SO NO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE, AT THE MOMENT.
UH, CURRENTLY NO PUBLIC IS HERE.
SO YEAH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE WE CAN TABLE, WHICH IS IF WE NEEDED TO ADD ANY VOTING MEMBERS, UH, TO THE COMMITTEE.
EVERYBODY HERE APPARENTLY IS ON THE COMMITTEE.
SO WE CAN TABLE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE IF THE CHAIR'S OKAY WITH THAT.
AND MOVE RIGHT INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION OF 2021 AND INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FULL BOARD 59 CHAIR.
UH, MARK, UH, YESTERDAY WHEN WE GOT TO 58 AND STOPPED, UH, I HAD A QUESTION ON THE, THE 59 THAT, UH, IS THIS GONNA INCLUDE THE, THE MOVEMENT TO ADD ADULT? IF IT IS, WE SHOULD TABLE THIS ONE.
IF IT'S NOT RELATED, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT.
IN MY OPINION, I BELIEVE YESTERDAY WE DECIDED WE'RE NOT ADDING ADULT CHANGING ROOMS AT ALL.
IS THAT CORRECT, MS. JEREMY? I BELIEVE YESTERDAY WE DID THE COMMITTEE DECIDED WE WERE NOT ADDING ADULT CHANGING ROOMS AT ALL.
UH, I'M NOT SURE IF I, I DIDN'T TAKE THAT.
SO REALLY KIND OF WHERE WE STAND ON THE ADULT CHANGING STATIONS, UH, I'M STILL IN COMMUNICATION WITH OUR DISABILITY ACCESS OFFICE.
UH, THEY DID HAVE SOME COMMUNICATION BACK TO ME.
THEY WERE, THEY WERE KIND OF WONDERING IF THIS IS THE FORUM FOR BOTH GOING TO COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO JUST REQUIRING IT WITHIN THE CITY OF ONLY BUILDINGS.
SO THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS ONLY A REQUIREMENT FOR THE CITY.
AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH AMIN ABOUT THIS, BUT, UH, I KIND OF SAY, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY IF THEY'RE GOING INTO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, THIS IS THE FORUM FOR THAT.
IF IT'S ONLY GONNA BE CITY REQUIRED BUILDINGS, I THINK IT WOULD WORK HERE IF THEY WANTED TO PUT IT IN THERE.
BUT I WOULD ASSUME THERE'S ALSO INTERNAL PROCEDURES THROUGH B E S D OR PUBLIC WORKS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE ANOTHER AVENUE FOR THEM TO MAKE IT WHERE IT'S ALL CITY BUILDINGS HAVE WHERE THAT REQUIREMENT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE CHAPTER 10 CODES.
BUT I THINK THE SENSE YESTERDAY FROM THE COMMITTEE IS THEY WAS NOT TO PUT IT IN AS A BUILDING REQUIREMENT.
IF THE CITY WANTS TO DO IT TO THEIR OWN FACILITIES AND FIGURE OUT IF IT WORKS OR NOT OR NECESSARY, THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY.
AND I I, WELL, I, I JUST TO GIVE THEM A GOOD, FAIR VOICE.
I, I'M TRYING NOT TO HAVE THIS TO BE A CONVERSATION WITHOUT THEM PRESENT.
I MEAN, THIS IS AN ASK THAT CAME TO US.
[00:05:01]
I ONLY WAS KIND OF LETTING Y'ALL KNOW BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING PURPOSES, I WOULD SAY IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATION, WE ALLOWED THEM TO COME PRESENT TO Y'ALL.JUST BECAUSE IT IS, THEY ARE, THEY DO HAVE THEIR OWN BOARD, UH, DISABILITY BOARD THAT'S, UH, MAN OR APPOINTED OTHER CITIZENS JUST SIMILAR TO THIS BOARD.
AND THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM THAT BOARD.
SO WE DO WANNA HONOR THAT RECOMMENDATION AND GIVE THEM AN AVENUE TO COME TALK TO THE COMMITTEE.
SO WE'LL PUT THAT AT THE VERY END OF THE PROCESS.
59 CHAIRMAN OF, UH, 59 IS JUST BABY IS BABY CHANGES.
DOES ANYBODY WANNA MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT ITEM? WELL, 59 IS CURRENTLY A CITY ORDINANCE.
WE'RE BRINGING THAT UP, UM, IN THE MOONEY CODE NOW TO, SO YOU GUYS CAN SEE THE LANGUAGE.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO, UH, BRING THAT INTO OUR MAIN CHAPTER 10, UH, MOONY CODE IS OUR MOST CO CURRENT ORDINANCES.
BUT OUR PRINTED CHAPTER 10 IS WHAT WE ALL CARRY AROUND.
UM, SO THAT'S THE PROPOSAL THERE.
AND THEN TO DISCUSS IF THERE SHOULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO TALK ABOUT OCCUPANCIES, UM, WHERE THERE'S, UM, THERE'S AN AGE RESTRICTION ON ENTERING LIKE A BAR OR SIMILAR.
'CAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME PUSHBACK, UH, WITH THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE, THOSE KINDS OF USES.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT? WE'RE JUST GONNA FOLLOW THE CODE AND ADD SOMETHING THAT SAYS IF IT'S 18 AND OVER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT IN NEXT ITEM.
WELL, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT.
UH, ROBERT HANLEY AGAIN, UH, WAS THE INTENT, IS THERE OTHER LANGUAGE? 'CAUSE 18 AND OLDER OBVIOUSLY MEANS IT'S A BAR OR IT'S A NIGHTCLUB, OR IT'S A VENUE LIKE THAT.
DOES THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT? 'CAUSE THIS IS A CITY AMENDMENT NOT PART OF THE I C C.
UH, DOES IT NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION WHAT THAT MEANS? OR IS OVER 18 SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CITY'S CONCERNS? WE CAN HAVE THOSE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, BUT THIS WAS KIND OF OUR INITIAL, UM, ATTEMPT TO, TO BRING THAT FORWARD TO YOU GUYS AND SEE, SEE WHAT YOU THOUGHT, IF THAT SOUNDS APPROPRIATE.
UM, OR NO, WE SHOULD JUST REQUIRE IT FOR ALL USES IN THE CODE.
UH, JASMINE BROUGHT THAT UP FOR, UM, FOR GROUP A AND M OCCUPANCIES, HOSPITAL, CITY OWNED BUILDINGS, ET CETERA.
BUT IF THERE'S NO KIDS THAT CAN GO INTO THE BUILDING, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S, YEAH.
SO THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY, UM, BE BARS PREDOMINANTLY BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT THAT HAS A BAR ENTITY IN IT, WHAT IS PERCENT IS FOOD, WHAT IS IT BAR? BECAUSE CHILDREN CAN GO INTO A RESTAURANT, BUT IF IT'S JUST PURELY, PREDOMINANTLY A BAR AND YOU HAVE TO BE 18 OR OLDER TO ENTER, THEN I, I UNDERSTAND THOUGH DIAPER CHANGING STATIONS REQUIRED.
SO THERE'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF, OF, OF SORT OF CLOUDINESS ABOUT CLARITIN.
SO CRYSTAL, IF YOU'LL MAKE SURE WHEN THEY DRAFT THE LANGUAGE THAT IT'S SPECIFIC TO USES FOR OVER 18 ONLY.
YEAH, THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO SAY THAT.
AND THAT LOOKS TO BE, UH, ACOUSTIC CEILINGS AND DAYCARES.
SO THIS IS, UM, CLASSROOMS. SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR E OCCUPANCIES.
UH, NOW THIS IS A NEW SECTION THAT REQUIRES THOSE ACOUSTICAL FINISHES.
UM, AND THIS IS IN THE, UM, I C C A ONE 17.
SO THE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS, THE ANSSI STANDARDS, UH, WE DID GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT, UM, THAT WERE NOT IN SUPPORT OF US ADOPTING THIS CHANGE.
SO WE SPOKE WITH, UH, NORTHSIDE AND NORTHEAST THERE, UH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING, AND THEIR ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS AND SAY, UM, THEY DID WANT TO WANT TO LET THE COMMITTEE KNOW THAT THIS IS DEMANDING AND COSTLY DESIGN PARAMETERS.
UM, THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY INCORPORATING ANY ACOUSTIC TESTING OR DESIGN INTO THEIR CLASSROOMS. AND THE ONLY PORTIONS OF, OF CAMPUSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY INCORPORATING THOSE DESIGN ELEMENTS ARE LIKE THE BAND AND CHOIR AREAS.
UM, THEY HAVE MADE OTHER MEASURES TO INSTALL, LIKE AUDIO SYSTEMS IN CLASSROOMS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE STUDENTS CAN HEAR THE TEACHER.
AND THEN THEY DID WANNA POINT OUT THAT NOT ALL CLASSROOMS WILL BE HOSTING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.
[00:10:01]
STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, THAT THE BUILDING CODE, WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THE BUILDING CODE IS THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THESE REQUIREMENTS.IT'S THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, UM, THAT ARE SET FORTH FOR, FOR BUILDINGS.
UM, AND THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S A, IT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND, UM, AND MAYBE THE, THE RIGHT PLACE FOR IT IS IN THE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.
SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE A ISSUE TAKING THAT, DELETING THAT SECTION OUT? YEAH, I GUESS MY, AGAIN, ROBERT HANLEY, UM, UH, MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE OPPOSED TO THE INCLUSION, WHAT WAS ICCS, UH, BACKGROUND RECOMMENDATION FOR INCLUDING THIS ONE? TWO IS THIS OVERLAPPED BY T E A TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY.
SO WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE T E A REQUIREMENTS, BUT I DID SPEND SOME TIME LOOKING AT THEM FOR OTHER THINGS.
UM, AND THE PROPONENTS, UM, ARGUMENT FOR PUTTING THIS INTO THE BUILDING CODE WAS TO ALIGN WITH THE A ONE 17 TO ALIGN WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.
SO I, I THINK WHAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IS THAT IF WE DELETE IT HERE, UH, IT COULD BE PICKED BACK UP IN THE ACCESSIBILITY, RIGHT? AND THEN IT WOULD APPLY ONLY TO THE ROOMS THAT I, I MEAN, I THINK FROM A TAXPAYER POINT OF VIEW, THIS IS OVERKILL BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE, IF THEY'RE DOING RENOVATIONS AND THEY HAVE A HARD CEILING, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK INTO THIS ROOM IF THIS WERE A CLASSROOM AND YOU WERE DOING SOMETHING MAJOR IN HERE AND PUT A DROP ACOUSTIC CEILING IN.
AND THERE'S OTHER WAYS THEY CAN DO THAT BY PUTTING STUFF ON THE WALL AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO, I, I JUST, MY PERSPECTIVE IS, IS THEY KNOW BEST AND IF THEY HAVE TO PUT IT IN BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED.
BRIAN SMITH, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, I THINK FORWARD.
SO 60, WE ARE RECOMMENDING IT BE DELETED.
SO 60, WE WILL PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THOSE SECTIONS FOR CLASSROOM ACOUSTICS FROM THE 2021 I V C, UM, 61.
SO THIS DECREASES THE MINIMUM AREA OF THE LIVING SPACE FROM TWO 20 TO ONE 90.
UM, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADOPT THIS AS WRITTEN.
WE FEEL THIS IS A GOOD, UM, AFFORDABILITY ITEM.
IT'S JUST A, IT, IT'S, IT'S A MINIMUM.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT A, A REQUIREMENT.
SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADOPT THIS AS WRITTEN.
IT ADDS A VISUAL SCREENING PARAMETER AT WATER CLOSETS AND URINALS, UM, IN THE BATHROOM.
63 WAS A CHANGE TO 1403 THAT ADDED OPTIONS FOR MATERIALS FOR WATER RESISTANT BARRIERS.
SO THIS, UH, THESE ITEMS ARE CHECKED OUT.
INSPECTION PHASE, AGAIN, JUST, UH, ADDITIONAL OPTIONS THERE.
AND BASED UPON THE STATE LAW, YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T CHANGE THIS IF YOU WANTED BY DELETING SOMETHING OUT, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT, THAT'S ACCURATE.
SO 64 IS OUR CURRENT 64 IS A CHANGE OF 1404 0.3.
IT ADDED OPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS FOR DIFFERENT CLIMATE ZONES FOR THOSE VA VAPOR RETARDANTS.
65 IS OUR CURRENT COSA AMENDMENT.
GIMME A SECOND TO PULL THAT UP.
SO, 65 AND 66 OUR CURRENT AMENDMENTS, WE'LL BRING THAT UP ON THE SCREEN, UM, FOR ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECTIONS.
SO WE STATE HERE ON ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT WHERE ROOF PROJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED BY DEEDED COVENANT OR INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENTS, AND THE ROOF SLOPES TOWARD, TOWARD THE ADJOINING PROPERTY THAT ADEQUATE GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO DIRECT THE, THE WATER AWAY.
AND THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE CODE,
[00:15:01]
CORRECT? THAT IS OUR CURRENT AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO KEEP.UH, CURRENT AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP AS WELL.
YOU GUYS ARE DETERMINED TO GET DONE TODAY.
THIS IS A NEW SECTION FOR GUTTER SECUREMENT FOR LOW SLOPED ROOF.
IT REQUIRES GUTTERS FOR THOSE ROOFS TO BE DESIGNED TO RESIST WIND LOADS AND TESTED PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THAT GONNA HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE COST OF, UH, CONSTRUCTION? I KNOW YOU HAVE NO, BUT ON THAT ONE ACTUALLY, I PUT YES, BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SEE NEW REQUIREMENTS, WE JUST ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE A COST IMPACT.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THIS A, AN ADDITIONAL, UM, EXPENSE OR A DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY FOR HOW IT IS ATTACHED? AND HENCE IT SHOULD BE NEGLIGIBLE.
SO I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WHEN A ROOF LIKE THAT IS INSTALLED, THE ROOFER BASICALLY JUST COMES OUT AND PUTS IT ON, THEY OVERLAP IT OVER THE SIDES.
ARE THEY GONNA HAVE TO GET A ENGINEER INVOLVED IN DESIGNING IT, CERTIFYING IT, BUT IT'S ALSO SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE DESIGNED AND WHEN, WHAT IS DESIGN AND TESTING WITH TEST METHODS? G ONE AND G THREE? SOMETIMES THOSE ARE, UM, IT'S LIKE A S T M STANDARDS.
NO, NO, I I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATION OF THAT? DOES THAT MEAN THAT, THAT SOMEBODY'S GONNA HAVE TO SIGN OFF AND SAY IT MEETS SOME STANDARD? SO WE WOULD JUST VERIFY THAT, THAT THE DESIGN IS PER OUR, UH, CURRENTLY ADOPTED WIND LOADS, THAT IT MEETS THE WIND LOADS ON THOSE DRAWINGS, WHICH WE ALREADY DO.
WE ALREADY VERIFY THAT THAT DESIGN PARAMETER IS IDENTIFIED ON THE DRAWINGS.
I GUESS REAL QUICK PURPOSES, MARK, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MIKE, CORRECT? YEAH.
SO WE'VE HAD TWO COMMITTEE MEMBERS JOIN US.
UH, MIKE RUST AND JACK MOORE ARE NOW PART OF THE COMMITTEE.
UH, SO MIKE IS THE PRIMARY TO MARK'S POSITION.
SO JUST ANY OPEN VOTES THAT WE HAVE, WE'LL GO TO MIKE.
AND THEN MIKE IS THE CURRENT CHAIR.
DID YOU FINISH OR WE TRIED REAL HARD.
HE WANTED TO FINISH BEFORE YOU SHOW UP, BUT MARK WOULD JUST WANTED TO PROVE THAT HE WAS BETTER AT THIS.
DIDN'T NEED TO BE PROVED, I'M SURE.
WE RECOMMENDED ADOPT AS WRITTEN FOR 67.
[00:20:01]
RESISTANCE, PARAPET HEIGHT OF AGGREGATE SURFACE ROOFS, 1504 0.9.UM, WE IDENTIFIED THAT THE TABLE WAS DELETED AND REPLACED, AND THE NEW TABLE PROVIDES, UH, NEW PARAMETERS.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH 68? OKAY, 69 PLEASE ADOPT IS WRITTEN ON 68, SOUNDS LIKE.
OKAY, SO FOR 69, THAT'S A NEW SECTION IN 1509 AND A TABLE, UM, OUTLINING MATERIALS AND STANDARDS FOR ROOF COATINGS.
SO AS MARK PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, DUE TO THE HOUSE BILL, WE COULDN'T REALLY ELIMINATE ANY OF THESE APPROVED MATERIALS.
SO 69 WILL ADOPT AS WRITTEN 70, UH, A DELETION.
WE WANTED TO IDENTIFY THAT IN 1512.
SO THOSE PV PANELS AND MODULES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND THEIR DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE, THROUGHOUT THE ADDITIONAL SECTIONS.
JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN REDISTRIBUTED TO OTHER CODE SECTIONS.
SO IN THOSE REDISTRIBUTIONS, IS THERE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO ANY REQUIREMENTS? NO, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THIS ONE? NOW WE'RE STUCK.
THERE'S A CHANGE TO THE TABLE.
SO IT ADDED A LINE ITEM FOR ASSEMBLY SPACES WITH OCCUPANT LOAD GREATER THAN 300 AND CUMULATIVE OCCUPANT LOAD GREATER THAN 2,500, UH, AS A CATEGORY THREE, UH, RISK CATEGORY THREE, THAT CLASSIFICATION PREVIOUSLY IN A DIFFERENT RISK CATEGORY.
THIS IS A NEW, UM, OCCUPANCY IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT CATEGORY.
SO THE RISK CATEGORIES WERE ONE THROUGH FOUR.
UM, IN, IN THAT TABLE, THEY HAVE SOME SPECIFIC ITEMS, SPECIFIC OCCUPANCIES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES.
EVERYTHING ELSE FALLS INTO A CATEGORY TWO.
SO THIS WOULD HAVE PREVIOUSLY, AND AND YOU GUYS CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT PREVIOUSLY JUST FALLEN INTO A CATEGORY TWO, IF IT DIDN'T MEET ONE OF THOSE OTHER ITEMS. IS THERE IN THE, IN THE BOOK OF WHY THEY DID THIS? IS THERE A DESCRIPTION OF THIS? IT, UH, THERE'S MORE OCCUPANTS WHICH REQUIRED, UH, A HIGHER, UH, POSSIBILITY OF HARM IN THE HIGHER RISK CATEGORY.
JUST, UH, CREATES A LITTLE BIT, UH, DIFFERENT MULTIPLICATION FACTORS IN YOUR WIND DESIGN.
SO IT'LL ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE PRESSURE TO IT TO INCREASE THE, UH, TO JUST BE SAFER ON YOUR, UH, ROOF DESIGN.
IF MORE PEOPLE OF LEWIS, YEAH.
THIS, UH, THE LI THE RISK CATEGORY IS MORE IN THE, UH, TUNE OF, UH, WIND DESIGN.
SO THAT'S WHERE IT REALLY AFFECT IT, EXCEPT INTERCEPTION.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH ADOPTERS WRITTEN ON 71.
OH 6.3 UH, REQUIRES THE WEIGHT OF FIXED SERVICE EQUIPMENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DEAD LOAD.
UM, BUT WE IDENTIFY AS A POTENTIAL COST INCREASE, DO YOU GUYS THINK? NO, IT'S ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR NOW.
WE DO, SO THAT'S SIMILAR TO 73 FOR THOSE PV PANELS AS WELL, SO ON.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE 72 WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH, BUT, UH, 73 NOW THE WEIGHT OF PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL SYSTEMS. I THINK I SAID THAT RIGHT.
[00:25:01]
THE ENERGY CODE.THEY'RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT PREPPING BUILDINGS FOR SOLAR.
IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A PHOTO VOL THAT KIND OF, UM, SYSTEM, UH, IS THAT GONNA BE CALCULATED? LIKE IF, IF WE ADOPT A CODE THAT SAYS HOUSES NEED TO BE PREPARED FOR SOLAR, ARE THEY GONNA SAY, WELL THEN YOU'VE GOTTA BUILD THE, THE ROOF LOAD TO PROBLEM IS, IS THERE'S SOME BRIAN SMITH I WAS TALKING, SORRY.
SO IT'S MORE OF A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL, NOT A, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION.
BUT IS THERE GONNA BE SOMETHING IN THE ENERGY CODE THAT YES.
TALKS ABOUT, UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AS WELL? I GUESS.
SO THE QUESTION KIND OF STILL REMAINS, YOU KNOW, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE ENERGY CODE'S GONNA SAY.
UM, IS THERE GONNA BE A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING PAST THAT SAYS YOU GOTTA HAVE, BE SOLAR READY, THAT THAT INCLUDES DEAD LOAD CALCULATIONS? UH, THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD.
I, I GUESS MY THOUGHT ON THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE READ THIS, THIS IS REALLY JUST CLASSIFYING IT AS A DEAD LOAD IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE IT.
AND I THINK THAT, I MEAN, ULTIMATELY THAT DOES MAKE SENSE THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE IT ON THE BUILDING, IT SHOULD BE A DEAD LOAD.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT MOVING AS KIND OF A PREEMPTIVE SOMETHING TO BE READY UNDER THE ENERGY CODE, WE COULD LOOK AT THAT AS WE ADOPT THE ENERGY CODE AND DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE READY, WHETHER YOU'RE LOADING, IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED THERE, YOU KNOW, AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT TO BE EV AND PV READY AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT PROBABLY DOES MAKE SENSE TO TABLE IT TILL THE ENERGY CODE AND JUST ALL WE'RE DOING IS DEF DEFINING IT AS THAT IS A DEAD LOAD.
SO MAYBE INSTEAD OF, OH, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
WELL, HOW ABOUT INSTEAD OF TABLING IT, WE JUST MAKE THIS A CONSIDERATION WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE ENERGY CODE AND ADOPT THIS AS WRITTEN AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSS WHEN, WHEN IT'S TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE ENERGY CODE.
OR ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH MAYBE DOING IT THAT WAY, BRIAN, OR, I MEAN, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE SOMETHING.
YEAH, LET ME, LET ME JUST JUMP IN.
SO THIS SECTION HERE DOESN'T TELL YOU YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PV SYSTEM ALL WHAT IT SAYS.
IF YOU'RE INSTALLING PV SYSTEM, YOU DO THE DEAD LOAD CALCULATION.
SO I DON'T THINK THIS'S GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING.
LOOK, THIS, LET ASK YOU A, A QUESTION.
UH, THIS IS DEAD LOAD LEWIS, WHAT ABOUT IF I, BECAUSE THE WAY THESE PV SYSTEMS ARE ATTACHED ON SLIGHT LOW SLOPE ROOFS OR FLAT ROOFS, IS THEY'RE ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE.
AND WHAT ABOUT WIND LOADS? THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST GONNA MA, UH, UH, COMMENT ON.
WE TYPICALLY, WE, UH, IF THERE'S A DEAD LOAD, WE CALCULATE IT IN OUR DESIGN.
WHAT'S GONNA CONTROL ON THIS IS GONNA BE THE COMPONENTS AND CLADDING ISSUE OF THE WIND DESIGN.
AND THAT'S GONNA BE A MUCH LARGER LOAD THAN THIS DEAD LOAD.
UH, JACK, I I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
ARE, ARE, IS THERE A PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THESE PHOTO ELECT? YES.
I JUST SEE 'EM BEING PUT IN ALL OVER THE PLACE.
AND YOU KNOW, ALSO THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE WHERE THE, IF THE HOUSE IS ALREADY BUILT, BUT I ASSUME IT'S AN ELECTRIC PERMIT.
MY OFFICE, DID YOU GET A PERMIT? YES, I DID.
WE ARE VERY, VERY BUSY WITH SOLAR, UH, PV SYSTEM PERMITS.
SO I MEAN, I, I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN, UH, JUST ADOPT THIS AS WRITTEN IN THIS, IN THIS PART.
I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO KEEP THIS IN MIND BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TO THE ENERGY CODE, IT'S GONNA BE PRESENTED AS WELL.
WE'RE JUST GONNA BE READY FOR SOLAR.
BUT THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT COME BEHIND IT THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, AND I THINK IT'S WORTH BRINGING UP.
YOU SAID A FIVE KILOWATT AND CRYSTAL, WHEN, WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THAT ELECTRICAL PERMIT TO PUT SOLAR ON, DO YOU REQUIRE A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO SAY THE ROOF IS CAPABLE OF CARRYING THAT WEIGHT? HI, JASMINE MOSEY PLAN REVIEW.
UM, THAT'S PART OF THE SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS IS ENGINEERING, UM, FOR THE ROOF SUPPORT THIS ROBERT HANLEY, I KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA ADDRESS THIS MIKE IN THE ENERGY CODE, BUT AT THIS PARTICULAR PLACE, THIS IS IN THE STRUCTURAL CHAPTER OF THE BUILDING CODE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S A COMPLETELY SEPARATE DEAL THAN, THAN THE ENERGY.
NO, I, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, ROBERT.
I GUESS MY, MY, THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS THAT IT, IT ALL TIES, YOU KNOW, IT ALL TIES TOGETHER.
SO ANYWAY, LET'S, LET'S, I DON'T WANNA KILL THAT.
UM, ANY, UH, BEAT THAT DEAD HORSE, I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? 74.
74 IS SIMILAR WHERE, OR REQUIRES ANY LANDSCAPING AND HARDSCAPING MATERIALS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ROOF DEAD LOAD AS WELL.
[00:30:01]
YOU GUYS GOOD WITH THAT ONE? THESE WERE ALL NEW SECTIONS.UH, THESE RELOCATED, THERE'S RELOCATED REQUIREMENTS AND NEW EXCEPTION ADDED.
IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE WANT IS GARAGES THAT DON'T COLLAPSE UNDER THE WAY TO VEHICLES.
UM, ANYBODY ELSE? ANY COMMENT, CONCERN, ADOPT AS WRITTEN AND GO TO 76 PLEASE.
76 IS A NEW SECTION FOR FALL ARREST, LIFELINE AND ROPE DESCENT SYSTEMS. SO THIS NEW SECTION REQUIRES THEM TO, AND THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE DESIGNED FOR THE MAXIMUM TENSION THAT WOULD DEVELOP FROM LIVE LOADS.
SO PREVIOUSLY IT SPECIFIED A LIVE LOAD, BUT NOW THIS SAYS THE MAXIMUM TENSION THAT WOULD DEVELOP THIS IS LEWIS ROCK, IS MY ONLY QUESTION WITH THAT, UH, SPECIFIC, UH, SECTION IS WHO, UH, DETERMINES THIS, THE TYPE AND SIZE AND THICKNESS OF THE, UH, OF THE TENSION, UH, MEMBER? UH, DIFFERENT TENSION, UH, MEMBER SIZES CARRY DIFFERENT TENSILE CAPACITIES.
SO IF YOU USE A QUARTER INCH, UH, CABLE VERSUS A HALF INCH CABLE, YOU'RE GONNA GET A, A BIG DIFFERENCE IN, UH, DESIGN REQUIREMENT.
UH, I WOULD THINK WE NEED TO, UH, GIVE IT SOME KIND OF MINIMUM, UH, UH, CAPACITY LOAD TO BE ABLE TO SAY, AT LEAST USE SOMETHING BIGGER THAN A PIANO WIRE.
IT DOES SAY, IT STILL DOES SAY NOT LESS THAN 3,100 POUNDS.
UH, PROVE IS WRITTEN AND GO TO 77 PLEASE.
ACTUALLY, CRYSTAL, BEFORE YOU DO, I, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BEFORE I CAME IN, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A, A MEMBER MEMBER OF THE, OF THE PUBLIC IN SIR? NO, THAT'S STAFF.
OH, HE IS? HE'S INCOGNITO, UNDERCOVER.
THAT GAVE ME A CHANCE TO GET TO THE SECTION
SO, 77 NEW SECTION, UH, NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LOADS FOR THE FIXED LADDERS, LIBRARY STACK ROOMS, SEATING ASSEMBLIES, ALL OF THOSE ITEMS. UM, YOU SEE ON SIX STARTS AT 16 DASH 14, THAT PAGE NUMBER AND GOES TO 16 DASH 15.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO, UH, 78.
SO 78, THAT'S A NEW SECTION FOR 16, 10.2.
THIS NEW SECTION ADDRESSES CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE.
THEY MUST NOW BE DESIGNED FOR UPLIFT DUE TO EXPANSION SOILS, EXPANSIVE SOILS.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT ALL OUR LIVES AROUND HERE.
IF YOU'RE IN SOUTH TEXAS, IF YOU DON'T DESIGN FOR IT, YOU'RE IN TROUBLE.
TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, GIVE IT TO DIRECTOR.
UM, INCREASES THE DESIGN, RAINFALL, THIS LIST
AND TYPICALLY THEY, UH, CHANGE THOSE RAINFALL, UH, DESIGN LOADS DUE TO, UH, DATA THAT IS COLLECTED OVER THE YEARS BY THE, UH, NATIONAL, UH, UH, WEATHER SERVICE.
SO THEY JUST UP DATE THOSE ACCORDING TO OUR RAINFALL.
LET'S GO TO ADOPTS WRITTEN AND GO TO 80, PLEASE.
80 IS OUR CURRENT COSA AMENDMENT TO A COUPLE OF SECTIONS IN REFERENCE TO SPECIAL INSPECTIONS.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP THESE CURRENT AMENDMENTS MOVING FORWARD.
THEY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL INSPECTORS AND TESTS
[00:35:01]
AND REPORTS.SO SOME MINOR ADDITIONS TO THOSE SECTIONS THAT WE'LL BRING UP FOR YOU GUYS TO VIEW.
YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP THE EXISTING CHAPTER 10 AMENDMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THIS? OKAY.
WE'RE GETTING INTO, UM, SOME MORE MASS TIMBER CONSTRUCTION.
THESE ARE ADDED REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIONS, LIKE A TIMBER FRAME.
YEAH, THIS IS, BUT A MASS TIMBER FRAME FRAME AND IT HAS TO MEET, UM, A SPECIFIC SIZE OF CROSS SECTION TO QUALIFY.
THIS IS A BYPRODUCT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MARKETPLACE, LIKE THE BUILDING ON BROADWAY, UH, AT NINTH, UH, SOTO BUILDING.
UH, WE'RE FOR SUSTAINABILITY HEAVY TIMBER, BUT, SO THERE'S A LOT.
WE'RE PLAYING CATCH UP IN THE CODES TO USING LEWIS.
MASS TIMBER, BECAUSE THAT'S A SOTO BUILDING'S, A SIX STORY MA MASS TIMBER BUILDING.
SO SOME OF THIS, MIKE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IS PLAYING CATCH UP TO SOME NEW TECHNOLOGIES THEY'RE USING.
A LOT OF TIMES CODE JUST FOLLOWS BEST PRACTICE.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION? SO WE'LL GO TO 82 PLEASE.
SO 82 IS A CHANGE TO 1705 POINT 18.
SO THIS CODE SECTION ADDED THE FIRE AREAS FOR GROUP R WITH AN OCCUPANT LOAD OF 250 OR MORE, THIS ROBERT HANLEY, UM, DEPENDING ON THE FIRE RATING, UH, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS FIRE RESISTANT PENETRATION IN JOINTS.
YOU'RE ALREADY REQUIRED IN THE CODE WHEN YOU PENETRATE A FIRE SEPARATION OR A FIREWALL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE, UH, THE FIRE SEALANT IN THERE.
SO I GUESS I'M ASSUMING, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS, AND I LOOK AT THIS, IS NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEAVY TIMBER.
SO WE'RE ADDING A REQUIREMENT WITH MASS TIMBER, I SHOULD SAY HEAVY TIMBER, UH, FOR USING FIRE RESISTANT CAULK AT ALL.
THIS IS, IT'S A LITTLE CATCH UP, RIGHT? I BELIEVE SO.
AS WE, WE WOULD'VE ALREADY REQUIRED THIS, THIS IS A SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR THOSE, UM, FIRE RATED PENETRATIONS.
SO DEFINE WHAT SPECIAL INSPECTION WOULD MEAN.
OH, I, I BELIEVE JASON GRAY IS OUR RESIDENT EXPERT HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT, JASON, JUST REAL QUICKLY, THE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN IN THE BUILDING CODES FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, WHICH IS THE PREDECESSOR TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, THE I B C ALWAYS HAD SPECIAL INSPECTIONS.
SO BACK IN OH 3, 0 4, WHEN WE WENT TO THE I C C CODES, THE CITY MADE A DECISION TO ENFORCE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS.
AND THIS COMES OUT OF A, A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE, UH, AROUND THE COUNTRY, ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD ADDRESS THIS.
THIS IS A THIRD PARTY INSPECTION MARK, I THINK YOU ASKED THE QUESTION.
UH, THAT IS NOT HIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR, HAS TO BE HIRED BY THE OWNER.
UM, BUT DURING THE, THE INTAKE AND SUBMITTAL PROCESS, THE ARCHITECTS AND THE ENGINEERS ARE SUPPOSED TO IDENTIFY WHICH, UH, SECTIONS OF 1704 APPLY, AND THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A DOCUMENT IDENTIFYING THOSE AND SEAL THAT DOCUMENT.
AND SO THIS IS JUST SOME ADDITIONAL INCLUSIONS INTO THE SEVEN, THE CHAPTER 1704 THAT ALREADY EXIST AND THE CITY ALREADY ENFORCE.
UH, DERIO MANAGER, UH, THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, SPECIAL INSPECTION AND BEEN IN THE CODE SINCE 2003 EDITION.
AND WE JUST, UH, CONTINUE IN ADDING TO IT.
LET'S GO TO OR ADOPT IS WRITTEN.
WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY GONNA BE ADOPT AS WRITTEN SINCE IT WAS JUST THE MASS TIMBER.
THIS IS CURRENT CSOSA AMENDMENT EXCAVATION NEAR FOUNDATIONS.
UM, IN REVIEWING THIS, WE FELT THAT THIS AMENDMENT COULD COME OUT.
WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE LANGUAGE WAS VERY ENFORCEABLE.
SO WE'VE ADDED DISPLACEMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
IS IT A LITTLE BITTY, A LITTLE BIT LOOSEY GOOSEY? LOOSE GOOSEY IS THE TECHNICAL TERM, MR. BIRTH, IT'S
[00:40:01]
UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE WHEN, WHEN THEY GO IN TO REPLACE PLUMBING, FOR EXAMPLE, SAMPLE UNDER A BUILDING, THEY'RE DIGGING UNDER THE BUILDING, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IS GOING TO, FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD, HAVE SOME EFFECT, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF EFFECT THAT NOBODY, YOU KNOW, SO YOU'RE, BUT THE PLUMBING LEAKING HAS A WORSE EFFECT.SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO, TO JUST LEAVE IN THAT SECTION, EXCAVATION NEAR FOUNDATIONS IN THE BUILDING CODES AS IS.
SO JUST REMOVING OUR AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT DISPLACEMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
AND JUST GOING STRAIGHT CODE LANGUAGE.
WHAT IS THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE CITY'S A, UH, CHAPTER 10 AMENDMENT.
IT, IT, IT JUST ADDS THE WORDS DISPLACEMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS MORE OR LESS.
THOSE OTHER ITEMS ARE JUST, UH, SMALL CHANGES THAT THE 2021 MADE.
SO WE WERE A LITTLE PROACTIVE IN UPDATING THE LANGUAGE, BUT WHAT WE'VE ADDED IS WHAT JASMINE HAS, UH, HIGHLIGHTED THERE.
SO WASN'T THAT AMENDMENT MADE TO, UM, BECAUSE WHAT DOES, UH, SHALL NOT REDUCE VERTICAL OR LATERAL SUPPORT.
I MEAN, THAT IS, THAT IS SOMEWHAT VAGUE IN, IN AND OF ITSELF.
SO I THINK INDUSTRY STANDARDS WAS ADDED IN THERE JUST TO GIVE SOME LEEWAY IN TERMS OF WHAT, WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER THIS PROVISION.
MR. RUST, UH, WHICH INDUSTRY STANDARDS ARE YOU REFERENCING HERE? THAT'S WHAT I
IF I'M, IF I'M PAYING FOR THE, UH, THE REPAIR, IT'S MY INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
I MEAN, THERE'S ALL, IF YOU ARE, UH, SIDE WHERE YOU HAVE A TRUCTURE ON, ON HILL, YOU'RE EXIT TALK ABOUT A LOT,
I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THAT WE STILL USE THE MICROPHONE.
CAN YOU GUYS THAT WATCHING FROM LINE ONLINE, BUT, UH, REAL FAST JUST TO KIND AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD LAST YEAR OR LAST ROUND, WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS CONSIDERABLY.
I THINK WE ARE THE ONES THAT ADDED THE DISPLACEMENT.
I THINK WE WENT INTO DETAIL OF, OF INCHES, UH, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO DEFINE IT BY SOME INCHES AND DOING SOME OTHER INDUSTRY RESEARCH.
AND I THINK WE ULTIMATELY CAME UP WITH, THERE WAS NO GOOD LIKE, SET INDUSTRY TO SAY HOW MUCH COULD IT DISPLACED BY, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST TOO VAGUE OF A VAGUE, AND WE KINDA LEFT THAT VAGUE STATEMENT.
SO
BUT, UH, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS HEAVILY DISCUSSED IN THE 2018 ADOPTION.
SO DOES REMOVING THIS AS INSPECTORS OR AS PEOPLE ENFORCING THE CODE, DOES THIS, I MEAN, I GUESS YOU'RE, YOU'RE THE PEOPLE THAT NEED TO TELL US IF THIS IS HELPFUL OR NOT IN TERMS OF WHEN THIS, WHEN THESE EXCAVATIONS ARE INSPECTED, IS THIS A MEANINGFUL ADDITION OR NOT? SO THIS SECTION DOES NOW KICK YOU BACK OVER TO 1803 0.5 0.7.
UM, WHERE THERE GOES INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE EXCAVATION NEAR FOUNDATIONS WHERE THE EXCAVATION WILL REDUCE SUPPORT FROM ANY FOUNDATION.
A REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SHALL PREPARE AN ASSESSMENT.
I THINK THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT, THAT REALLY HAS.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS STATEMENT HAS ANY IMPACT ON OUR REVIEW OR INSPECTION AND OPPORTUNITY TO ENFORCE A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
WAS THE AMENDMENT, I THINK IT'S CONFUSING.
WAS THE AMENDMENT ONLY FOR THE FIRST SECTION AND THE REMAINDER STAYS IN? OR DID IT WIPE EVERYTHING OUT? AND SO IT'S STRAIGHT CODE LANGUAGE AND WE ADDED ONE SENTENCE AT THE END, WE ADDED IT.
THAT SAYS THAT DISPLACEMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
YEAH, I JUST LEAVE IT BECAUSE IF YOU DO SOMETHING BIG, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET AN ENGINEER TO SEAL IT.
SO WE ARE GOING TO, UH, FILE THE STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH MAKES THEM MEAN HAPPY.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO 85 THEN.
UM, THESE ARE CHANGES TO 2109.
UH, WE ARE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT, THIS I'LL HAVE TO SHARE WITH YOU GUYS, WAS A, AN OOPSIE ON MY PART LAST TIME WE DID THIS.
UM, WE HAD MET WITH, UH, WITH STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE REALLY WANTING
[00:45:01]
TO GET THE EARTH AND CONSTRUCTION IN.UM, AND I ACCIDENTALLY FAILED TO INCLUDE IT IN THE FINAL CHAPTER 10 DOCUMENT IS REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
WE DISCUSSED IT, WE APPROVED IT, AND I DIDN'T ADD IT IN.
SO I GOT TO CREATE A CODE INTERPRETATION THAT INCLUDED THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE BEEN USING SINCE WE ADOPTED 2018.
SO THIS IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO NOW DO THE RIGHT THING AND GET THIS CODE LANGUAGE IN THE CHAPTER 10 AMENDMENTS.
SO, SO DO WE NEED AN AMENDMENT? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THAT ALL WAS AT, LIKE ALL THIS 2109 STUFF WAS ADDED TO, TO THE ACTUAL I B C.
SO IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AFTER THAT PRESENTATION FROM THE ADOBE HOUSE BUILDER PEOPLE, THAT IS, IS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THIS? AND DO WE NEED AN AMENDMENT OR CAN WE JUST JUST ADOPT THIS AS IT'S WRITTEN? SO IT DOES CHANGE, UM, INSTEAD OF ADOBE MASONRY, WE, THEY, THEY WANT IT REFERRED TO AS EARTH AND WALL SYSTEMS. UM, SO THERE ARE SOME CHANGES TO THIS.
UH, 2109 SECTION, SOME NEW ITEMS YOU SEE, GRAVITY LOAD SEISMIC, EVERYTHING THAT'S UNDERLINED IS A CHANGE TO THE, TO THE CODE LANGUAGE.
THE UNDERLINED ITEMS ARE ADDED.
THE STRIKETHROUGHS ARE OMITTED.
CRYSTAL, BASICALLY IN YOUR SUMMARY OF CHANGE, YOU'RE REFERENCING THE CODE INTERPRETATION 2018 DASH ZERO ONE, WHICH IS THIS DOCUMENT TO USE THIS LANGUAGE.
SO, UH, BASICALLY YOU'RE PUTTING BACK IN WHAT WAS ACCIDENTALLY NOT PUT IN IN 2018.
CRYSTAL, WHAT ABOUT THIS, UH, INCLUDES, BY THE WAY, THIS IS LEWIS
WHAT ABOUT, UH, ANY OR OTHER ORGANIC WALL SYSTEMS THEY HAVE OUT THERE? THEY HAVE HEMP WALLS, THEY HAVE ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF DIFFERENT, UH, THINGS COMING OUT.
ARE WE GONNA BE ACCEPTING THOSE OR DO WE GO WITH MANUFACTURER'S, UH, TESTING? WHAT ARE WE, SO WOULD, I THINK THAT WAS ONE REASON THEY PROPOSED INSTEAD OF JUST LIMITING TO ADOBE MASONRY THAT THEY HAD THE EARTHEN WALLS.
UM, BUT BEFORE WE HAD THIS CODE SECTION, WE DID, UH, WORK WITH THE, WITH THE DESIGN TEAM TO ALLOW THE, THE EARTH AND WALLS ANYWAY.
SO ANY, ANYTHING THAT'S NOT IN THE CODE, WE'LL STILL WORK WITH THEM TO COME UP WITH THOSE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.
OR IN, IN ONE CASE, IT WAS SOME FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS THAT WERE REQUIRED.
UM, SO ANYTHING NOT IN THE CODE, WE STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, APPROVE ALTERNATIVE METHODS.
THIS IS ROBERT HANDLING, NOT TO BE, UH, MAKE LIGHT OF IT, BUT SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD IT OUTTA BUBBLEGUM WRAPPERS.
AS LONG AS THEY CAN MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING CODE AND ALL THE TESTING REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S FINE.
SO I, I DON'T WANNA BE PEDANTIC ABOUT THIS, BUT IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE, THIS IS MOSTLY 2109 0.1 POINT SOMETHING, AND THEN WE'VE GOT 2109 0.2 0.48 STARTING THERE ALL THE WAY.
YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THAT ENTIRE PAGE IS NEW TO THE CODE.
HAS THAT BEEN DE DECONFLICTED? UM, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROPONENT AND SEE IF ANY OF THAT, UM, ADDED LANGUAGE MIKE HAS BEEN, UH, IF THEY WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE MODIFIED OR ADOPT AS WRITTEN.
SO MAYBE WE COULD, UM, TABLE THIS ONE AND LET THAT, THAT, THAT STAKEHOLDER GROUP HAVE A LOOK AND, AND MAKE MAYBE SOME RECOMMENDATION.
IS THAT, IS THAT UNREASONABLE OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THAT'S WORTH DOING OR POINTLESS OR WHAT THAT WORKS.
UM, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WERE SO MANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OR YOU, OR IF YOU GUYS, UM, AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT TO, UM, ADOPT THE CHANGE FOR EARTH AND EARTH AND WALL CONSTRUCTION.
OR WE CAN COME BACK WITH, YEAH, JUST BASICALLY YOU'RE GONNA GO INTO THE CODE, COPY IT LIKE IT IS AND DO A FINE AND REPLACE, AND EVERYWHERE IT SAYS, UH, ADOBE, YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE THAT TO EARTH AND CONSTRUCTION, EARTH AND WALL SYSTEMS, OR NOT EVERYWHERE, BUT REALLY TO 2109.
THAT PROBABLY THAT ENTIRE SECTION.
SO IT'LL BE A COUPLE OF PAGES, UM, LIKE THAT, LIKE THAT CODE INTERPRETATION AND MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS WELL.
THIS IS ROBERT HAMLEY CRYSTAL.
SO BASICALLY CODE INTERPRETATION, THE 2108 DASH ZERO ONE IS GONNA REPLACE A SECTION 2109 IN THE I B C.
[00:50:01]
WHEN YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THAT, TO SEE IF THERE'S OTHER STUFF THAT THEY'VE ADDED IN THAT MAY NEED TO BE ADDED IN TO THAT LANGUAGE? ABSOLUTELY.SO WE'RE GONNA TABLE 85 PENDING STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND THEN MOVE ON TO 86.
IS THAT, SO 86 IS A NEW SECTION TO 23 TO OH FOUR, 10.1.
AGAIN, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO MASS TIMBER.
ANY CONCERNS ON THIS? OKAY, THE ADOPT IS WRITTEN AND HEAD TO 87 PLEASE.
I'M GONNA JUMP TO 88 IF YOU GUYS ARE.
THIS IS REALLY WHERE MOST OF, UM, MOST OF THE ITEMS WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS ARE LOCATED.
SO THERE'S A NEW EXCEPTION, UM, TO 29 0 2 0.2.
WE'RE IN THE PLUMBING SECTION NOW.
SO THE NEWEST SEC, THE NEW EXCEPTION ALLOWS MULTIPLE USER FACILITIES TO SERVE ALL GENDERS.
AGAIN, AN EXCEPTION, THIS IS AN OPTION.
IT WAS, THERE WAS APPROVED LANGUAGE BY THE I P C COMMITTEE.
THEY, THEY MOVED TO APPROVE OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
SO IF YOU GUYS WILL GO TO 29 0 2, AND THIS IS, UM, EXCEPTION SIX.
SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT, UM, THAT IT READ SEPARATE FAC FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED WHERE ROOMS HAVING BOTH WATER CLOSETS AND LAVATORY FIXTURES ARE DESIGNED FOR USE BY BOTH SEXES AND PRIVACY FOR WATER CLOSETS ARMS. WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT TO READ THAT, WHERE MULTIPLE USER FACILITIES ARE DESIGNED TO SERVE ALL GENDERS.
SORRY, I'M READING THE WRONG ONE.
SEPARATE FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED WHERE ROOMS HAVING BOTH WATER CLOSETS AND LABORATORY FIXTURES ARE DESIGNED FOR USE BY BOTH SEXES AND PRIVACY FOR WATER CLOSETS AND URINALS IS PROVIDED WITH WALLS IN A DOOR.
SO WE WE'RE ON BOARD WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, GENDER NEUTRAL BATHROOMS, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRES THOSE, UM, WATER CLOSETS AND URINALS TO BE ENCLOSED, UM, WITH DOORS AND A WALL LIKE, LIKE A BUCKY'S.
SO MICHAEL
UM, SOMEBODY'S GOTTA JUMP ON THAT.
SO THERE'S A MIXED GENDER BATHROOM WITH URINAL.
THAT'S WHAT THE, THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS STARBUCKS.
BUT LIKE A SINGLE BATHROOM? NO, SO LIKE A, SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SINGLE USE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GANG RESTROOMS. YEAH.
THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR BOTH GENDERS STALLS.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULD HAVE A ROOM THAT MIGHT HAVE A URINAL IN IT, BUT THE URINAL ACCORDING TO THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A DOOR AND WALLS FLOOR TO CEILING.
SO THE CODE ALLOWS A MIXED GENDER BATHROOM TO HAVE A URINAL JUST HANGING OUT.
NO, IT DOES SAY LOCATED IN AN AREA VISUALLY SEPARATED FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE FACILITY.
THE CITY'S MAKING THE CHANGE HAVING SERVED ON THAT COMMITTEE.
INSTEAD OF BE VISUALLY SEPARATED, IT NEEDS TO BE A FLOOR TO CEILING WALL WITH A DOOR ON IT.
WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A GOOD COMPROMISE, UM, TO THE, THE NEW CODE LANGUAGE.
AND AGAIN, THIS LANGUAGE IS VERBATIM TO WHAT THE I P C COMMITTEE DID, UH, RECOMMEND.
ALL RIGHT, WELL IF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH A COMMITTEE, I'M FINE WITH IT.
I SUPPOSE THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY CRYSTAL.
SO THE I P C COMMITTEE IS THERE OVERLAP THE, SOME OF THE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE I B C, UH, COMPARED TO WHAT THE I P C'S DOING? OR DO WE JUST NEED TO PASS ON THIS? AND THE I P C SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT CHAPTER 29 IN THIS BOOK.
BUT THIS ISN'T THE BUILDING CODE.
WANTED TO BRING IT UP TO YOU GUYS IF THERE WAS ANY.
NO, WE WANT GENDER NEUTRAL BATHROOMS WITH URINALS OR IF THERE WAS OTHER LANGUAGE YOU FELT WAS APPROPRIATE.
I DON'T SEE A LOT OF FISH SHAKING HERE.
SO I THINK WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
SO WE CAN, UH, ADOPT 87 80, 88 CHOICE CRYSTAL.
ONE, ONE THING AFTER SITTING AND THINKING ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT AFTER THE PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL DEAL, I THINK SOMEWHERE WHEN YOU COME BACK WITH THE FINAL, FINAL LANGUAGE THAT YOU NEED TO
[00:55:01]
ALLOW FOR SOME KIND OF, UH, MAYBE SLAT VENTING ABOVE THE DOOR SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO PUT A SEPARATE EXHAUST FAN IN EVERY SINGLE ROOM, BUT WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T, MAYBE IT'S LOCATED ABOVE THE DOOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE IT CAN BE SECOND AIR FROM THE THAT'S A GOOD POINT.REGULAR ROOM, BUT YOU CAN'T GET LIKE A CAMERA.
I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY REALLY WANTS TO, TO HAVE THAT VIEW, THEY'RE GONNA DRILL A HOLE, YOU KNOW, BUT, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF EITHER SLAT VENTING THAT POINTS UP OR SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE OTHERWISE YOU COULD HAVE AN EXHAUST FOR EACH ONE.
WHICH IS ONE OF THE POINTS THAT ONE SOMEBODY MADE, ONE OF THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER MADE YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE THE WALLS AND ALL THAT.
THERE'S YES, BUCKY'S HAS WALLS ON THE THREE SIDES AND THE ENTRY DOOR SIDES.
THERE'S ABOUT A TWO FOOT GAP BETWEEN THE CEILING AND THE TOP OF THE DOOR AND ABOUT 12 TO 18 INCH GAP BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR AND THE FLOOR.
AND THAT'S ADEQUATE, BUT IT'S NOT A BUT IT'S NOT A SAME SEX BATHROOM THOUGH.
I MEAN, SO WHATEVER VENTILATION ALLOWANCES ARE PERMITTED NOW, THEY WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED FOR THESE ENCLOSURES.
SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING, MARK, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, IS THAT THIS LANGUAGE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FLOOR TO CEILING DOOR AND WALL, WHICH WOULD THEN REQUIRE EXHAUSTING OR VENTING INDIVIDUALLY.
SO THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT COST INCREASE FOR, FOR THESE STRUCTURES, WHICH MIGHT, IT'S ACTUALLY, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A TRADE OFF THOUGH, BECAUSE IT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE BATHROOMS AND YOU CAN HAVE A BANK OF SINKS THAT'S THAT SERVE BOTH, ALL THE BATHROOMS. YEAH, I MEAN, I I THINK THE MARKET'S GONNA HAVE A LOT TO SAY, SAY ABOUT THAT
WELL, NO, BUT, SO IF THERE'S JUST A WAY WHEN YOU'RE DRAFTING THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR SOME KIND OF, SO THIS IS THE EXACT LANGUAGE THAT WE PROPOSE.
UH, WE'LL BRING UP THE AMENDMENT WHERE WE'VE MODIFIED THE I P C.
SO THERE SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE CONCERNING THAT.
UM, THE VENTING IS THE, IS THE MAIN CONCERN HERE IF, IF IT'S GONNA REQUIRE A FAN, YES.
DO WE, DO WE DEFER TO THE PLUMBING COMMITTEE AND, AND KICK THIS BACK TO THE MECHANICAL PEOPLE? OR WE JUST LET THIS ROT, MY ROBERT LEY, MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE DEFER TO THE PLUMBING COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE MECHANICAL ON THESE TWO A AMENDMENTS.
SO THEY'VE ALREADY, THEY'VE ALREADY SAID IT'S OKAY.
AND THE PLUMBING, THE PLUMBING, I HEARD IT, IT DIDN'T COME BEFORE MECHANICAL.
THE MECHANICAL, NO, IT DIDN'T.
WE HAD, WE HAD CROSSOVER ON COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
YEAH, I, I THINK I WOULD REMEMBER.
SO WE ADDRESSED IT TO THE PLUMBING COMMITTEE, WHICH DID HAVE SOME MEMBERS ON BOTH THE PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL.
BUT AT THIS POINT, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DEFER TO THEM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT SCHEDULED TO MEET AGAIN UNTIL WE GO TO THE FULL BOARD.
SO IT'D BE, SO AT THIS POINT, IF THIS COMMITTEE DOES HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OR A CHANGE, WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AT THIS COMMITTEE LEVEL.
AND BASED ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT, WE MIGHT NEED TO RECONVENE THAT COMMITTEE.
BUT MOST LIKELY WE WOULD JUST TAKE IT TO THE FULL BOARD AND ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT.
YEAH, AND I'LL SAY, 'CAUSE I WAS ON THE MECHANICAL, WE DID, THIS TOPIC DID NOT COME UP IN MECHANICAL.
I THINK, UM, I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN OF THAT UNLESS I UNDERSTAND THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT WE HAD A FEW MEMBERS THAT WERE PART OF THE MECHANICAL, WE WERE ALSO PART OF THE COMMITTEE CRYSTAL PLUMBING CRYSTAL, WHERE IT SAYS WALLS, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO PROHIBIT SOME KIND OF SLAT VENT IN THAT WALL.
FULL OR SOLID OR THIS, THIS IS, THIS, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY.
JEREMY, LET ME ASK YOU, WAS THIS SUBJECT MATTER MATTER THAT THIS SUBCOMMITTEE IS STRUGGLING OVER ON ITEM 87 88 WAS NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL BY THE PLUMBING SUBCOMMITTEE? NO, IT WAS, THEY DID BRING UP THE VENTING AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
UM, AND SO DO THEY HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE DUPLICATE TO THIS, THESE TWO ITEMS? OR IS IT SEPARATE? BECAUSE I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS REALLY, IF WE HAVE A PLUMBING SUBCOMMITTEE, THESE TWO ITEMS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THEM, CORRECT? UH, NO, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK AS, UH, MR. ROSS HAS POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF IT WAS A ELECTIVE OPTION, IT WASN'T A REQUIRED OPTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A GENDER NEUTRAL
[01:00:01]
BATHROOM THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T FORCING THEM TO GO DOWN THAT AVENUE.IT'S JUST THAT THEY WENT DOWN THAT AVENUE.
HERE'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
UH, BUT ALSO, AS YOU'RE MENTIONING, THE SLATT VENTING WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF THIS CODE AND BE APPROVED AND PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, EXHAUST THROUGH THAT AREA AS NEEDED.
WILLIAM, YOU HAVE SOMETHING? BRIAN SMITH, WILLIAM BURRIS, UH, JEREMY.
THERE'D ALSO BE A, UH, A LIGHT FIXTURE FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE ROOMS TOO.
INSTEAD OF A LIGHT FIXTURE LIKE IN THE BATHROOM NOW SERVES MULTIPLE STALLS.
THAT WAS ALSO KIND OF ADDRESSED ON THE FIRESIDE FIRE SPRINKLERS FIRE.
UH, BUT ONCE AGAIN, WITH THE INTENT BEING THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT UP AS A, NOT A REQUIREMENT FROM THE STATE OR FROM THE CITY SAYING YOU HAVE TO INSTALL THESE TYPE OF, OF RESTROOM, UH, A GENDER NEUTRAL RESTROOM, THAT THIS IS ALL ELECTIVE, THAT WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS A COST INCREASE FOR ACTUAL REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS PER INDIVIDUAL BATHROOMS. SO, ALL RIGHT.
LET, I'D SAY WE ADOPT AS WRITTEN AND MOVE ON.
ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? OKAY.
THIS IS A CURRENT AMENDMENT, UM, TO SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES AND SAFETY DEVICES WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, AND TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW, THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE WE'VE ADOPTED THE INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE.
THAT WAS AN EXHAUST DIS UH, AN EXHAUSTIVE DISCUSSION.
ADOPT OR, UH, SO WE'LL REMOVE THE AMENDMENT AND GO TO 90 PLEASE.
SO 90 IS A NEW SECTION, 31 14.
SO THESE ARE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND SIZE LIMITATIONS FOR PUBLIC RESTROOM BUILDINGS IN FLOOD HAZARD AREAS.
SO VERY SPECIFIC, BUT BRAND NEW TO THE CODE.
IS THERE A, IS THERE A WHY TO THIS SOMEWHERE? SAN PEDRO CREEK? WELL, WE'VE HAD STANDALONE, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE DOING A RESTROOM FACILITY, UH, RIGHT HERE.
WHAT'S THAT? IT'S CALLED THE NAVARRO LOOP.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE BATHROOMS AND FLOOD ZONES.
I, I GUESS, I MEAN, IS THERE SOMETHING IN THIS LANGUAGE THAT IS MEANINGFUL IN SOME WAY TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE BATHROOMS? I MEAN THE CITY, I MEAN, THIS IS BASICALLY FOR ONLY APPLIES TO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES, CORRECT? I KNOW, I JUST, I I GUESS THE, THE, HERE'S THE, THE BASIS FOR THE QUESTION, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE, IN MY BUSINESS, WE HAVE, UM, HOMES THAT WE TRY TO, YOU KNOW, REMODEL AND GET BACK ON THE MARKET THAT HAPPEN TO BE IN FLOOD ZONES.
AND IT'S INFINITELY HARDER TO GET IT DONE.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO YOU'RE TRYING TO ADD HOUSING AND BECAUSE IT'S IN A FLOOD ZONE, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT AND MORE EXPENSIVE, YOU KNOW, FOR WHATEVER REASON.
UM, SO I JUST, I WONDER WHAT, WHAT THIS DOES AND YEAH, IT'S THE CITY PAYING FOR IT, BUT THAT'S OUR MONEY.
UM, SO I THINK IT, I THINK IT DOES MATTER AND IT MAY BE SOMETHING, UM, THAT WAS ADDED FOR, UH, POSSIBLY NOT IN OUR CLIMATE ZONE, MAYBE MORE COASTAL.
THAT'S WHAT THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, UM, ALLUDES TO WHERE THEY HAVE THOSE PUBLIC CHANGING AND SHOWER FACILITIES AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS.
THAT'S WHAT THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IS CALLING OUT.
WELL, BUT IF YOU HAVE A BATHROOM ACCORDING TO THIS, THAT'S LOCATED IN A FLOOD ZONE AND THE FLOOD ZONE IS 10 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND, YOU CAN'T PUT A BATHROOM IN 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T GET ALL THE FIXTURES ABOVE.
I, I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO JUST MOVE THE, WE STRIKE THIS WHOLE SECTION, THIS ROBERT HANLEY, UM, MARK, OBVIOUSLY, UH, THIS IS PROBABLY REFERRING TO NEW, UH, PUBLIC RESTROOMS AND NOT EXISTING BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD A NEW RESTROOM IN A FLOODPLAIN, IF THAT MAGNITUDE.
I MEAN THEY, IF THE CITY HAS A PARK AND THE WHOLE PARK IS FLOOD ZONE, THEY COULD PUT A BATHROOM IN, COULDN'T THEY? I THINK THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO WOULD RATHER HAVE A BATHROOM SOMEWHERE THAN BE PRECLUDED FROM HAVING ONE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET THIS, OR THE BOND ELECTION HAS TO GO UP BY A MILLION DOLLARS TO PAY FOR.
[01:05:03]
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE OPINION.I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A, A RECOMMENDATION TO STRIKE THIS.
I MEAN, MAYBE WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE CITY.
MAYBE WE TABLE IT AND GET A LITTLE MORE STUDY ON WHAT THIS ACTUALLY DOES OR DOESN'T DO FOR US.
UH, SO LOOKING AT IT, I MEAN, MARK BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT ON THE CONNECTION POINTS FOR PLUMBING, BUT THE REST OF IT SEEMS TO BE MORE OF THE BUILD OUT, MAKING SURE WE'RE USING FLOOD RESISTANT MATERIALS AND DESIGNING IT SO THAT IT DOESN'T LIFT UP AND BECOME DEBRIS.
UH, SO AT LEAST IT'S DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WERE TO FLOOD AND NOT BECOME BUOYANT AND THEN, UH, DETACH AND STAYS WHERE IT'S AT.
WHICH, YOU KNOW, YES THERE WOULD BE SOME COST INCREASE I ASSUME ON THE DESIGN FOR THAT.
BUT OVERALL IT ALSO IS A SAFETY FACTOR OF NOT HAVING ADDITIONAL DEBRIS IN THAT AREA IF IT DOES HEAVILY FLOOD.
BUT WE COULD LOOK AT THAT CONNECTION POINT AND WHAT IS THE NEED FOR THAT CONNECTION ON, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THAT DOES KIND OF DEFEAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE.
IF, IF THE ALL CONNECTIONS HAVE TO BE ABOVE WHERE THE ACTUAL FLOOD IS AT, HOW WOULD THAT DESIGN GO? SO WE MIGHT NEED SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT THAT MEANS.
BUT BEYOND THAT, I THINK THE REST OF THAT, IF GO BACK, IS PRETTY GOOD UP A PICTURE TO FOUR, THAT THAT'S WHAT THE BATHROOM'S GONNA HAVE TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FLOOD ZONE.
AND IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, HERE IN, IN TEXAS, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THE CITY'S SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RISKS ARE AND LET THEM DESIGN IT INTERNALLY WITHOUT HAVING A STANDARD THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET ROBERT LEY.
UH, CRYSTAL, WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE OF US APPROVING THIS NEW LANGUAGE? SORRY, THAT WAS THE EASIEST QUESTION I COULD COME UP WITH FOR YOU.
SO RESTROOMS LIKE IN ALMOST PARK THAT ARE IN A FLOOD PLANE ALL THE TIME WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT ANYMORE? NO, THEY COULD BE BUILT, BUT THEY WOULD'VE TO BE BUILT ON STILTS 55 FEET HIGH TO GET A THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
LIKE THEY ARE NOW, THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR LIKE A HUNDRED YEARS.
USED ALL THE TIME WITH FLOODS, THEN IT GOES AWAY.
I MEAN THEY, SO ARE WE NOW? IS THAT, WE'RE, WE'RE TREATING THOSE AREAS.
IF Y'ALL EVER DO ONE, IT'S GONNA BE LIKE A COASTAL AREA NOW.
YEAH, THAT BORDERLINES ON CRAZY.
I, I ACTUALLY MOVED TO STRIKE THIS.
I, I DON'T THINK, YEAH, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
SORRY, THIS LANGUAGE IS, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A KIND OF A, UH, SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN STRIKING 31 14.
DOES ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH THAT? OBJECTION.
I DON'T SEE IN THIS, UH, UH, 31 14 1 WHERE IT SAYS UP ABOVE, UH, THE FLOOD ELEVATION, IT JUST HAS TO BE FLOOD RESISTANT.
WHICH ONE? IT SAYS PLUMBING FIXTURES AND PLUMBING CONNECTIONS ARE LOCATED ABOVE THE BASE, THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, WHICH MEANS THAT 20 FOOT HIGH YOU'RE SCREWED.
THAT'S WHY I SAY SO, UH, JEREMY, YOU OR ME HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? UM, NO COMMENTS, NO COMMENT.
WE'RE GONNA, UH, THE, THE, THE, UH, OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE IS TO, UM, NOT ADOPT AS WRITTEN, BUT STRIKE 31 14 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO 91 INTERMODAL SHIPPING CONTAINERS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT IN 31 14, THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS THAT ALLOW YOU TO, UM, HAVE THE, UH, PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC FIXTURES BELOW THE BASE FLOOD.
DOES THAT CHANGE ANYBODY'S OPINION ON THIS? OKAY.
THIS IS A NEW SECTION, 31 15 FOR SHIPPING CONTAINERS.
UM, SPECIFICALLY 31, 15 0.3 THAT REQUIRES THAT SHIPPING CONTAINERS BEAR THIS DATA PLATE AND IT'S PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING OWNER.
ALL OF THESE ITEMS WE'RE PROPOSING TO STRIKE THAT.
SO THIS IS AGAIN, THE CODE CATCHING UP TO, UM, BUILDING MATERIALS THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN WORKING WITH.
[01:10:01]
UM, THIS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE AN ITEM.WE FEEL THAT THE, THAT THE DESIGNER OR PROCURER SHOULD, SHOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT.
IT WOULD JUST ADD ADDITIONAL COSTS AND REQUIREMENTS.
THIS ROBERT RY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, IF I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING OF ALL THIS NEW LANGUAGE IN 31 15 STRIKING THE SECTION 31 15 DASH THREE RELATED TO THE INTERMODAL SHIPPING CONTAINERS IN ITS ENTIRETY? NO.
STRIKING THAT SECTION ONLY? YEAH, BECAUSE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE OR READILY ACCESSIBLE OR READABLE OR, OKAY.
SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOOD WITH THE 91.
WE ARE GOOD WITH 31 15, WHICH IS SIMPLY TO STRIKE 31, 15 0.3.
THERE'S NO LANGUAGE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
92 IS A CURRENT AMENDMENT FOR COVERED WALKWAYS.
SO WE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION TO THE COVERED WALKWAYS SECTION.
SO WE'VE ADDED EXCEPTION B AND WE'RE BRINGING THAT OVER NOW.
SO THIS UNDERLINED LANGUAGE AND EXCEPTION B, WE SHOULD PROBABLY NAME NUMBER THEM ONE AND TWO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS.
BUT THAT UNDERLINED LANGUAGE IS WHAT WE'VE ADDED.
WELL THEN THEY NEED TO, OH, CAN YOU GO UP CRYSTAL? CAN YOU MOVE IT UP ON THE SCREEN? YOU PUT AN A IN FRONT OF.
ANY, ANY CONCERN ON OR CONVERSATION ON THIS? OKAY.
WE'LL, UH, KEEP THE AMENDMENT FOR 92 AND MOVE TO 93 92.
THAT'S A NEW SECTION FOR 33 0 7.
SO 33, UH, CHAPTER 33 IS SAFEGUARDS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
AND THIS IS SPECIFIC FOR PROTECTION OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
SO IT REQUIRES THOSE RETENTION SYSTEMS TO BE DESIGNED TO BY AN ENGINEER, THOSE EXCAVATION RETENTION SYSTEMS. WE WOULD ALREADY REQUIRE THIS, YES, NO PROBLEM.
UM, ADOPT IS WRITTEN AND MOVE TO 94.
WE RECOMMEND THAT WE REVIEW THOSE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT WANTED TO BRING THOSE UP AS NEW, UH, SECTIONS AND CHANGES TO 33 13 AND 33 14 FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
SO ANY ACTION BY THIS COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE TO DO ANYTHING EXCEPT, UM, RATIFY THE DECISION TO REVIEW WITH S A F D BEFORE ANY ADOPTION IS MADE.
IF YOU GUYS WANTED TO DISCUSS IT OR, UH, YOU WOULD REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE CAN WORK ON THAT BEFORE WE REVIEW WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO THEN THIS WILL, THIS COMMITTEE WILL MEET AGAIN TO REVIEW THESE ITEMS AFTER THAT CONVERSATION HAS HAPPENED.
YOU GUYS WILL BE REVIEWING THE FIRE CODE AS WELL.
SO THE SAME WITH THESE ITEMS WILL JUST BE PRODUCED INTO THE SHEET.
WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE FIRE CODE, WE'LL ADD, WE'LL ADD, WE'LL BRING THESE UP, UM, AS ITEMS DURING THAT, UH, REVIEW.
IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T, WE'LL BRING THESE UP AS LONG AS THEY DON'T GET LOST IN THE SIGNS.
AND, UM, AS PART OF OUR CHAPTER 10 AMENDMENTS, WE ADOPT APPENDIX H.
SO THIS AMENDMENT, CURRENT AMENDMENTS WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP ADDRESSES, UH, ITEMS FOR SIGNS.
[01:15:02]
SO THE UNDERLYING LANGUAGE IS WHAT WE HAVE ADDED TO APPENDIX H.IT'S ALL JIVES WITH CHAPTER 26.
AND WE'LL ALSO BE REVIEWING THAT THIS YEAR, UH, FOR ANY CHANGES.
SO ANY CHANGES THAT ARE MADE, UM, WITH THAT, UH, DURING THAT PROCESS WOULD BE DUPLICATED HERE IF NEEDED.
UH, YOU'RE, I SEE WHERE YOU REFERENCED CHAPTER 28, BUT DOESN'T CHAPTER 35 ALSO HAVE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS? IT DOES CHAPTER, YOU'RE RIGHT, CHAPTER 35 DOES HAVE SOME SIGN REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
SO WHEN THAT SUBCOMMITTEE TO GO OVER SIGNS HA MEETS, ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THEY MAKE WOULD COME TO THE FULL BOARD TO BE APPROVED IN LIKE, SO CHANGES TO I B C WOULD BE MADE AT THAT POINT BY THE, BY THE BIG BOARD? YES.
SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP IT AS WRITTEN.
AND THEN AGAIN, ANY, ANY FALLOUT FROM THOSE DISCUSSIONS WOULD BE DUPLICATED HERE IF NEEDED.
THIS IS REALLY ABOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS PER SUBMITTING DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
CRYSTAL CHAPTER 28 IS MORE ABOUT SIZE AND LOCATION AND RESTRICTIONS IN THAT REGARD.
ONE ISSUE THAT WE'RE HAVING, AND IT'S BECOMING MORE, UH, REGULAR, IS ON THE SIGNS ON OUR, SOME OF OUR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
THEY WERE BUILT, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS AGO AND HAS A SIGN CASE AND WE WANT TO REPLACE THE SIGN CASE BECAUSE IT'S, UH, DETERIORATING.
BUT UNDER THE NEW CODE AND THE NEW STANDARDS, EVEN THOUGH THE SIGN'S BEEN UP AND BEEN THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WINDS OVER 30 YEARS, YOU CAN'T REPLACE THE CASE BECAUSE THE NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STRUCTURE OF THE SIGN DON'T MEET THE CURRENT CODE.
HOW IS THERE SOME WAY TO ADDRESS THAT, THAT IF YOU'RE JUST REPLACING WHAT'S UP THERE NOW WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND IT DOESN'T WEIGH ANYMORE AND IT DOESN'T CREATE ANY MORE WIN LOAD, THAT YOU CAN JUST MAKE THAT REPLACEMENT WITHOUT HAVING TO DO A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF? I THINK THAT WAS A LONG WAY OF SAYING HE VOLUNTEERS FOR THE CHAPTER 28 SUBCOMMITTEE.
NO, THIS, THIS, THIS IS, I MEAN, THOMAS, WE, WE WILL TABLE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN WE DISCUSSED CHAPTER 28.
THAT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS WE HAVE ON THE LIST.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, I THINK REAL QUICK, I'D LIKE TO GET TO APPROVE WHAT WE DID TODAY AND THEN GO BACK AND REVIEW WHAT WE DID YESTERDAY, RIGHT? 'CAUSE WE HAVE SOME GO BACKS.
UM, BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, CAN YOU TO CATCH ME UP ON ITEMS WHEN I, WHEN I WASN'T HERE YET? UH, ITEMS, UH, 59 THROUGH 66 OR SEVEN, WERE THERE ANY CHANGES OR DID WE ADOPT ALL HIS WRITTEN IN TAKEOFF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS? ITEM NUMBER 60 WAS DELETED.
WELL, YOU, THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE.
SO THE CHANGES FROM WHAT WE'VE REVIEWED TODAY WOULD BE WE DE UH, DELETED 20, WE JUST DELETED 1207.
UM, THAT SECTION ITEM NUMBER 60, WELL, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T DELETE IT, IT WAS A PROPOSAL TO RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT THAT REMOVES THAT SECTION FROM THE ADOPTED LANGUAGE.
SO WE'RE GONNA PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT THAT STRIKES OUT 1207 ALTOGETHER.
SO 1207, WE'RE GONNA PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THAT SECTION IN ITS ENTIRETY.
AND THEN, UM, TABLE 85, THE ADOBE MASONRY FOR STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION.
ITEM 90, UM, OUR PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO STRIKE 31 AND THEN TABLE 94 95, THE
SO IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY.
UH, IF WE'RE GONNA PROVE ANY OF THE PREVIEW YESTERDAY'S TABLED, WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO JUST TO INCLUDE THOSE IN THE MOTION? YEAH, THAT'S A, THAT'S A METHOD.
I THINK THIS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T MIND DOING TWO, TWO MOTIONS JUST TO CLEAN, JUST TO BE KIND OF CLEAN ABOUT IT.
THE OTHER THING ON, UH, 84, WE ELIMINATED THAT LAST SENTENCE, RIGHT? 84.
THE RECOMME RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF WAS TO REMOVE A AMEND, REMOVE THAT AMENDMENT, AND WE TOOK
[01:20:01]
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.I'M BRIAN SMITH, SO I MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE AS AS REQUESTED.
CAN I GET A SECOND? ROBERT HANLEY SECOND.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? OKAY, THAT PICKED, THAT PICKED UP WHAT WE DID YESTERDAY.
WE'RE GONNA GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT YESTERDAY.
YESTERDAY WE APPROVED, ROBERT TRIED TO FIX ME, BUT I, I WANT TO, I WANT TO BE, I WANT TO KEEP IT KIND OF CLEAN.
ANY OPPOSED? DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE IS.
SO WE'LL GO BACK AND, AND LOOK AT THE, UH, ITEMS THAT WE TABLED YESTERDAY OR WHICHEVER ONES YOU'RE PREPARED TO, TO, TO DISCUSS.
NUMBER EIGHT, WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT YESTERDAY OR, OR TODAY.
UM, WE RECOMMEND TO REVIEW WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DURING THOSE, DURING THE REVIEW OF THE I F C.
AND THEN, SO 18, WE'VE ADDED SOME LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN.
WE ACTUALLY PROPOSED TO REWRITE IT A LITTLE BIT.
YOU CAN SEE THOSE CHANGES IN, UM, IN RED.
SO IN RED IS OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE, AND WE DID VERIFY THAT SECTION 10 0 6 0.3 ADDRESSES EGRESS FROM ROOFTOP FROM OCCUPIED ROOFS.
IS THAT REPETITIVE OF THE CODE SECTION AND THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT? SO THERE'S NO AMENDMENT YET.
SO WHAT'S IN RED IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD TO SECTION IN BLACK IS THE, THIS IS WHAT WE THINK WE'RE GONNA SAY.
AND THEN RED IS, THIS IS HOW WE SAID IT.
BLACK IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY AND RED IS WHAT WE'RE COMING BACK WITH YOU GUYS WITH TODAY.
MARK, DOES THAT SATISFY THE CONCERNS YOU HAD ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY? BUT I, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO CAN SOMEONE COVER 100% OF THE ROOF WITH A LIKE MESH SCREEN? YES.
OR LANDSCAPING? JASMINE WILL ELABORATE.
WE HAD MUL, WE HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT.
THE ANSWER IS YES, A HUNDRED PERCENT.
UM, WE LOOKED AT THE DEFINITION FOR CANOPY, UM, OUT OF THE I B C, UM, ROOFTOP STRUCTURES, PENTHOUSES, SO CORRECT.
SO FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT WITH A FABRIC SORT OF TENSILE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED, UM, IN THIS ONE THIRD LIMIT OF THE ROOF AREA, THEN I'M OKAY.
WE, UM, THE TABLE THIS 20, WELL I JUST WANNA DOUBLE CHECK.
UM, THAT, UM, WILLIAM, WERE YOUR, UM, ITEMS YOUR CONCERNS ADDRESSED REFERENCING HEIGHTENED AREA? SO WE DID WHERE'S, WHERE'S THE, THIS IS 18 STILL 18 STILL APOL APOLOGIES WILLIAM, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS AS WELL.
UM, SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD THIS TO 5 0 3 0.1 0.4 0.1, AND THE EXCEPTION TO THAT IS PENTHOUSES CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1511 0.2 AND TOWERS DOMES SPIS THAT.
SO WE FELT THAT ADDING, UM, THIS LANGUAGE IN RED TO, UM, 1.4 0.1 AND KEEP THAT EXCEPTION, UM, WOULD STILL ADDRESS THOSE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
SO THE PENTHOUSES AND ALL THOSE OTHER ITEMS WOULD STILL, UM, COMPLY WITH 1511 THAT WORK.
AND WE DID VERIFY THE EGRESS, UM, IS COVERED IN CHAPTER 10.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE 18 IS SOLVED.
21 IS THE NEXT ONE THAT WE HAD.
I THINK IF I CAN READ MY HANDWRITING.
IT SAYS WE WANTED SOME CLARITY ON WHAT THE WORDING WAS ON THIS.
SO WE DID SPEND SOME TIME WITH THIS ONE AS WELL.
SO THIS NEW SECTION 5 0 6 0.3 0.31 IS, WAS ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION IN THE 2018 TO THE, THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE SECTION.
SO YOU WOULD TAKE THAT FACTOR IN THE TABLE 5 0 6 0.3 0.3 0.1, YOU WOULD TAKE THAT FACTOR AND YOU WOULD USE IT IN EQUATION FIVE DASH ONE.
[01:25:02]
SO THAT'S ALLOWABLE AREA DETERMINATION.SO ON PAGE FIVE DASH SIX THERE'S AN EQUATION AND YOU WOULD USE THIS AREA FACTOR INCREASE IN THAT EQUATION.
CRYSTAL, WHAT WOULD THE, I GUESS THAT MY, MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE A SUB T THEN? BECAUSE IT, IT'S UNLIMITED AREA.
WELL THIS IS, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU USE AS YOUR BASE? A SUB T? SO THIS IS UNLIMITED EXCEPT YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE UNLIMITED BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE 60 FOOT, UH, OPEN SPACE.
SO THE A SUB T IS FROM THE TABLES FOR ALLOWABLE AREA.
WILL YOU? YEAH, A SUB T THE TABULAR ALLOWABLE AREA IN, IN TABLE 5 0 6 0.2 BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT UNLIMITED BECAUSE IT'S NOT MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNLIMITED.
SO WE DID SEE WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS THAT THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED AS AN EXCEPTION.
SO HEY, YOU'RE MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNLIMITED EXCEPT FOR THE 60 FOOT OPEN SPACE.
YOU CAN STILL USE THE FRONTAGE INCREASE.
SO IT WAS PREVIOUSLY AN EXCEPTION TO 5 0 6 0.3 0.2 WHERE IT SAYS A BUILDING THAT MEETS THE MEETS SECTION 5 0 7 FOR UNLIMITED EXCEPT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM 60 FOOT, UM, CAN USE THE VALUE OF W 30 30 FEET AND NOT TO EXCEED 60.
SO IT'S ALLOWING YOU STILL THAT, UM, INCREASE IF YOU'RE BETWEEN 30 AND 60 FEET.
IF YOU'RE MORE THAN 60, YOU MEET UNLIMITED.
SO THERE IS NO ALLOWABLE AREA TO CONSIDER.
IF YOU WANT SOME TI SOME MORE TIME TO MOLD THAT OVER, WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT.
BUT, UM, WE LOOKED AT THAT AND, AND DETERMINE THAT THE, THAT YOU WOULD USE THAT EQUATION FIVE ONE.
I'LL, I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT A LITTLE CLOSER.
I I'M JUST CONFUSED HOW YOU GET A BUILDING LIKE THE TOYOTA MANUFACTURING FACILITY THAT LARGE AND IT'S UH, 58 FEET FROM THE, UM, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO RELEGATE IT BACK TO REGULAR ALLOWABLE AREA CALCS AND YOU'LL NEVER GET IT AS BIG AS IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF A ONE FOOT DIFFERENCE.
BUT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE SAME REQUIREMENT IN THE 2018, RIGHT? IF IT WAS LESS THAN 60 FEET, YOU COULDN'T USE UNLIMITED BECAUSE UNLIMITED REQUIRES 60 FEET.
BUT, UM, 5 0 7 0.2, IT TELLS YOU WHAT TO DO IF YOU HAVE A REDUCED OPEN SPACE.
SO IF YOU DO HAVE THAT REDUCED OPEN SPACE, YOU STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT, THAT, THAT THERE WERE NO CHANGES FOR THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT IS JUST A TABULAR.
UM, THIS TABLE IS JUST A TABULAR, UH, VERSION OF THOSE EQUATIONS THAT WE, WE, WE WOULD USE TO DETERMINE THE ALLOWABLE AREA.
UM, SO 21, WE CAN ALSO GO BACK TO ADOPT.
SO THE NEXT ONES WERE 40 THROUGH 44.
ARE WE STILL GONNA PEN FIRE DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION ON THAT? YES.
WE'LL, WE'LL UM, HAVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TAKE THE LEAD ON THOSE AND WE'LL JUST DUPLICATE ANY CHANGES, UM, TO THE I B C SECTIONS BECAUSE THOSE CHAPTER NINES ARE IDENTICAL, ALMOST IDENTICAL IN THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE.
SO WE'LL LET THE FIRE, UM, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND UH, THIS COMMITTEE DETERMINE WHAT, WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED TO THOSE SECTIONS.
THOSE WOULD INCLUDE THE, THE GRADE ISSUE THAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, CORRECT? ONE OF THOSE SLOW DOWN.
[01:30:02]
I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.MARK, I THINK THAT WAS IN CHAPTER FIVE.
THAT WAS THE, UH, DID WE WANNA GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT THAT ONE? NO, THAT WAS FOR R ONES AND TWOS TYPE THREE CONSTRUCTION.
YOU GUYS READY FOR 45? 45 WAS APPROVED BUT YOU JUST HAD AN INFORMATION REQUEST.
YEAH, AND WE ARE READY FOR THIS ONE.
SO IT'S NOT T E A, IT'S N F P A 1 0 1.
THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THE, UH, NO, NOT ON THE OR IT HAS TO BE ON THE LEVEL OF EXIT DISCHARGE BASICALLY.
SO IT'S NOT D NUMBER 1 0 1, UM, NUMBER 45.
SO NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD MAKE US GO BACK AND CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP HIS WRITTEN OR KEEP WE'RE COMPATIBLE.
WE WERE GONNA SEE IF THERE WAS ANY TASK STANDARD UM, THAT CONFLICTED WITH THIS.
WE ADOPTED IT AS WRITTEN, BUT THAT WAS THE INFORMATION REQUEST ON 51.
WE COULD NOT FIND ANY TOSS STANDARD.
UM, THE ONLY PLACE THAT WE DID FIND US WAS IN THE ANSI STANDARD, THE A ONE 17.
THIS SPECIFIC ITEM FOR THE ROTATIONAL FORCE IS NOT IDENTIFIED.
THEY'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PUSHING FORCE.
UM, AND UNLATCHING BUT NOT THE ROTATIONAL FORCE OF 2128 INCH POUNDS.
ROTATIONAL FORCE DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE NOW, BUT FOR A D A STANDARDS YOU HAVE TO USE LEVERS.
WELL, I MEAN ISN'T THIS THE ROTATION OF THE LEVER FORCE THEN? OKAY.
ISN'T THIS TO PROTECT SOMEBODY FROM GETTING LIKE KILLED BY THE DOOR THAT SLAMS IN THEIR BACK? I THINK IT'S TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT TOO HARD TO OPEN AND GET OUT.
HEY MARK, JASMINE DID POINT OUT THAT THE ITEM WE THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS NUMBER 40 TO DISCUSS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE DID NOT, UM, ADOPT THAT ONE.
WE WERE GONNA GET SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE BATTERY TIME, UM, TO ELIMINATE THE EGRESS MARKINGS REQUIREMENT.
SO THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT PLACES I FOUND IN THE BUILDING CODE THAT ADDRESSES THE DURATION.
SO FOR EMERGENCY LIGHTING IN 10 0 8, THERE'S A SECTION THAT ADDRESSES DURATION FOR 90 MINUTES.
AND THEN IN CHAPTER 27, WHICH IS ELECTRICAL, THERE'S A SECTION THAT ADDRESSES DURATION FOR TWO HOURS.
SO IF YOU GUYS, UM, WANT TO, UM, THIS AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE OFFERING AN ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION TO REQUIRE THOSE LUMINOUS EGRESS STRIPS AND INSTEAD YOU CAN PROVIDE THESE BATTERY BACKUP LIGHTING.
SO THE QUESTION WAS HOW LONG SHOULD THEY LAST? I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING THAT IF IT IS CONSIDERED A BATTERY BACKUP LIGHTING, THESE STANDARDS WOULD APPLY PERIOD WITHOUT US HAVING TO REFERENCE THOSE CODE SECTIONS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
OR WE COULD PUT SOMETHING HERE SPECIFIC, UM, FOR THIS EXCEPTION IN HIGH RISES.
SO CRYSTAL, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, A PROJECT COMES IN AND A, UH, SPECIFIED LIGHT LIGHTING FIXTURES FOR THE STAIRWAYS.
UH, SO A APPLICANT CAN COMPLY WITH EITHER 27 0 2 0.5 OR THEY CAN COMPLY WITH TEN EIGHT, THREE FOUR CORRECT.
I THINK 1008 IS PROBABLY THE MORE APPLICABLE 'CAUSE IT'S SPECIFIC TO MEANS OF EGRESS ELIMINATION.
[01:35:01]
FOR GENERATOR SYSTEMS, RIGHT? AND THAT STANDBY POWER.SO IS THE 90 MINUTES GOOD WILLIAM, YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE FOR THIS EXCEPTION, THIS ALLOWANCE? YEAH.
I MEAN THE REAL PROBLEM, AND IT DOESN'T HAPPEN REAL OFTEN IS WHEN YOU GET INTO A SITUATION LIKE WE HAD IN FEBRUARY, YOU KNOW, STORM MCDON AND THE POWER IS OUT IN THE BUILDING FOR DAYS AND, AND THE, YOU KNOW, BUT AT THAT POINT IF THE DOORS HAVE ALL BEEN CLOSED AND NO LIGHTS ARE LIGHTING UP THE LUMINOUS THINGS, IT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT THEY LOSE THEIR, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOUR WATCH, IF YOU PUT IT IN A CLOSET DARK, IT'S NOT GONNA BE LIGHTING.
SO I, I MEAN I THINK WE JUST ADOPT IT LIKE IT IS.
AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST TO BE CLEAR THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED THAT 1 0 0 8 0.34 STANDARD.
WELL WILLIAMS POINT WAS THAT THE AMENDMENT NEEDED TO HAVE A A TIME.
WILLIAM CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IN THIS, THAT THE AMENDMENT SHOULD SAY HOW LONG THE BATTERIES NEED TO BE OPERATIONAL, RIGHT? ISN'T THAT'S SIMPLER THAN CROSS-REFERENCING? OR IS AM I MISREADING THIS? NO, I I THINK CROSS-REFERENCING THE CHAPTER 10 IS, IS FINE.
IT, IT'S DIRECTING 'EM THERE AND THAT'S WHERE THE DURATION IS FOUND.
SO WHAT WOULD THAT LANGUAGE SAY IN THIS AMENDMENT NOW? JUST REFERENCE THE SECTION.
DURATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH I B C SECTION 1008 0.34.
YEAH, I MEAN I, I I JUST WANTED IT WRITTEN IN THE BOARD SO THAT WE COULD APPROVE IT.
CRYSTAL, THAT 1008 0.3 0.4 THEN KICKS YOU TO 27 0 2 ANYWAY.
SO THAT'S THE ONES THAT WE, THAT'S EVERYTHING WE TABLED OR, OR HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT YESTERDAY.
SO I'D ACCEPT THE MOTION TO ACCEPT 18 AND 21 AS PRESENTED AND 55 AS WE CHANGED HERE.
UM, I HATE TO NOT DO TO DO THIS WHEN BRIAN STEPPED OUT, BUT I THINK HE WAS OKAY WITH IT.
SO ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS
ANY OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? OKAY, WE'RE DONE.
UM, SO REAL FAST CHAIR AND COMMITTEE.
SO THAT I THINK CONCLUDES OUR REVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE EXCEPT FOR A FEW ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS AS WE'RE COMMUNICATING WITH THE I F C.
SO I'LL MAKE SURE TO ADD, UH, AT LEAST FOR ONE OF THE THREE MEETINGS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE SCHEDULED WITH FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT TO COME AND DISCUSS I F C.
WE'LL ADD THE I B C BACK TO THAT AGENDA ITEM SO WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE FEW ITEMS AND MAKE SURE ANY AMENDMENTS, ESPECIALLY CHAPTER NINE AND ANY OTHER OVERLAPPING AMENDMENTS, ARE CONSISTENT ACROSS BOTH, BOTH CHAPTERS SO THAT ANY TRADE CAN BE WORKING UNDER THE SAME THING.
QUICK QUESTION, DO YOU HAVE THIS FORM LIKE THE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE I B C AND I M C AND EVERYTHING WITH THE CHANGES.
ANY YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, IS THAT BEEN COMPLETED BY S A F D FOR THE, FOR THE I F C AND AND YOU ALL OR DO WE, IS THAT STILL PENDING? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY HAVE.
BUT WE'RE GONNA WORK ON COORDINATING WITH THEM.
THOSE MEETINGS AREN'T SCHEDULED TO START UNTIL MAY 5TH, SO, UH, WE'LL WORK ON COORDINATING WITH THEM, UM, AND SEE WHAT THEIR, UH, PROPOSAL LOOKS LIKE AND WE'LL RECOMMEND OUR, UM, OUR SETUP.
I JUST ASKED BECAUSE I THINK THERE, THERE'S MORE, PROBABLY MORE BACKGROUND STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT MIGHT BE WARRANTED FOR THE, FOR SOME OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE IT COMES BEFORE COMMITTEE.
SO SOONER THE BETTER, I GUESS CLARIFICATION CRYSTAL OR JEREMY.
SO ARE WE MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY THE 30TH AT ONE O'CLOCK? SO THAT'S GREAT.
UH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE WANTED TO DISCUSS.
SO WE KIND OF WRAP UP THE I B C EXCEPT FOR A FEW ITEMS. THAT BEING SAID, WE STILL KIND OF HAVE THE ADULT CHANGING STATION.
I WANT TO GIVE THE AVENUE FOR OUR DISABILITY ACCESS OFFICE TO COME AND DISCUSS WITH Y'ALL.
THEY HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GIMME A DATE OF WHEN THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOUR MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR
[01:40:01]
THIS COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THE I B C.UH, ONE SUGGESTION STAFF HAS IS WE CAN MAYBE MOVE UP THE, I THE EXISTING EX, I'M SORRY, INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, MAYBE MOVE THAT FORWARD THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR ONLY ONE MEETING.
WE'RE HOPING WE CAN GET THAT DONE.
IT GIVES US THAT FREE WEEK IF SOMETHING WERE TO PUSH, WE CAN ALWAYS FILL THAT MEETING BACK UP SO WE CAN MOVE THAT ONE FORWARD AT ANY TIME.
UM, AND THEN MAYBE, SO WE HAVE FOUR OF THOSE MEETINGS.
ONE RECOMMENDATION BE, I KNOW WE HAD LAST, LAST MEETING WE HAD.
BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA DO IT LIKE THAT, I'M OKAY WITH THAT 'CAUSE I'LL, IF, IF YOU CAN, DO YOU HAVE THAT SECTION LIKE DONE DONE? NO, THEY'RE MEETING ON THAT ON TUESDAY.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION MIGHT BE LET'S TABLE ANY MEETINGS FOR NEXT WEEK.
UH, LOOK AT THE TWO MEETINGS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE SCHEDULED FOR THE WEEK.
I'M SORRY I DON'T HAVE THE DATES IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I THINK THAT'S, UH, FIRST, FIRST WEEK IN APRIL.
UH, SO THAT WOULD BE ONE MEETING BE THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE.
THE SECOND MEETING BEING, UH, ONCE AGAIN THE I B C DISCUSSING THE ADULT CHANGING STATIONS.
I WOULD REACH OUT TO OUR DISABILITY OFFICE, LET 'EM KNOW WHICH ONE OF THOSE WOULD WORK BEST FOR THEM.
AND THEN WE JUST SCHEDULE AROUND THAT.
SO WHETHER IT'D BE THE, SO THAT I THINK IS A THURSDAY AND A FRIDAY OR A THURSDAY AND A WEDNESDAY, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH.
IT'S WEDNESDAY THE SIXTH AND THURSDAY THE SEVENTH.
I MEAN, IS THERE A WAY TO DO BOTH OF THOSE IN THE SAME, I MEAN WE COULD, WE COULD HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE THAT THE SAME MEETING IF I, AT THAT POINT I WOULD PUSH FOR THEM TO COME IN ON THAT WEDNESDAY AND THEN WE JUST HAVE THAT THURSDAY AVAILABLE.
UH, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA AND HAVE IT POSTED.
WE CAN ALWAYS CANCEL IF WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT.
BUT YEAH, IF, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THAT CONVERSATION TAKES, UM, I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA RECOMMEND THAT THEY COME, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, I'VE ASKED THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT WHAT OCCUPANCY THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, WHAT REQUIREMENTS SO THAT IT'S MORE OF A, YOU KNOW, LET Y'ALL SEE WHAT THEIR, THEIR THOUGHTS ARE.
I MIGHT, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT'S GONNA TAKE AND HOW LONG AND KIND OF DISCUSSION THAT COULD TAKE AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD LEAVE US TIME FOR THE AND CAN YOU ASK THEM TO, WHEN THEY DO THAT, BE PREPARED TO SHOW SOME PICTURES OF WHAT THAT MEANS SO WE CAN GET AN IDEA OF THE SCALE OF, OF WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE, BECAUSE I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF US HAVE EVER SEEN WHAT THAT IS.
I MEAN WE DID PRESENT THIS AND I THINK SOME MEMBERS OF THE BABY CHANGING STATION, BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF BROUGHT UP DURING THE BABY CHANGING, CHANGING STATION, UH, C C R AND APPROVAL THAT THEY KIND OF WANTED TO TAILOR IN AND ADD THE ADULT CHANGING STATION.
SO WE DID HAVE A, UM, A PRESENTATION FROM DISABILITY SA THAT DID SHOW SOME OF THOSE.
AND IT SCALES VARIOUSLY, I MEAN IT COULD BE A, A HARD SURFACE THAT'S THREE FEET TALL THAT COULD BE USED ALL THE WAY UP TO A PLATFORM THAT IS ELECTRON, ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED, THAT ALLOWS FOR SOMETHING TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND SO SOMEBODY CAN GET ON IT AND THEN RAISED UP TO OPERABLE POSITION.
SO IT, THERE'S, THERE'S A BIG VARIANCE SO THAT, THAT, SO IT'S BASICALLY A BABY CHANGING STATION THAT'S LARGER TO FIT AN ADULT ON CORRECT.
HEAVIER WEIGHTS AND LARGER PLATFORM, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IS MASSIVELY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN JUST THE BABY CHANGING.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PRICING TO ABLE SAY, YES SIR.
BUT, BUT ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'LL MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE PREPARED TO PRESENT AS MUCH INFORMATION TO Y'ALL AS POSSIBLE.
I'VE KIND OF LET THEM KNOW WHAT CONVERSATIONS WE HAD DURING THE BABY CHANGING STATION SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO SURF OUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF.
I, I'VE KIND OF, I'VE, I'VE GIVEN MY INTERN LIKE EVERYTHING I HAD FROM THE BABY CHANGING STATION AND CHOOSE WORKING WITH THAT GROUP AND I KIND OF SAID, LOOK, DIG THROUGH THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT ANY CONVERSATION WE HAD FOR THE BABY CHANGING STATION WILL AT LEAST HAVE AN ANSWER FOR BEFORE WE COME TO THIS COMMITTEE.
SO NO, WEDNESDAY OR FRIDAY NEXT WEEK.
IF THE COMMITTEE'S OKAY WITH THAT, THAT'S COMPLETELY UP TO THE COMMITTEE.
BUT CAN YOU GET US, CAN YOU, IF YOU HAVE THE OTHER STUFF DONE, CAN YOU JUST GET WHATEVER WE'RE GOING OVER THE FOLLOWING WEEK EARLY? I'LL ASK THE DATE EARLIER.
YEAH, LIKE NEXT WEEK RATHER THAN THE DAY BEFORE.
SO THAT MAYBE WE MOVE WE'LL DO OUR BEST.
OH, FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING? YEAH, NO, THAT'S, I'M SORRY.
AND MAYBE IF WE, IF WE FINISH WITH THE BA THE ADULT CHANGING STATIONS, UM, THE NEXT MEETING AFTER, THAT'S FOR I R C.
SHOULD WE BE PREPARED AND PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO, TO START I R C DISCUSSIONS? IF WE GET DONE EARLY? NO, IF IT'S ALL ONE COMMITTEE AND WE'RE READY TO TALK ABOUT IT, I SAY WE JUST, WE JUST GO, WE JUST GO FORWARD.
THAT'S, WELL I THINK THAT WOULD BE, DO WE MEET, 'CAUSE I DON'T SEE US GETTING THROUGH THE BABY CHANGING STATION, THAT EXISTING BUILDING CODE AND MOVING INTO THE I R C IN ONE MEETING.
SO THAT WOULD BE, IF WE MEET ON WEDNESDAY AND WE CAN GET THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, WE WOULD, WE WANNA MEET AGAIN ON THAT THURSDAY AND READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE I R C OR AS LONG AS LONG AS WE COMMUNICATE WITH LIKE THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND LET THEM KNOW, LIKE, OR OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, LET THEM KNOW THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THE PLAN IS.
IF THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT THE SCHEDULE IS, MAYBE WE JUST RIDE IT.
SO WE DON'T WANT TO, WE DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK WE'LL SAVE AN NO MATTER WHAT, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAVE A WEEK BY MOVING THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE UP AND THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD AND THEN AT THAT POINT, ALL OUR MEETINGS WILL THEN BE SET FOR THURSDAYS FROM ONE TO FOUR FOR I R C I F C.
UM, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.
[01:45:01]
TWO MEETINGS A WEEK ANYMORE.AND JEREMY, THEIR PRESENTATION IS GONNA BE LIKE TWO OR THREE MINUTES.
I MEAN, WE DON'T NEED, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT, SIR.
I I MEAN THEY'RE NOT GONNA MAKE, I I THEY WENT THROUGH THIS ONE CODE CYCLE AGO, GREG.
WHAT THEY DID WAS WE WENT THROUGH QUITE A BIT WITH THE BABY CHANGING STATION, HAD MULTIPLE COMMITTEE MEETINGS DISCUSS THAT AND COME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE KIND OF AT THE TAIL END OF THAT WHEN WE WERE GETTING READY TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE FULL BOARD AND THEN PRESENTING THAT TO CITY COUNCIL.
UH, DISABILITY SA REACHED OUT AND TRIED TO UH, SEE ABOUT ADDING IT.
I THINK IT WAS ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER WAS TRYING TO SEE IF THEY COULD GET, THEY THOUGHT MAYBE THERE'S ENOUGH SIMILARITIES TO ADD IT AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, CAN WE ADD ADULT CHANGING STATION AS WELL? THE COMMITTEE MET ONE TIME TO KINDA LOOK AT THAT AND SAID, NO, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT COST INCREASE.
IT'S GONNA CHANGE WHAT WE ALREADY PUT A LOT OF TIME INTO.
AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT PUSHED OUT THE C C R UH, SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, NOW I WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH MY C C R AS IS FOR BABY CHANGING STATIONS AND NOT SLOW IT DOWN FOR THE ADULT CHANGING STATIONS.
AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE AVENUE'S AT.
SO WE HAVEN'T HAD A FULL DETAILED PRESENTATION.
YEAH, BECAUSE AN ADULT CHANGING STATION, AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING, ONCE YOU STICK ONE OF THOSE IN, IT HAS TO BE AADA A COMPLIANT, WHICH CAN, CAN WE TABLE THIS DISCUSSION FOR WHEN WE WHEN WE TALK? AGREED.
YEAH, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.