* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:05:44] [00:11:20] [00:12:46] ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY. WE ARE, THIS IS THE THIRD MEETING, UH, THE BUILDING CODES COMMITTEE FOR THE BUILDING RELATED FIRE CODES APPEALS BOARD. UH, TODAY IS APRIL 6TH, 20, UH, 2022, AND WE ARE AT ABOUT EIGHT 40. UH, IT'LL START OFF WITH, WE'LL DO OUR VIDEO INTERPRETATION, ANTONIO. THANK YOU. UH, NEXT WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL. WILLIAM BURRIS. KAREN CARPENTER. HERE. LOUIS FREIS. HERE. ROBERT HENLEY. HERE. BRIAN SMITH. JOE LEOS. HERE. MIKE RUST. HERE. MARK ROSS. JACK UP MORE. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE, UH, FOUR, NO, I'M SORRY, FIVE OUT OF SIX COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT, UH, ALONG WITH AN ALTERNATE FOR MIKE RUST. UH, SO ANY VOTES WILL GO TO MIKE RUST ON ANY OPEN DISCUSSION VOTES. SO WE HAVE QUORUM. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM. I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE. WE'LL DO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS. DAVID, YOU GOT ANYTHING TO SAY? NO, SIR. . ALL RIGHT. AND WE ALSO DIDN'T GET ANY EMAILS BEFORE THIS MEETING, SO, UH, AT THIS POINT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. IF ANYBODY COMES IN, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE CHAIR TO, TO BRING THEM FORWARD AND HAVE THEM DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH THE COMMITTEE. UH, SO THE FIRST AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER ONE. I KNOW WE GOT THE MEETINGS OUT TO Y'ALL PRETTY LATE. THIS IS ALSO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR TOMORROW. SO IF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS, YOU CAN, UM, APPROVE THE MINUTES, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE COMMITTEE. DID EVERYBODY GET A CHANCE TO READ THE MINUTES? OKAY. UM, I'D ACCEPT A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AND THEN WE CAN MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS WE MIGHT NEED TO MAKE. THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 24TH [00:15:01] AND MARCH 25TH UNLESS SOMEBODY'S GOT ANY MODIFICATIONS OR CHANGES. GREAT. THANKS ROBERT. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? SECOND. THANK YOU, KAREN. IS, UH, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. ABSTENTIONS. WE HAVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. UH, THIS IS IN, IF WE HAVE THIS FOR ALL THE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES, OR SORRY, COMMITTEE MEETINGS ON THE AGENDA, JUST IN CASE WE EVER DO NEED TO ADD SOMEBODY TO HELP WITH QUORUM IN CASE SOMEBODY LEAVE OR LIKE THAT. BUT, UH, EVERYBODY CURRENTLY HERE IS ALREADY PART OF THIS COMMITTEE AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A REASON TO ADD ANYBODY AT THIS TIME. SO IF THE CHIEF'S OR CHAIR'S OKAY WITH TABLING THAT ONE. WE'LL TABLE ITEM NUMBER TWO. OKAY. MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. ALRIGHT, SO, UM, LAST TIME WE MET, WE WERE STILL DISCUSSING WITH THE CITY'S DISABILITY ACCESS OFFICE ABOUT POTENTIALLY ADDING ADULT CHANGING STATIONS TO THE I B C REQUIREMENTS. WE'VE HAD FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM LOOKING AT VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THESE. THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT THEY SAID THEY WANTED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DISCUSS THIS. I KIND OF MENTIONED TO 'EM, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE STOOD. THIS COMMITTEE IS STILL MEETING, UH, WE STILL HAVE THE I R C, THE I F C, UH, WE'RE GONNA BE DOING THE EXISTING BUILDING CODES. WE HAVE ABOUT SIX MORE WEEKS LEFT. IF THEY, IF THEY WANTED TO ADD IT, WE POSSIBLY COULD. THEY SAID THEY NEEDED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. SO I, I ASKED THAT THEY WAIT UNTIL WE WERE COMPLETELY FINISHED WITH THE FULL ADOPTION PROCESS, NOT WAIT UNTIL WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO GETTING TO COUNCIL. SO THIS WILL PROBABLY BE TABLED UNTIL EARLY FALL. THE EARLIEST IF, IF NOT LATER. SO DEFINITELY NOT IN THE PROCESS OF THE CODE ADOPTION OF THE 2020 ONES AND THE 2020 N E C. SO WE WON'T BE SEEING THAT AS PART OF THIS GROUP IF THEY DO BRING IT BACK TO US. UM, I GUESS I COULD ASK THE, THE COMMITTEE NOW. WOULD Y'ALL WANNA BE THE COMMITTEE TO DO THAT? DOES THAT, OR WE CAN ALSO GO TO THE FULL BOARD AND CREATE A DIFFERENT COMMITTEE AS WE DID WITH THE BABY CHANGING STATION. WOULD MARK HAVE SOMETHING? YEAH, WHEN THEY BRING IT BACK, WILL YOU ASK THEM TO BRING PICTURES AS WELL AS WHAT THE COST IS OF DOING WHAT THEY'RE DESCRIBING SO THAT WE GET SOME IDEA, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, $10,000 A CHANGING STATION, AND THAT'S EVERY PROJECT THE CITY DOES, I BET YOU PEOPLE WOULD RATHER HAVE DRAINAGE PROJECTS DONE RATHER THAN AN ADULT CHANGING STATION. OF COURSE. I APPRECIATE THAT. UH, CORRECT. YEAH. AND, AND WE'LL WORK WITH THEM AS WELL. WE'LL WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER'S PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE IS, PROVIDES AS MUCH INFORMATION. THAT'S WHAT KIND OF WHAT WE DID WITH THE BABY CHANGING STATION. HERE'S LAYOUTS TO MEET A D A HERE'S, YOU KNOW, THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, AND SOME COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT THAT WE COULD FIND. YOU KNOW, THERE IS A VARIANCE WITH THE ADULT CHANGING STATION FROM A STATIONARY OBJECT TO FULLY MECHANICAL THAT CAN GO UP AND DOWN AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WEIGHT SIZES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO, UH, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL TRY, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, AND ANYTIME WE DO PRESENT, WE'LL MAKE SURE AS, AS PRESENTERS, UH, ASSISTING, UH, THE ACCESSIBILITY OFFICE THAT THEY DO PRESENT ALL THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION AND THE IMPACTS OF WHAT THIS WILL BE TO THE COMMITTEE. UH, UM, JEREMY, THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY. I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MARK WAS SAYING. UH, OBVIOUSLY THE A D A REQUIREMENTS IS ONE THING. UH, THE COST. SO THERE'S COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. UH, I, BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW ANIMAL, WE KNOW WITH BABY CHANGING STATIONS WHAT THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR FUNCTIONALITY IN ADDITION TO A D A, BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, ADULT CHANGING STATIONS AND WE JUST NEED SOME GOOD HISTORICAL STANDARD DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE, UH, IT WON'T FIT IN A LOT OF, UH, EXISTING RESTROOMS OR TOILET ROOMS. AND SO WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS ON THE REQUIREMENTS? SO SOME OF THAT TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MARK SAID IS WE NEED MORE INFORMATION AS TO THE REALITY AND THE PRACTICALITY BASED ON, UH, DIMENSIONAL ALLOWANCES, CORRECT? YES, SIR. YEAH, THAT WE DEFINITELY WANNA DO THAT AND WE'LL TRY TO HAVE SOME LAYOUTS AND SCENARIOS AND STUFF LIKE THAT SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE BABY CHANG STATION. WE'LL DO SOME RESEARCH, SEE IF THERE'S OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT ADOPTED SIMILAR OR STATE OR FEDERAL LEVELS, UM, AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS AND, YOU KNOW, REACH. AND HOPEFULLY THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THEY'LL BE BRINGING AS WELL THEY, AS THE ADVOCATES OF, OF THIS CHANGE, AS WELL AS, AS SOME DEMAND ESTIMATE AS TO WHAT THE UNIVERSE IS OF IF THEY, YOU KNOW, I KNOW COST BENEFIT. YEAH. CORRECT. YES, SIR. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT'S THAT WE WOULD RECONSTITUTE THIS COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, THIS WAS FORMED AS PART OF THE I CODE REVIEW PROCESS, SO I, I, YOU KNOW, FOR MY MONEY, IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE FULL BOARD TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT. PERFECT. AND I'M NOT JUST SAYING THAT 'CAUSE I WANT TO GET OUT OF CHAIRING IT, BUT, WELL, JOE IS YOUR CO-CHAIR, SO . ALL RIGHT, PERFECT. WELL, UM, CRYSTAL, I WANNA DOUBLE CHECK. I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING WE HAD FOR THE I B C. UH, SO, WELL, THERE WAS, IF I CAN, SO JUST LOOKING BACK AT MY NOTES, I THINK THE ONLY THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T APPROVE LAST TIME WERE THE, ALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW ITEMS, AND THEN THERE WAS THE ONE THAT WE SENT BACK TO THE ADOBE BRICK [00:20:01] BUILDER GROUP CONSTRUCTION. YES. THANK YOU. UM, IS THAT STILL PENDING, UM, STAKEHOLDER REVIEW WITH THEM AND, AND WE WILL REVISIT THAT SOME LATER DATE? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND I'M RIGHT THAT THAT'S THE ONLY THING OUTSTANDING FROM LAST FROM THE I B C. CORRECT. I, I DIDN'T THINK THAT YOU GUYS WANTED US TO BRING THAT BACK TO, WE WERE JUST GONNA WORK WITH THEM IF THEY HAD ANY, UM, REVISIONS TO THE ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN THE 2021. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT MISSING SOMETHING ELSE. NO, THAT WAS THE ONLY THING. UH, I THINK THAT WAS STILL PENDING CHAIRMAN, UH, THAT ROBERT LEY, THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION. ALSO, IT IS A TECHNICAL, UH, SECTION OF THE CODE, THE EARTH AND CONSTRUCTION INITIATIVE. AND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IT'S NOT REQUIRED. IT'S OPTIONAL. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GET ON THE WEEDS IN THAT. AND I JUST GIVE THIS, LET THE CITY, UH, DEAL WITH THAT, THE GROUP THEM, UH, ONE ON ONE. PERFECT. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, BASED OFF OF THAT, I THINK WE'LL TABLE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. I HAVE IT ON THERE FOR NEXT, UH, FOR TOMORROW AS WELL. JUST BECAUSE WITH THE SHORT TURNAROUND, I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING MISSING. SO IF ANYTHING DOES COME UP, WE CAN DEFINITELY TALK ABOUT THAT TOMORROW. BUT IF NOT, MOST LIKELY WE'LL TABLE IT AND THEN WE WILL BRING IT BACK THE I V C ONCE WE ARE STARTING TO MEET WITH THE I F C, UH, COMMITTEE, UH, WHENEVER THEY'RE GOING OVER CHAPTER NINE AND ANY OTHER, UH, CHAPTERS THAT WOULD FOLLOW OVER. OKAY. SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME. THIS IS DISCUSSION OF THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE WITH PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT AMENDMENTS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE FULL BOARD. I WILL TURN OVER TO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CRYSTAL GONZALEZ TO GO OVER THOSE ITEMS. GOOD MORNING. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A SHORT, UM, AGENDA FOR TODAY. YOU'RE WELCOME. UM, NOT A WHOLE LOT TO DISCUSS, BUT I DID WANT TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, WE CURRENTLY ADOPT SECTION 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2 OF CHAPTER ONE. THAT'S A LITTLE UNIQUE, UM, FOR, UH, FOR OUR I CODES AND THEN CHAPTERS TWO THROUGH 16. SO WE'VE STARTED, UH, WITH THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT WE FELT WERE APPROPRIATE TO REVIEW HERE WITH, UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE. SO THIS SECTION FOR BLEACHERS, GRANDSTANDS, AND FOLDING AND TELESCOPING SEATING OCCURS IN THREE AREAS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE. SO CHAPTER THREE IS PROVISIONS FOR ALL COMPLIANCE METHODS, CHAPTER FOUR IS FOR REPAIRS, AND THEN 14 IS FOR RELOCATED OR MOVED BUILDINGS. SO WE, THIS, THESE SECTIONS REFERENCE I C C 300, UM, AND THEN I C C 300 HAS A SPECIFIC CHAPTER FOR EXISTING BLEACHERS, GRANDSTANDS, FOLDING, AND TELESCOPING SEATING. SO WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THIS WAS A BIG CHANGE, BUT WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS REFERENCED MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE AREAS. UM, AND THEN KICKS US BACK TO THE I C C 300 CODE. WHAT AND WHERE IS THE I C 300 CODE? UM, IT IS ALSO, UM, JUST LIKE THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE PRODUCED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL. UM, SO IT'S ANOTHER REFERENCE MATERIAL THAT IS SPECIFIC. THE I C C 300 IS SPECIFIC FOR BLEACHERS, GRANDSTANDS, FOLDING, AND TELESCOPING SEATING. AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO REGULARLY A ADOPTS OR HAS ADOPTED IN THE PAST? SO WE DON'T ADOPT IT, BUT IT'S A REFERENCE STANDARD? YES. OKAY. YEAH. SO WE DO, UH, FOR, FOR ANY BLEACHERS OR GRANDSTANDS THAT COME IN FOR REVIEW, UH, WE REFERENCE THE ICC 300. AND THAT'S NOT, THAT'S AN EXISTING CODE THAT HASN'T CHANGED. THE ONLY CHANGES THAT THE I E B C NOW REFERENCES IT SPECIFICALLY. CORRECT. THANK YOU. AND YES, THE STANDS IN THAT, THAT WOULD BE COVERED BY THIS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THINKING THAT WE SEE THOSE COME IN FOR, FOR PERMIT OR REVIEW, BUT SO THIS IS MORE PERMIT STUFF LIKE IN A GYM THAT FOLDS IN AND FOLDS OUT? EXACTLY. OR FOOTBALL STADIUM. YES. OKAY. SO WE DO SEE THEM FOR STADIUMS AND GYMNASIUMS. YES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THIS? OKAY. SO WE'LL, UH, ADOPT AS WRITTEN AND MOVE TO UNER TWO PLEASE. NUMBER TWO IS A CURRENT COSA AMENDMENT. THIS IS ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE FOR THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY DEFINITION. UH, JASMINE'S BRINGING THAT UP RIGHT NOW. SO YOU'LL SEE ALL OF THE UNDERLINED TEXT IS WHAT WE'VE ADDED TO THE CURRENT DEFINITION. THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID IN THE OTHER, SOME OTHER SECTION ABOUT BEING OPEN AND HAVING [00:25:01] TO CLOSE IT. THAT MAY BE SIMILAR TO LIKE A PATIO ON A RESTAURANT. UH, BUT THIS IS, THIS WOULD BE A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY WHERE YOU'RE NOW ENCLOSING IT. WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT A CHANGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH, UH, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ROBERT LEY CRYSTAL. SO BASICALLY, SINCE THIS IS A CITY AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 10, ALLS YOU'RE DOING IS MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE I B C AND THE I F C IN THIS DOCUMENT FOR CHAPTER 10. IT'S LIKE A CLARIFICATION MORE OR LESS, WELL, A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. YES. AND THIS IS THE EXISTING LANGUAGE THAT'S IN MUNI CODE ALREADY, RIGHT? CORRECT. YES. THIS IS OUR CURRENT AMENDMENT. IT'S NOT A CHANGE. EXACTLY. WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP THIS AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN. ANY CONCERNS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? OKAY. WE'LL, CRYSTAL, WHEN THEY DO THE REST OF THESE, AND IT'S AN AMENDMENT AND YOU'RE GONNA HIGHLIGHT IT, CAN YOU JUST IN THE NOTES SAY IT'S AN EXISTING AMENDMENT NOT BEING CHANGED IN THE NOTES THAT YOU GIVE US? I THINK UNDER RECOMMENDATION, IT'S, UM, YOU CAN SEE ON THERE, NUMBER TWO, WE SAY KEEP AMENDMENT, AND THEN LIKE ON THREE WE SAY PROPOSED AMENDMENT. OKAY. SO, SO THAT'S HOW WE'VE IDENTIFIED. OKAY, PERFECT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S HOW WE'VE IDENTIFIED WHAT'S A CURRENT COASTA AMENDMENT, UM, VERSUS WHAT THE STAFF IS PROPOSING. OKAY. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER THREE. SO ITEM NUMBER THREE IS, UM, PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR 3 0 6 ACCESSIBILITY FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS. SO WE DON'T CURRENTLY REVIEW, UM, ACCESSIBILITY FOR NEW OR EXISTING BUILDINGS. WE LEAVE THAT TO THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO AMEND OUT ALL OF SECTION 3 0 6. AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH, UM, WHAT WE'VE AMENDED OUT IN THE BUILDING CODE AS WELL. ANYBODY. OKAY. UM, SO IS THAT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OR ARE WE GONNA SEE THE LANGUAGE, OR IS IT JUST IT JUST SAYS WE'RE STRIKING IT OUT. SO WE WOULD JUST PUT A SENTENCE IN OUR CHAPTER 10 AMENDMENTS THAT SAYS THAT WE REPEAL SECTION 3 0 6. OKAY. SO, UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COMMITTEE, UM, SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AND WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A CHANGE TO SECTION 3 0 7 FOR SMOKE ALARMS. SO THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE MOVED FROM OTHER SECTIONS AND ADD REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CODE FOR ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS, AND CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. AND FOR THE, OUR GROUP ARE OCCUPANCIES WHERE THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT OF AMENDMENTS ABOUT WHERE THEY NEED TO BE AND HOW THEY NEED TO BE INSTALLED. AND FOR EXAMPLE, IN CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO BE INSTALLED IN AN EXISTING BUILDING AS LONG AS YOU DO X, Y, AND Z. ARE YOU ALL BECAUSE IT'S REFERENCING THE FIRE CODE AND THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE FIRE CODE, OR DO WE NEED TO MAKE ALL THOSE AMENDMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS HERE TO, SO WE WOULDN'T NEED TO MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS HERE BECAUSE WE'RE REFERENCING THE FIRE CODE. SO THEN YOU WOULD REFERENCE THOSE, UM, THOSE CHANGES IN THE I F C, ANYBODY. OKAY. UH, ADOPT AS WRITTEN FOUR AND MOVE TO FIVE, PLEASE. OKAY. NUMBER FIVE IS SIMILAR. UM, CHANGES TO SECTION 3 0 8 FOR THOSE CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS. SEEMS LIKE THE SAME CONCEPT. OKAY. ADOPT AS WRITTEN, UH, TO SIX, PLEASE. OKAY. NUMBER SIX IS A NEW SECTION 3 0 9 FOR, UM, ADDITION. SOME REPLACEMENTS OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS. A COVERING, SORRY, AN EXTERIOR WALL ENVELOPES. SO IF YOU'RE RE CLADDING A BUILDING, IT JUST SAYS YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW A NEW CO CONSTRUCTION CODE. YES. UM, IF IT'S MORE THAN 15% OF THE TOTAL WALL AREA ON ANY SIDE [00:30:04] OR TWO OR MORE STORIES. OKAY. UM, WE'LL MOVE TO SEVEN THEN. ADOPT IS WRITTEN. NUMBER SEVEN IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE I B C ABOUT THOSE ENHANCED CLASSROOM ACOUSTICS. THEY'VE ADDED THIS TO NUMEROUS SECTIONS IN THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE. WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE ALL OF THOSE, UM, TO AMEND THOSE REQUIREMENTS OUT. IN CHAPTER FIVE, WHICH IS PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE. THEY'VE, THEY'VE REFERENCED IT THREE TIMES. CHAPTER NINE, WHICH IS ALTERATIONS LEVEL THREE, CHAPTER 10, CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. AND THEN CHAPTER 11, UM, IS ADDITIONS. SO WE FELT TO BE CONSISTENT, WE AMENDED IT OUT OF THE I B C THAT WE WOULD AMEND IT OUT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE IT IF YOU WERE CHANGING THE SCHOOL LIBRARY TO, YOU KNOW, FOUR CLASSROOMS. UM, THE IB, THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE WOULD REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THESE SECTIONS. SO ALL SIX REFERENCES TO THE CODE ARE BASICALLY THE SAME. SO WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE MIKE AS JUST PROVING THAT GROUP. ALL RIGHT. DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY APPETITE TO, UH, CHANGE THIS. SO WE, WE WILL, UH, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND MOVE TO NUMBER EIGHT. OKAY. NUMBER EIGHT. THAT'S A NEW EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS CARRYING LATERAL LOADS. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING CODE WHEN THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DOESN'T EXCEED 400 POUNDS, UH, WHEN IT'S PLACED ON THE ROOF. THIS LEWIS OLIS, UH, THAT'S A BROAD STATEMENT TO MAKE, UH, JUST PUT A LIMIT ON IT. I, I DON'T, UH, ENCOURAGE DOING THAT BECAUSE YOU COULD, UH, HAVE A UNIT THAT WEIGHS 800 POUNDS WHERE IT'S NOT IN TROUBLE, AND YOU CAN HAVE ONE THAT IT, UH, PLATE, IT DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU'RE PLACING THAT LOAD. UH, IT, YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, WELL, ANYTHING BELOW, UH, 400 POUNDS OR LOWER ARE NOT GONNA, UH, IN INCUR SOME KIND OF DAMAGE, UH, TO THE STRUCTURE. SO I, I WOULD, UH, UH, TED NOT TO AGREE WITH THIS. UH, THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY AND LEWIS. WOULD IT BE THE SAME CONCERN IF YOU'VE GOT A VERTICAL UNIT ON THE ROOF VERSUS A HORIZONTAL? BECAUSE THE VERTICAL'S GONNA ALSO HAVE THE ADDED WIND LOAD, CORRECT. BUT DOES THIS EXTRA PART WHERE IT SAYS, UM, AND WHERE THE TOTAL ADDITIONAL WEIGHT IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE ROOF DEAD LOAD, DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR ANALYSIS AT ALL? DOES THAT ACCOUNT FOR MAYBE THAT EXTRA WEIGHT? UH, THE, UH, HAVING LESS THAN 10%, UH, DOESN'T BOTHER ME. THAT PART DOES IT, IT'S JUST PUTTING A, IT'S NOT THE WAY I READ IT. IT'S BOTH. SO IT'S, IT'S MAXIMUM 400 POUNDS AND IT SAYS, AND SO IT'S BOTH. YEAH. SO BOTH, IN OTHER WORDS, THE 10% IS THE MAX, AND IF THAT 10% IS 200 POUNDS, THAT'S ALL YOU CAN DO WITHOUT DOING SOME BEEFING IT UP. WOULD THAT, DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR, THIS ROBERT HENLEY? AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO DEAD LOAD. AND WHAT ABOUT THE WIND LOAD? EACH, EACH ONE'S GONNA BE UNIQUE WHEN YOU START TO EVALUATE IT AND LOOK AT IT BASED ON THE DESIGN AND THE EQUIPMENT? YES. YOU HAVE TO TAKE EACH ELEMENT IN, UH, EACH LOADING CONDITION SEPARATELY. SO WE, YOU, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR IB 2 0 7, SO WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE AN ENGINEER'S LETTER TO SAY THAT, UM, THAT THE ROOF IS STILL STRUCTURALLY SOUND TO CARRY THAT LOAD IN THAT CASE. AND, UH, SOMEBODY SIGNED IT OFF ON IT, THEN THAT WOULD QUALIFY IT AND QUANTIFY IT. ENGINEER SEAL, OF COURSE. YES. CORRECT. YES. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOOD. ADOPT. SO WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, LOUIS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE OKAY WITH ADOPTING CORRECT. ROBERT? YEAH, KAREN. JOE. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE WILL, UH, ADOPT AS WRITTEN EIGHT AND MOVE TO NINE. THANK YOU FOR, UH, CLAR FOR THAT QUESTION. OKAY. NUMBER NINE, THIS IS, WE'RE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THIS SECTION OUT BECAUSE [00:35:01] AGAIN, UH, WE AMEND OUT THE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS REQUIRES A TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. AND THIS IS BASED CRYSTAL. THIS ROBERT HANLEY, SORRY. AND THIS IS BASED ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S OWN TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION RE REQUIREMENTS. DON'T THEY HAVE A DOCUMENT IN PLACE ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS? AND I DON'T, SO THIS IS JUST FOR THE ELEVATOR. SO IF YOU'RE STUCK IN THE ELEVATOR, UM, YOU CAN, LET'S SEE. THE BUILDING HAS AN ELEVATOR SERVICE. A TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED, UM, IN THE ELEVATOR. IF YOU ARE REMODELING MORE THAN 50% OF THE WORK AREA. WE, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A LITTLE STRINGENT TO REQUIRE IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE MODIFYING 50% OF THE WORK AREA, YOU'RE NOT EVEN TOUCHING THE ELEVATORS. NOW YOU HAVE TO BRING THE ELEVATORS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. THIS IS FOR OCCUPANTS, NOT NOT FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, REQUIREMENTS, BUT THIS, WE ARE ALREADY REQUIRED BY CODE IN AN ELEVATOR TO HAVE A TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION. SO WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT, UM, IF YOU'RE MODIFYING, UH, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE WORK AREA EXCEEDS 50%, NOW YOU'RE REQUIRED TO BRING THE ELEVATORS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION. WE THOUGHT IT WAS JUST, UM, A A LITTLE EXTREME FOR AN EXISTING BUILDING. SO CAN WE JUST, SO IF THEY MODIFY THE ELEVATOR AT ALL DURING THIS PROCESS, WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME INTO, INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE? YES. IF YOU MODIFY THE ELEVATOR, BUT IF YOU'RE MODIFYING A 15 YEAR OLD OFFICE BUILDING OF 20,000 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT, YOU'RE JUST DOING TENANT FINISH OUT. YEAH, I, I MEAN, I THINK SO WHAT TYPE OF MODIFICATION TO THE ELEVATOR WOULD TRIGGER BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS VERSUS THIS? ANY, ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEVATOR WOULD REQUIRE THE ELEVATOR TO BE, UM, BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE. OKAY. THEN I'M, I'M GOOD WITH IT. YOU GUYS ARE, ARE GOOD WITH AMENDING OUT THIS SECTION. ALL RIGHT, SOUNDS GOOD. UH, APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND MOVE TO NUMBER 10, PLEASE. OKAY. NUMBER 10, REPLACEMENT WINDOWS. THIS WAS A CHANGE. UM, THEY REVISED IT TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH REPLACING THE ENTIRE WINDOW INSTEAD OF JUST THE GLASS. UH, CRYSTAL, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY. UH, AND MAYBE I'M JUST, MY FEEBLE BRAIN IS NOT UNDER THE INSTALLATION OR REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS. WHAT ARE THEY SAYING THERE? BECAUSE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, REPLACING GLASS IS ONE THING, BUT REPLACING THE WHOLE WINDOW OF THE SASH AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. SO I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE LANGUAGE IN THAT 5 0 5 0.1. YEAH, I CAN SEE HOW THAT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING. IT SAYS FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS, RIGHT? IF IF IT'S A REPLACEMENT WINDOW, IT IS A NEW INSTALLATION, BUT IT, I'M, I'M STILL CONFUSED. I THINK THIS IS A NEW WINDOW IN AN EXISTING BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS. AND THIS IS FOR MA UM, WINDOWS AND EMERGENCY ESCAPE OPENINGS. OKAY. YEAH, I, UM, I'M, I'M GONNA JUMP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT TO 11, WHICH IS 5 0 5 2. YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT BOTH OF THESE. UM, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. SO WE, THE COMPANY I WORK FOR, WE OPERATE 1960S VINTAGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT METAL SINGLE, YOU KNOW, SINGLE PANE WINDOWS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE WITH MODERN DOUBLE PANE ENERGY EFFICIENT WINDOWS. THIS BASICALLY MAKES THAT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO BECAUSE IF THE WINDOW OPENING IS LESS THAN 36 FEET OR 36 INCHES FROM THE FLOOR, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA REFRAME THE ENTIRE EXTERIOR WALL OF THE APARTMENT TO REPLACE THE WINDOW. AND THIS IS WHAT THIS, THIS WOULD REQUIRE ME TO DO THAT IF I, AND I'M, SO I'VE, I'VE SKIPPED AHEAD TO, TO 11 ON THAT, BUT, UM, SO I, I, I KIND OF DON'T LIKE THIS AMENDMENT OR ADOPTION OF, OF THESE ITEMS. UH, 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY, UM, I DON'T KNOW, DISINCENTIVIZES IMPROVEMENTS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS IS, UH, ON TOP OF THAT, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CONTROL DEVICES? IS THAT JUST A LOCK? [00:40:01] SO THAT LIMITS THE WINDOW OPENING, RIGHT? SO, UM, KIDDOS CAN'T OPEN THE, THE WINDOW AND FALL OUT. SO IT WOULD BE, IT'S NOT A LOCK. I MEAN, IT DOES ALLOW YOU TO OPEN THE WINDOW, UM, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, UH, WITHOUT OPENING IT ALL THE WAY. SO IT'S MORE AT THE TOP OF THE, THE WINDOW THAT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO OPEN IT ALL THE WAY. IS THIS, UH, AGAIN, IS THIS SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH WITH THE SWIMMING POOL STATE LEGISLATURE ON POOL, UH, WINDOWS ADJOINING SWIMMING POOLS ON FOR KIDS? YOU REMEMBER THAT, THAT THAT STARTED WHAT, SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR, JESSICA? I DO. I REMEMBER THAT. UH, THERE'S AN ALARM THAT TRIGGERS WHEN THAT WINDOW IS OPENING. WE OPEN X DISTANCE. YES, THAT WOULD BE, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE SAME, THAT IT ONLY OPENS A CERTAIN DISTANCE, BUT YOU CAN THEN REMOVE THAT OR YOU'RE STILL ABLE TO OPEN IT ALL THE WAY. YEAH, I MEAN, WE DID AN EXTENSIVE REHAB AND YOU KNOW, BASICALLY JUST REPLACED THAT ALL THE WINDOWS WITH BRAND NEW DOUBLE PAYING DEALS AND, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, WE COULD JUST, AS LONG AS WE WERE SWAPPING THEM OUT WINDOW FOR WINDOW, WE COULD JUST PUT THE NEW WINDOW IN. I, I AGREE WITH MIKE THAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA REPLACE THE WINDOWS IF WE HAVE TO GO IN AND IT TURNS FROM A $300 JOB INTO A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER WINDOW JOB. BECAUSE YOU GOTTA FRAME, YOU'RE DEALING WITH THINGS LIKE ASBESTOS ON THE OLDER PROPERTIES THAT YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE TEARING INTO THE WALLS AND REFRAMING STUFF. MINE DON'T HAVE ASBESTOS JUST, YEAH, , IT'S VERY, BUT IT'S ALL OVER. I MEAN, IT'S KINDA LIKE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT SIMILAR MARK TO IF YOU ARE DOING REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND YOU HAVE TO GO TO O H P AND H D R C, AS LONG AS THE STYLE AND THE SIZE OF THE OPENING ARE THE SAME, IT'S USUALLY FINE. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING, YOU SHOULD TRY TO CAPTURE HERE IS NOT DO A BIGGER WINDOW OR A LITTLE WINDOW WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET, BUT IF YOU CAN REPLACE SIZE PER SIZE IN THERE, UH, TO GO FROM A SINGLE PANE TO A DOUBLE PANE, THAT WOULD BE THE GOAL TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT TO OPERATE THE UNITS. KAREN, AM I READING THIS WRONG? IS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DISCUSSING? WHAT I'M SEEING IS NOT ANYTHING ABOUT CHANGING THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW, ONLY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE OPENING CONTROL DEVICE OR FALL PREVENTION DEVICE. THAT'S ALL IT'S ADDRESSING. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE IT TALKS ABOUT CHANGING THE SIZE OR, YOU KNOW, DISTANCE FROM THE SASH TO THE FLOOR. IT'S ONLY ADDRESSING WHEN YOU NEED TO HAVE CONTROL DEVICES OR FALL PROTECTION, WHICH I THINK IS GOOD. CORRECT. AND IT'S WHERE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY TO THAT REPLACEMENT WINDOW. IT IS OPERABLE. IT'S LESS THAN 36 INCHES FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR. OKAY. SO, SO MY READING OF IT IS WRONG. IT'S JUST NOT SAYING THAT I CAN'T DO IT IF THE, IF IT'S LESS THAN THREE, SIX INCHES FROM THE FLOOR, IT'S JUST SAYING I HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT KEEPS THE WINDOW FROM OPENING ALL THE WAY OR WHATEVER. IT'S, YEAH, IT'S JUST SAYING YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE CONTROL DEVICES SO THE KIDS DON'T OPEN IT UP ALL THE WAY AND FALL OUT OF IT. SO EVERYTHING I SAID WAS WRONG, ESSENTIALLY, WHICH IS FINE. I I, I'VE BEEN WRONG BEFORE. UH, SO, BUT, SO IT'S THE, THE RISK THAT I PERCEIVED IS NOT REALLY A RISK IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET IT, SO I THINK CORRECT. YEAH. UM, THE, THE, WHAT I WAS GONNA MENTION THOUGH IS THE ACTUAL NUMBER 10 THAT WE'RE ON SAYS CHANGE TO REQUIRE WHEN REPLACING THE ENTIRE WINDOW INSTEAD OF SUCH JUST THE GLASS, THE CODE DOESN'T STATE JUST THE GLASS. IT CLEARLY STATES THE WINDOW. SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT'S REALLY HERE. YEAH, NOTED. YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S NOT, UH, TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY JUST THE GLASS. SO COULD WE JUST STRIKE THIS ONE INSTEAD OF, OR REJECT? CHEAT. [00:45:05] OKAY. WE MAY JUST HAVE, UM, IDENTIFIED THAT SUMMARY INCORRECTLY. OH, I SEE. SO IN THE 2018, THE TITLE OF THAT SECTION 5 0 5 1 WAS REPLACEMENT GLASS AND IT'S NOW REPLACEMENT WINDOWS. YEAH. SO IT'S NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REPLACEMENT GLASS, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE WINDOW. SO WE DIDN'T, FOR NUMBER 10, WE DIDN'T SEE THAT THAT WAS, UH, A MAJOR CHANGE. SO YOU GUYS ARE GOOD ADOPT AS WRITTEN FOR 5 0 5 1. AND WHAT ABOUT 5 0 5 2 AS WELL? I MEAN, WE GET KNOCKED 10 AND 11 OUT HERE. WE'RE ALL, WE'RE ALL GOOD WITH THESE. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. ALRIGHT, SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOOD. PROPOSES WRITTEN 10 AND 11 AND WE'LL MOVE TO 12. SO NUMBER 12 IS A CURRENT COSA AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE. SO JASMINE WILL BRING UP THAT LANGUAGE, UM, WHERE WE STRIKE OUT, WE STRIKE OUT THE VERBIAGE, UM, IN THE 5 0 5 3 NUMBER ONE THAT SAYS THE REPLACEMENT WINDOW IS THE MANUFACTURER'S LARGEST STANDARD SIZE WINDOW THAT WILL FIT WITHIN THE EXISTING FRAME OR EXISTING ROUGH OPENING. WHAT IS THAT? I MEAN, THEY ALREADY TELL YOU THE LARGEST SIZE THAT WILL FIT WITHIN THE EXISTING FRAME OR EXISTING ROUGH OPENING. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S AN ISSUE, BUT, UM, WHETHER IT STAYS OR GOES, YEAH, WE AGREED, WE FELT THAT, UM, IT WAS NOT REALLY NECESSARY THAT WE WERE JUST PROPOSING TO GO WITH STRAIGHT CODE THAT YOU CAN GO WITH ANY MANUFACTURER YOU CHOOSE. UM, AND IF IT FITS WITHIN THE FRAME AND IT'S THEIR LARGEST STANDARD OPENING SIZE, THAT'S GREAT. IF IT DOESN'T, THEN IT'S THE LARGEST SIZE THAT FITS WITHIN THE FRAME. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE WORD STANDARD HAS TO BE THERE. I MEAN, WHAT PREVENTS YOU FROM GETTING A CUSTOM WINDOW? SO, I AGREE. YEAH. YEAH. WE STAFF FELT THAT, THAT THE WORDING, LEAVING IT IN, TAKING IT OUT, UH, WAS INSIGNIFICANT. SO WE JUST PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE AMENDMENT AND, UH, ALLOW THE LARGEST SIZE WINDOW TO BE INSTALLED. YEAH, BUT I, SO WINDOWS COME IN STANDARD SIZES AND THOSE ARE THE LESS EXPENSIVE ONES WHEN YOU HAVE TO GET A CUSTOM SIZE WINDOW MADE. THEY'RE VERY EXPENSIVE. AND I THINK WHAT THIS WAS TRYING TO SAY IS THAT YOU JUST BUY THE LARGEST STANDARD SIZE OP STANDARD SIZE AND NOT HAVE TO GO TO A CUSTOM BUILT WINDOW CASE THAT FILLS THE WHOLE OPENING. SO YOU COULD ACTUALLY CLOSE IT DOWN BY A HALF AN INCH ON EACH SIDE OR TWO AN INCH ON EACH SIDE. AND THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE WHERE THE, THE, IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET A CUSTOM, A WINDOW THAT FITS IN THE WHOLE OPENING IF, IF WE TAKE IT OUT. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TAKEN OUT THE LANGUAGE, WE'VE STRUCK IT FROM, UM, THIS ONE, NO, THE, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF NUMBER ONE. SO THAT, THAT CROSSED OUT, THAT STRUCK OUT LANG LANGUAGE IS WHAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY REMOVED. WE ARE PROPOSING TO JUST LEAVE IT STRAIGHT CODE, UM, AND NOT HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5 0 5 0.3 AT ALL. THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING? YES. EVERYBODY'S GOOD WITH THIS? YES. OKAY. UM, REMOVE AMENDMENT FOR 12 AND MOVE TO 13 PLEASE. SO 13 IS A NEW SECTION 5 0 6 0.4 FOR EX EXISTING EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS. SO IT REQUIRES THOSE OPENINGS TO BE PROVIDED WITH A CHANGE OF USE. AND WE DIDN'T SEE THAT AS [00:50:01] A COST INCREASE BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALREADY BE REQUIRED CURRENTLY. AND IT ACTUALLY ALLOWS A REDUCED SIZE FOR FOUR SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE TYPICAL 5.7 SQUARE FEET THAT'S REQUIRED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME. IF YOU'RE CHANGING THE, THE USE TO SOMETHING THAT NOW REQUIRES EMERGENCY ESCAPE, YOU WANT IT TO BE ABLE TO USABLE, BE USABLE AS AN EMERGENCY ESCAPE. WELL, AND, AND IT, AS YOU SAID, IT MAKES IT SMALLER. CORRECT? IT DOES ALLOW FOR A SMALLER OPENING. ANYBODY. OKAY. ADOPT AS WRITTEN AND 14 PLEASE. SO 14 IS A CHANGE TO 6 0 3 0.1. A NEW EXCEPTION FOR THAT ALTERATION LEVEL TWO SCOPE. UM, AND THIS ALIGNS WITH THE I B C FOR WHEN A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED. LEMME GET THERE. BASICALLY SAYING THAT IF YOU, OH, THE MOVEMENT OR ADDITION OF NON-FIXED OR MOVABLE FIXTURES, CASE RACKS, COUNTERS, PARTITIONS, DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, UH, THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE. ANY CONCERNS? OKAY. ALRIGHT. ADOPT IS WRITTEN NEXT. SO THE NEXT ONE, THAT'S A NEW SECTION TO 8 0 1 0.3. BASICALLY SAYING, UH, STATING SIMILAR THAT THE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO WORK AREAS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UM, IF THEY'RE LIMITED TO THE REPLACEMENT OF LIKE, MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, WINDOWS HARDWARE, WE DIDN'T FEEL THIS WAS, UH, A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION FOR THOSE REPLACEMENTS. GOOD. ALL RIGHT, NEXT PLEASE. THE NEXT 1, 8 0 2 4. SO THIS, THESE ARE, THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO INTERIOR FINISHES. WE'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT HERE, UM, WE'RE PROPOSING, SO IF YOU READ THE EXCEPTION THAT EXISTING MATERIALS THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING CODE SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE TREATED WITH AN APPROVED FIRE RETARDANT COATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS TO ACHIEVE THEIR REQUIRED CLASSIFICATIONS, THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THAT COMPLIANCE SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING THE FIRE RETARDANT COATING ON THE SAME MATERIAL AND ACHIEVING THE REQUIRED PERFORMANCE. SO THIS, THIS SECTION IS ACTUALLY REQUIRING THE TESTING, UM, IF, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPLY. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO STRIKE OUT THAT LAST SENTENCE. I THINK IT'S THE LAST TWO SENTENCES THAT STARTS WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING THE FIRE RETARDANT COATING. WE THINK THAT'S A LITTLE EXCESSIVE. YOU DON'T WANT HIM TO COME TO THE LOBBY AND START BURNING, BUT I, I AGREE WITH YOU AMENDMENT CHAIRMAN. I THINK IT SHOULD REMAIN, UM, TOO MANY TIMES THE WAY THESE FIRE RETARDANTS INTERACT WITH MATERIALS CAN VARY THEIR PERFORMANCE. UM, IT'S VERY HARD TO FIND ONE MATERIAL THAT'S GONNA PROVIDE, UH, CONSISTENT FIERY RETARDANT INCREASED PERFORMANCE ACROSS A VARIETY OF MATERIALS. SO, UM, TO ME, I THINK THIS OPENS UP A LOT OF DOORS TO HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY GONNA PROVIDE THE REQUIRED LEVEL OF INTERIOR FINISHED PERFORMANCE. SO THE, THE WORD THAT STRIKES ME ON THIS IS, UM, SHELBY PERMITTED TO BE TREATED WITH AN APPROVED FIRE RETARDANT COATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. DOES THAT, I MEAN, WHAT WHAT IS THE, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO YOU FIND WHAT THAT APPROVAL IS? WHO MAKES, YOU KNOW, LIKE HOW, WHAT WOULD BE THE TERM BE THE DETERMINATION OF IT'S APPROVED? BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO BE IN CONFLICT. TO ME IT'S APPROVED, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO TEST IT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE, THE REA THE INTER INTERACTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO PHRASES AS IT'S WRITTEN. YEAH. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE APPROVAL WOULD CONSIST OF. WHAT APPROVAL? IS IT A UL APPROVAL? WHAT, WHAT'S APPROVED? DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION OR CAN WE FIND OUT WHAT THAT IS? WELL, DON'T THE, UH, MANUFAC, SORRY. ROBERT HANLEY, DON'T THE MANUFACTURERS HAVE THEIR, UM, DOCUMENTABLE [00:55:01] FIRE, UH, SHEETS THAT THEY CAN SUBMIT ON CERTAIN MATERIALS LIKE THAT? MY QUESTION WAS, IS COMPLIANCE OF THIS SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING THE FIRE RETARDANT CO ON THE SAME MATERIALS. NOW THE MANUFACTURERS WILL HAVE, AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT THE NAMES OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE THAT THEY SUBMIT ON THEIR PRODUCT, BUT THEIR PRODUCT ON THIS MATERIAL. SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THOSE LAST TWO SENTENCES AS BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG BURDEN TO BE PUTTING ON SOMEBODY TO TEST, UH, DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING THE FIRE RETARDING COATING ON THE SAME MATERIAL. AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THIS IS FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CHAPTER EIGHT IS LEVEL TWO ALTERATIONS. UM, SO THAT'S EASY TO GET TO A LEVEL TWO ALTERATIONS. AND THIS IS THIS, THIS SECTION STATES THE INTERIOR FINISH AND TRIM OF WALLS AND CEILINGS AND EXITS AND CORRIDORS IN ANY WORK AREA SHALL COMPLY WITH I B C. THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT. SO IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING MATERIAL, THAT'S WHERE WE THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE EXTREME TO REQUIRE, TO REQUIRE YOU TO TEST AN EXISTING MATERIAL THAT'S BEEN IN THIS BUILDING FOR, SINCE IT WAS BUILT PROBABLY. UM, AND YOU ARE ALTERING THE WORK AREA, UM, YOU'RE UPGRADING, YOU'RE REMODELING, AND NOW YOU'RE REQUIRED TO TEST THIS MATERIAL. UM, WAS WHY STAFF RECOMMENDED TO REMOVE THE, THE REQUIREMENT TO TEST IT. GIVE A, CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE? SO IF YOU'RE DOING AN ALTERATION AND THERE'S A HALL AND IT'S AN EXISTING HALL THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 90 YEARS. 90 YEARS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SPRAY SOME FIRE PROTECTANT ON TOP OF THE WALL ONLY IF THE MATERIAL DOESN'T COMPLY. YEAH. BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW IF IT COMPLIES OR IT DOESN'T COMPLY? IT'S 90 YEARS OLD, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO GO DISTURB IT DEMONSTRATED BY, AND THE FLIP SIDE OF IT IS HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE FIRE RETARDANT IT'S GONNA WORK WITH IT IF IT'S 90 YEARS OLD. EXACTLY. NO, I MEAN, NO, BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS IS IF IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 90 YEARS AND YOU'RE MAKING AN ALTERATION SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THAT FLOOR THAT TRIGGERS THIS SECTION, SHOULD YOU HAVE TO AGAIN BRING IT, YOU KNOW, IF THE EXISTING MATERIAL IS SOMETHING INCREDIBLY FLAMMABLE IN AN EXIT CORRIDOR, THEN YES, BEING IN A HISTORIC BUILDING WHERE YOU C CAN'T MESS WITH IT. SO THAT'S WHY IT SAYS YOU CAN TEST A SIMILAR MATERIAL. I MEAN, I I I FIND KAREN'S POINT COMPELLING, RIGHT? I MEAN THE, THE CODE HAS IMPROVED OVER THE PAST A HUNDRED YEARS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, BUT I ALSO FIND THE OTHER ARGUMENT COMPELLING, YOU KNOW, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS ADDS A WHOLE LOT OF COST TO SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN THERE. I GUESS MY CONCERN ALSO IS, UM, THAT LIKE, IS THE CITY, DOES THE CITY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MONITOR AND CONDUCT, YOU KNOW, THESE TESTS? OR WOULD, WOULD IT JUST BE THAT THE, THE, THE BUILDER HAS TO DO A TEST AND THEN PROVIDE THE RESULTS TO THE CITY AND THE CITY HAS TO SOMEHOW BE SATISFIED BY IT? LIKE WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS OF THAT AND WHY WOULDN'T THAT JUST BE ROPED UP INTO THIS IS AN APPROVED MATERIAL? THE MANU THE CONTRACTOR OR BUILDER WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT. BUT HONESTLY THE TEST YOU NEED FOR INTERIOR FINISHED MATERIALS IS VERY INEXPENSIVE. IT'S LESS THAN $2,000. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE TO PERFORM A $40,000 FIRE TEST. SO IT'S VERY EASY TO PERFORM. UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE UNITED STATES IT'S TYPICALLY A C M E 84 7 23. IF I HAD A TACO I WOULD KNOW THIS. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE TEST YOU'RE RUNNING TO GET YOUR A, B OR C CLASSIFICATION. I DON'T MISS CHAIRMAN ON ON THIS ONE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE ARE PROS AND CONS IN BOTH SIDES AND SINCE I DON'T DEAL WITH THIS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, LIKE THE CITY, I WOULD DEFER TO THEIR RECOMMENDATION PERSONALLY. UH, THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD. SO ANOTHER POINT ON THIS, SO THE, THE COMPLIANCE TESTING, A LOT OF THE TIMES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE APPROVED IN THE APPLICATION AND USUALLY, YOU KNOW, LIKE AN IMO OR UL LISTING OR SOMETIMES IT IS JUST THE MANUFACTURER SPECS OF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT IT TAKES TO BE INSTALLED AND WHERE IT CAN BE INSTALLED. THAT TESTING IS DONE WELL IN ADVANCE A LOT OF TIMES AND THAT SUBSTRATE MIGHT HAVE ALREADY BEEN TESTED. SO IT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY TESTED FOR THIS PRODUCT OR FOR THIS INSTALL. IF THEY'VE ALREADY TESTED A SIMILAR SUBSTRATE AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS PASSED THAT SUBSTRATE, YOU KNOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT LI LONGLEAF PINE, WE KNOW THAT'S GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT MORE HARDY THAN, [01:00:01] YOU KNOW, ANOTHER WOODEN SUBSTRATE THAT'S IN EXISTENCE. NOW IF IT PASSED THAT TEST, NOW AS A A H J I WOULD SAY, OH YEAH, IF YOU'RE GONNA APPLY THAT TO SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OLDER AND YOU KNOW, MORE DENSE WOOD THAT WE KNOW IS NOT GONNA BE AS FLAMMABLE, THEN THAT MAKES SENSE. SO IT'S NOT ALWAYS GONNA REQUIRE IMMEDIATELY THAT YOU HAVE TO TEST SPECIFIC TO THAT LOCATION. IT'S JUST IF THAT MATERIAL THAT YOU BOUGHT HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED ON THAT SUBSTRATE, THEN YOU NEED A TEST. BUT IF YOU FIND A MATERIAL THAT'S ALREADY BEEN TESTED TO A SIMILAR SUBSTRATE OR THE SAME SUBSTRATE, THEN THAT SHOULD COMPLY I THINK WITH THIS CODE SECTION. SO IT WOULD BE A, A MATTER OF I'M THE CONTRACTOR, I'M GONNA BUY THIS FIRE RETARDANT SEALANT MATERIAL AND SO I'M GONNA GO TO THE MANUFACTURER AND SAY, THIS IS THE SUBSTRATE. SHOW ME A TEST THAT SHOWS THAT THIS IS WORTHWHILE OR I'M GONNA GO FIND SOMETHING ELSE ESSENTIALLY. AND YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SPEND THAT A THOUSAND DOLLARS, $2,000 TEST. IS THAT KIND OF, AM I READING THAT RIGHT? EXACTLY. CORRECT. YEAH, THAT'S HOW I READ IT. CAN WE MODIFY IT TO ADD THE WORDS IN FRONT OF COMPLIANCE OR SOMEWHERE IN THERE THAT DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED RATHER THAN A REQUIREMENT FOR TESTING TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CAN SUBMIT SOMETHING. SO YOU COULD SUBMIT A, A FIRE ENGINEER LETTER SAYING THAT THEY'VE RESEARCHED IT AND IT APPEARS TO MEET THE STANDARD. OR YOU CAN PROVIDE THE MANUFACTURER PAPERWORK THAT SAYS THIS PRODUCT HAS THIS ON THESE GIVEN SET OF PRODUCTS THAT ARE JUST SUBMITTED RATHER THAN HAVING TO MUDDLE THROUGH WHAT COMPLIANCE TESTING REALLY MEANS. MARK, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT A LOT OF MANUFACTURERS WILL ALREADY HAVE, AND JEREMY, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THEY'RE CALLED. I KNOW THAT THERE'S COMMODITIES LETTERS, BUT WHAT ARE THE MANUFACTURER DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY VERIFY THAT IT MEETS THE FOLLOWING? THEY'VE BEEN TESTED DATA SHEETS. YEAH, TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS AND IF THEY HAVE THAT, BUT WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE THE TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS THAT YOU CAN HAND INTO THE CITY ON THE MATERIAL? THEN YOU ARE GONNA HAVE TO, THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR THE TEST. EXACTLY. I MEAN, AND, AND IF THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO. BUT YOU KNOW, MOST PRODUCTS WILL SAY IT WORKS WITH WOOD OR IT WORKS WITH ON A SHEET ROCK SURFACE OR IT WORKS WITH SOME OTHER MATERIAL IN THAT TECHNICAL SHEET. IT TELLS YOU WHAT IT CAN BE APPLIED TO TO WORK. 'CAUSE THEY WANT TO PREVENT LIABILITY ON THEIR PART. I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THE VERBIAGE THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING THE FIRE RETARDANT COATING ON THE SAME MATERIAL THAT SHOULD BE APPLICABLE, WHETHER IT WAS DONE BY THE MANUFACTURER 10 YEARS AGO OR WHETHER YOU HAD TO DO IT JUST FOR THIS ONE INSTANCE. I MEAN, THE VERBIAGE COVERS BOTH SCENARIOS. SO CRYSTAL, HAS THIS CONVERSATION CHANGED CITY'S RECOMMENDATION AT ALL OR ARE YOU STILL ON? Y'ALL WANNA STRIKE IT? PUT YOU ON THE SPOT HERE. YOU'RE WELCOME. YOU DID. YOU DID, YOU DID. UM, WELL, TO ADDRESS MARK'S POINT, WE I TOTALLY AGREE WITH KAREN THAT I DON'T THINK ANY ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE WOULD BE NEEDED IF YOU GUYS WANNA LEAVE IT IN. UM, WE WOULD ACCEPT, UH, THE COMPLIANT, THE, YOU THE CUSTOMER WOULD SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH A TEST THAT WAS DONE 10 YEARS AGO OR, YOU KNOW, 10 MONTHS AGO. SO WE WOULD NOT REQUIRE THEM TO GO AND PERFORM A TEST. NOW, UM, DOES IT CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION? UM, IT DOESN'T, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU GUYS YOUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS, UM, IN THE FIELD, UM, AND, AND POTENTIALLY PAYING FOR THESE TESTS TO BE CONDUCTED ON YOUR PROJECT. SO, UH, IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU GUYS, IT'S NOT GONNA HURT OUR FEELINGS IF YOU DECIDE TO LEAVE IT. HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE SAME WHEN IT SAYS SAME MATERIAL? IS THAT EXACTLY THE SAME IN OTHER WORDS? TO ME, SAME MEANS THAT YOU ARE TESTING WHAT'S ON THE WALL, BUT IT ALSO SAYS WHERE THE, THAT SECOND SENTENCE, THE LAST SENTENCE ALSO SAYS, WHERE THE SAME MATERIAL'S NOT AVAILABLE, TESTING ON A SIMILAR MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED. OKAY. IS YOU, WOULD YOU WOULD ACCEPT A TESTING SHEET FROM THE MANUFACTURER SAYING THIS PRODUCT? ABSOLUTELY, YES. OKAY, THEN ROBERT, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I, I I SAYS THE CITY STAFF HAS TO DEAL WITH THIS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE INPUTTING THESE RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS. THERE ARE A LOT OF DISCUSSION IF THIS IS THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BOARD AND I DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR EXCEPTION BECAUSE I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, I'M GONNA DEFER TO THE CITY ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION. [01:05:01] OKAY, THAT'S FAIR. PERSONALLY. SO ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WE SEEM TO, I I THINK IT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TO HAVE KIND OF A SMALL UNOFFICIAL VOTE ON THIS ITEM TO TO, TO DETERMINE IT. SO, UM, I DON'T NEED A MOTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE'RE JUST GONNA, I'LL JUST SAY WHO, WHO'S IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING THE AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN. IF YOU COULD JUST KIND OF RAISE YOUR HAND, JOE AND ROBERT, ARE YOU WANT THE CITY WANTS TO STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE. YEAH. OKAY. AND SO WHO A BY SHOW OF HANDS WANTS TO JUST KEEP THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN IN THE CODE. OKAY, SO IT'S TWO TO TWO IN THAT REALLY, NOW I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION THAT'S FREAKING FANTASTIC. , BEING IN LEADERSHIP ROLE, ROBERT, I NORMALLY FEEL THE SAME WAY AND MY INSTINCT IS TO DEFER TO THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE. UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE FIRE PROTECTION PROFESSIONALS SAYING THIS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WOULD BE REVERTING TO A MORE SAFE METHOD. AND I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IN MY, FOR ME, I'D, I'D GO WITH JUST KEEPING IT AS WRITTEN IN THE CODE. SO, UM, IF EVERYBODY, UNLESS EVERYBODY FEELS REAL EVANGELICAL AND WANTS TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT, WE'LL JUST GO ON AND, AND DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. OKAY. SO 16 IS, UM, REJECTED WITH APOLOGIES, QUESTION , AND NEXT TIME BRING TACOS. NOTED EXTRA FAVOR. MM-HMM. . SO, UH, WE'LL MOVE ON TO 17. SO THAT'S A CHANGE TO 8 0 3 0.2 0.2 FOR GROUP I TWO. SO THEY'VE REALLY, THEY'VE EXTRACTED I TWOS FROM THE GROUP OF EVERYTHING ELSE. SO YOU CAN SEE AN 8 0 3, 2 0.2, UM, IS A LIST OF NUMEROUS OCCUPANCY TYPES AND THEY'VE EX THEY'VE, UM, THEY REMOVED GROUPED I TWOS AND NOW YOU CAN SEE THAT IN 8 0 3 0.2 0.3. SO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR I TWOS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. CAN I ASK A, A SIMPLE 10 QUESTION? WHAT, WHAT SEPARATES I TWO FROM I ONE I THREE, I FOUR? SO I TWO IS, UH, THE HOSPITALS THAT WOULD PROVIDE EMERGENCY CARE. UM, I ONE THAT'S LIKE A, IT'S LIKE A HALFWAY HOUSE OR THAT I THREE WOULD BE A JAIL. UM, WOULD THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR I TWOS AND I THREES ARE MORE LIKE DEFENDANT PLACE KIND OF STUFF. SO WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, EVACUATION IS IS NOT ALWAYS FEASIBLE OR ACHIEVABLE? NO, WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, TO KEEP THIS AS WRITTEN. SO WE JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE CHANGE. SO I CHOOSE, SO THIS SECTION ALLOWS THOSE, THOSE OCCUPANCY TYPES TO NOT REQUIRE BEING SPRINKLER IF THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY. EXCEPT NOW THEY'VE TAKEN THAT OUT FOR I TWOS. SO I TWOS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO, UH, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT EXCEPTION. UM, CHAIRMAN, UH, PER THE I B C, UH, 3 0 8 0.2, UH, I ONES ALCOHOL AND DRUG CENTERS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES CONGREGATE GOOD CARE FACILITIES, GROUP HOMES, HALFWAY HOUSES, RESIDENTIAL. SO IT'S A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL. AND THE I TWOS ARE FOSTER CARE FACILITY DETOXIFICATION FACILITIES, HOSPITAL N NURSING HOMES, AND PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS. SO, UH, IN ALL OF THOSE CASES, PERSON I WOULD, I AGREE WITH THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO NOT GIVE THOSE TYPE OF FACILITIES THE ABILITY TO HAVE USE AN EXCEPTION. SO THIS IS JUST A CHANGE, UM, IN THE CODE. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT WITH THIS. WE JUST WANTED TO BRING THIS UP AND IDENTIFY IT AS A CHANGE THAT WE AGREE WITH. UM, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ANY, UH, EXCEPTIONS TO THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT. SO WE'LL MOVE TO 18. SO THIS IS SIMILAR AS WELL. THEY'VE, UM, THEY'VE EXCLUDED THE I TWOS, UH, THEY LIMITED THE LENGTH OF A DEAD END CORRIDOR TO 30 FEET FOR [01:10:01] I TWOS IT. UH, ALL OTHER OCCUPANCIES, UM, ARE PERMITTED TO EXTEND BEYOND THAT 30 FEET. UM, YEAH, 35 FEET OR THERE'S SOME OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RULE. WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADOPT THIS AS WRITTEN. UM, JUST WANTED TO IDENTIFY THIS AS, AS A CHANGE COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS, BUT IT'S MINOR. SO IF THEY'RE DOING A REMODEL SOMEWHERE ON A FLOOR IN THERE THAT IS 50% AND THEY HAVE A CURRENT DEAD END CORRIDOR THAT'S 35 FEET, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUT SOME OTHER HALL ALL THE WAY IN TO CONNECT IT SO IT'S NOT DEAD END. THAT'S CORRECT. EVERYBODY WE'RE GOOD? OKAY. ADOPT IS WRITTEN 19, PLEASE LET ME GET TO THAT SECTION REAL QUICK. OKAY. THIS WAS A CHANGE TO SECTION 10 11.2 0.1. SO THIS CHAPTER IS CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. SO WE ARE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SECTION. SO CURRENTLY, SO THIS SECTION IS REGARDING FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND STATES THAT THE, THE CHANGE STATES THAT THE INSTALLATION OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE REQUIRED WITHIN THE AREA OF THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANCIES IN AREAS OF THE BUILDING NOT SEPARATED HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY FROM THE CHANGE BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING. SO THIS, UM, WE'RE PROPOSING TO AMEND OUT THAT NEW LANGUAGE THAT I JUST READ BECAUSE THIS WHAT CONFLICTS WITH OUR CURRENT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER, UM, TO THE I B C AND THE I F C THAT REQUIRES A ONE HOUR FIRE BARRIER BETWEEN SPRINKLERED AND NON SPRINKLERED AREAS. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW, UM, A SPRINKLERED AND NONS SPRINKLERED AREA TO BE JUST SEPARATED BY A NON-RATED PARTITION, A FIRE PARTITION, A SMOKE PARTITION, UM, AGAIN, WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE. AS WE'VE AMENDED IT, I THINK WE SHOULD ADOPT, UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. ALL RIGHT, SOUNDS GOOD. WE'LL MOVE TO 20. SO THIS ONE IS THE EXACT SAME ISSUE THAT WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT. INTERIOR FINISHES. UM, COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING THE FIRE RETARDANT ENTRY TO CODE, UH, COATING. UM, WE UNDERSTAND THE POSITION OF THE COMMITTEE AND WE WOULD NOT, WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO REMOVE THIS LANGUAGE AGAIN 'CAUSE IT'S SIMILAR. WE DON'T, WE WANNA, WE WANNA REMAIN CONSISTENT. THAT WAS FOR LEVEL TWO ALTERATIONS AND THIS IS HISTORIC BUILDINGS. WE COULD RE-LITIGATE IT IF ANYBODY'S NO. CAN WE TAKE A RE-VOTE? GET KAREN, THAT TACO. ALL RIGHT. SO 20. WE ARE GONNA NOT DO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, UM, AND MOVE TO 21 BASED ON, OKAY, 21. THAT IS A NEW SECTION OF 1502 0.2 THAT REQUIRES THE RETENTION SYSTEM ADJACENT TO OTHER STRUCTURES TO BE ENGINEERED. WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS WITH THE I B C. WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT ALREADY WE AGREE WITH THIS LANGUAGE AND PROPOSE TO ADOPT AS WRITTEN. ANY CONCERN THERE? OKAY, UH, 22 PLEASE. 22. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISCUSS, UH, WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEN, WHEN YOU GUYS, UM, GO OVER THE CHANGES WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. UM, WE JUST WANTED TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THIS IS ALSO IN THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE. SEVERAL NEW SECTIONS REGARDING THE WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY. CRYSTAL, ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL WE HAVE THE MEETING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? YES, THAT IS THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF. UM, BUT AGAIN, WANTED TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT IT'S ALSO, UH, IN THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE. OKAY. SO WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE LIST. UM, SO WE'VE APPROVED EVERYTHING AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH [01:15:01] THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 16 AND 20. UM, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION FROM SOMEONE ON THE COMMITTEE TO, UH, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS IS ROBERT LEY MOVE APPROVAL OF THE, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2021, UH, INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE ITEMS. UH, AMENDMENTS NUMBER 16 AND 20 AND ITEM 22, WHICH WILL BE TABLED. THANK YOU SIR. CAN I GET A SECOND ON THAT, MS. JOE? LEOS. I SECOND IT. THANK YOU JOE. UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THESE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THAT SOUNDS UNANIMOUS. UH, SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ADOPTED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. THANK YOU GUYS. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO YEAH, THAT DOES CONCLUDE THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE UNTIL WE, UM, . ALL RIGHT, DULY, DULY NOTED. I, I'M FALLING DOWN ON MY DUTIES, BUT I CAN CREEK THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY MORE, BUT IF, IF SOMETHING COMES UP, UH, THEN I'LL ALSO LOOK TO SEE IF I CAN DO A LUNCHEON BEFORE THE NEXT ONE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MAYBE NOT TOMORROW 'CAUSE THAT'S A SHORT NOTICE. BUT YEAH, WE GOT, WE GOT A FEW MORE OF THESE SO, UM, OKAY, SO, UH, I THINK, SO WE'RE TABLING, WE DO HAVE ONE MORE ITEM. SO I WILL BRING THIS BACK UP AGAIN WHEN WE'RE TA DISCUSSING THE I F C WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE. UH, BUT SO IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, ONCE AGAIN THESE ARE BOTH ON THE AGENDA FOR TOMORROW. JUST 'CAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHAT OVERLAY WE WOULD HAVE. AND I HAVE TO HAVE 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE. SO THE I B C AND THE I E B C ARE BOTH ON THE AGENDA, BUT THE GOAL FOR TOMORROW IS MOSTLY THE I R C. UH, I, I WILL BE SENDING IT OUT. I SENT IT OUT THIS MORNING, UH, THE COMMENTS FOR THAT, BUT I THINK THERE'S A CLERICAL ISSUE THAT I NEED TO ADDRESS AND I'M GONNA GET IT OUT TO Y'ALL AGAIN THIS MORNING. UH, THE ITEMS ARE GONNA BE DISCUSSING, UM, JEREMY, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THIS, THE CHEAT SHEET FOR THE I R C YET, OR AT LEAST I HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT IN MY COMPUTER, WILL WE GET THAT SOMETIME TODAY SO WE CAN ? CORRECT? YEAH, I SENT IT OUT THIS MORNING, BUT LIKE I SAID, I NEED TO MAKE A SLIGHT TWEAK ON IT. I THINK THE TECHNICAL STUFF'S THERE. IT'S JUST A CLERICAL ITEM. YES, THE NUMBERING WAS OFF. WE STARTED WITH NUMBER FIVE, SO I SAW THAT, UM, THIS MORNING AND CORRECTED THAT. OKAY. AND I'LL SEND, I'LL RESEND THAT OUT AS SOON AS WE WRAP UP HERE. SO BY LUNCHTIME YOU'LL HAVE THAT ONE, UH, THAT'LL BE WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING STARTING AT ONE O'CLOCK TOMORROW. ONE PAGE OR TWO. I DOUBT IT. IT'S THE I R C , A LITTLE BIT BIGGER BOOK, A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBSTANCE . UH, WE DO HAVE, SO YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE NOW. SO WE FINISHED AT THE I E B C, UH, WHICH WAS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED I THINK AT THE END OF THIS COMMITTEE. SO AFTER THE I F C, UH, WE'RE GONNA BE STARTING THE I R C TOMORROW, WHICH ORIGINALLY HAD THREE WEEKS SCHEDULED FOR THAT. SO, UH, WHETHER THAT TAKES US FOUR WEEKS AND WE KIND OF DON'T STAY AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, BUT CURRENTLY WE ARE TWO WEEKS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE WITH THIS COMMITTEE. UH, SO WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE LONG RUN, I STILL HAVE TO SCHEDULE A MEETING FOR THE SWIMMING POOL CODE. I NEED TO REACH OUT WITH THAT COMMITTEE. I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL NOW MOVE THAT TO ONE OF THOSE OPEN THURSDAYS, UM, OR IF WE WANNA MOVE UP THE, UM, ENERGY CODE, I'M NOT SURE, BUT WE'LL DISCUSS THAT AND KIND OF TALK ABOUT THAT. BUT, UH, EVERYTHING'S LOOKING REALLY GOOD. I APPRECIATE THIS COMMITTEE'S COMMITMENT TO, TO THESE CODES. I KNOW IT'S A BIG LIFT FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED AND I KNOW I'LL HAVE A LOT ON THE, THE PLATE, MIKE TO CHAIR ALL THE COMMITTEES SO THEY MOVE AS FAST AS THIS ONE. THAT. JEREMY, WHEN ARE WE, ARE WE ON SCHEDULE? JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY FOR THE I F C? SO THE I F C, UH, AND I DON'T SEE THAT PROBABLY MOVING FORWARD, UH, BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE, UM, A LOT OF CHANGES GOING ON IN THAT GROUP, UH, WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE. SO I DON'T WANNA TRY TO MOVE THEM FORWARD. SO MAYBE WHAT I'LL DO IS, UM, BUT THAT CURRENTLY WE ARE FOUR WEEKS OUT FROM THAT ON THURSDAY. SO WE WOULD'VE MOVED INTO THE I R C FOR THREE WEEKS AND THEN TO THE I O C FOR THREE WEEKS. UH, SO WE SHOULD BE FOUR WEEKS OUT FROM THAT. I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD ALREADY HAVE THAT ON THEIR CALENDAR AS A SEPARATE, UH, REOCCURRING MAY, UH, SKIING MEETING REQUEST, UM, FOR THAT ONE. BUT YEAH, I DON'T SEE US MOVING THAT ONE FORWARD, BUT I AM MEETING WITH THEM TOMORROW. I'LL HAVE TO STEP OUT DURING OUR MEETING TOMORROW TO MEET WITH THEM. UH, AND I'LL, I'LL BRING THAT UP IF WE ARE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, IF THEY ARE CAPABLE OF MOVING IT FORWARD. BUT IF NOT, THEN I THINK WE'LL FIND SOMETHING TO FILL FOR THAT WEEK. I WOULD, AT LEAST FROM OUR, WE HAVE SOME CHANGES IN MODIFICATIONS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE MEETING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON FOR THE I F C. SO MOVING IT UP WOULD PROBABLY NOT NECESSARILY BE GOOD BECAUSE THERE'RE, WE ALL NEED YOUR GROUP THE APART. HUH? WHEN ARE Y'ALL MEETING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE A DATE YET, SO. OKAY. NO, EXACTLY. I MEAN THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE. THEY'RE JUST MINOR CHANGES TO THE WHAT'S THEY'VE ALREADY AGREED TO IN THE LAST CODE CYCLE, SOME OPERATIONAL ISSUES. SO, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, UM, YEAH, AND, YOU KNOW, AND THOSE MEETINGS MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER SINCE WE ARE HAVING OTHER ITEMS COME UP, SO WE'LL, WE'LL SEE HOW THAT GOES, BUT, UH, I'LL TALK TO THEM TOMORROW. UH, AND IF ANYTHING DOES CHANGE, WE HAVE THREE WEEKS TO MAKE THAT CHANGE WITH THIS COMMITTEE. UM, ULTIMATELY, SO REALLY MOVING FORWARD, THIS COMMITTEE, WE'RE NOW PRETTY MUCH THURSDAYS AT ONE O'CLOCK FOR THE REST OF THE, THE MEETINGS. WE WON'T HAVE THE TWO PER WEEK ANYMORE. UM, AND YOU KNOW, THE BOUNCING AROUND BETWEEN DATES, SO WE'LL BE ONE O'CLOCK FROM ONE TO FOUR ON THURSDAYS, UH, MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, LAST ITEM [01:20:01] I HAVE, ONCE AGAIN, IT'S JUST THE DIRECTOR'S NOTES. I BRING THIS UP MOSTLY FOR ANYBODY THAT'S WATCHING IT FROM HOME. UH, NONE OF THESE RESOURCES, ALL THE CODE UPDATES INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEBSITE AT DSD. THE MEETING RECORDINGS, UH, THEY ARE TAKING A LITTLE BIT LONGER, UH, TO GET POSTED, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM TO GET THAT DONE. BUT HOPEFULLY, UH, THESE MEETINGS ARE CO POSTED ABOUT A WEEK LATER AFTER WE COMPLETE THEM BOTH IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH INTERPRETATION. UM, AND THEN ONCE AGAIN, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THIS COMMITTEE OR ANY OF THE COMMITTEES OR PART OF THIS CODE ADOPTION PROCESS AND CAN'T BE HERE FOR THESE MEETINGS, THEY CAN REACH US AT B R F C, AAB B@SANANTONIO.GOV. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COMMITTEE? NO. THANK YOU ANYBODY. ALL RIGHT. MEANS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK VERY MUCH. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.