[00:00:14]
[Call to Order]
THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.UH, WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR JOINING US FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
UH, I WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE GOOD TO GO.
WE ARE RECORDING AND BROADCASTING LIVE, AND WE CAN START THE BOARD MEETING.
UH, TODAY IT'S, UH, JULY 30TH, 9:06 AM CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR THE BUILDING RELATED FIRE CODES APPEALS ADVISORY BOARD, BOARD MEETING.
AND I THINK OUR FIRST, UH, ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO GET A ROLL CALL.
JENNIFER, IF YOU COULD DO THAT FOR US, PLEASE.
JEFF BYER, SCOTT BERGER, RON K PRESENT.
JOHN MARTIN, CHRISTOPHER GARCIA.
THOUGHT HE WAS ON HERE EARLIER.
MICHAEL RUS LIDDEL TOY SLIDE FISHING IN COLORADO.
ALSO PRESENT IN THE MEETING FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ARE JOSEPH HARNEY FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AMIN TAMMA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR JEREMY MCDONALD, BOARD LIAISON, AND MYSELF, JENNIFER SMITH.
SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AT THIS TIME.
UM, I KNOW WE SEEN, UH, THOSE
I WANNA MAKE SURE, UH, MOSTLY BECAUSE THE PIGEON ITEM NUMBER ONE IS PERTAINING TO SOME, UH, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ITEMS. AND I KNOW YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF THAT.
SO I JUST WANNA CONFIRM, UH, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, IF WE DO HAVE HIM, IF NOT, CAN YOU HEAR US OR IS IT JUST AN AUDIO ISSUE? OKAY.
WELL, WE DO HAVE FORUM, UH, GO THROUGH, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS WE'LL WORK WITH, UH, UNTIL WE GET HIM ON.
UH, I GUESS WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, UH, THE REST OF THE JEREMY, HE MAYBE HE COULD JOIN BY PHONE.
[00:05:05]
OKAY.SINCE WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, LET'S JUST MOVE THROUGH A FEW OF THESE ITEMS WHILE WE'RE WORKING OUT THAT TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY.
UH, LET'S DO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
BRIAN SMITH, I, I, I, UH, MAKE A MOTION UNLESS THERE'S ANY MODIFICATIONS OR CHANGES FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE JULY 17TH MEETING MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, IF WE COULD DO A ROLL CALL, JENNIFER, FOR THE, AND NAYS, PLEASE.
I'M SORRY, JENNIFER MISSED THE, UH, SPANISH INTERPRETER'S, UH, AVAILABILITY NOTICE.
SO, UH, LET ME RUN IN AND DO THAT REAL FAST, UH, AND THEN WE CAN, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
THAT CONCLUDES THE INTERPRETATION ANNOUNCEMENT.
JUST TO, UH, REFRESH, DO I NEED TO READ THE, THE YES.
IS THERE A STATEMENT I NEED TO READ? UH, NOT IF THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE A STATEMENT, THEN UH, NOTHING SHOULD BE READ.
UH, SO JUST TO REITERATE, AT THIS
[Approval of Minutes]
TIME WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE JULY 17TH BOARD MEETING MINUTES.DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THROUGH JENNIFER THROUGH ROLL CALL PLEASE.
AYE, I THINK YOU SAID MY NAME.
MOTION PASSES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH A VOTE OF NINE TO ZERO.
THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR MEETING WOULD BE BEFORE I LEAVE, THAT WAS ABLE TO JOIN US.
WELCOME TO THE, TO THE MEETING LOUIS.
DO OUR, UH, FIRST ITEM, WHICH IS THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON APPEAL SUBMITTED BY JOSE AL PERTAINING TO THE BUILDING OF OFFICIAL'S DECISION TO NOT ACCEPT HIS INSPECTION REPORTS.
THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, WE ALSO STILL NEED TO, UH, RAT THE MEETING MINUTES FORM THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING FOR 2018 I S P S.
SO THAT WAS THE JULY 28TH MEETING.
IF EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE MEETINGS, THEY WERE IN THE PACKET.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THEM OR NOT, BUT IF WE COULD, UH, GET A MOTION TO FOR APPROVAL OF THOSE JULY 28TH AMENDMENT MEETING MINUTES.
UH, CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY FOR CLARIFICATION.
IT'S ONLY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS VOTING ON THESE MEETING MINUTES, CORRECT? MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? WE HAVE OUR ATTORNEY HERE.
UM, SO EVERYBODY WHO, WHO DOESN'T WANT TO VOTE CAN ESSENTIALLY ABSTAIN AS LONG AS WE HAVE A MAJORITY ON, UH, APPROVAL OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THEN THEY'LL PASS.
SO WHE WHETHER IT'S THE FLOOR THAT WE'RE IN, IN ATTENDANCE OR, OR ANYBODY ELSE CAN VOTE ON THIS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SIR? YES.
IF SOMEONE, IF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE THERE ARE, UM, VERIFYING THAT THE MINUTES ARE, ARE ACCURATE, UM, THEN, UH, YOU HAVE THAT OPTION OR YOU CAN ABSTAIN SINCE ONLY MINUTES PRESENT.
[00:10:01]
DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY OF, UH, MEMBERS THAT WERE AT THAT MEETING, HOW DOES THAT PLAY? UH, WELL, IF WHO, IF ABSTENTIONS DON'T COUNT TOWARDS, UM, VOTE TALLY.SO AS LONG AS WE HAVE A, UM, DEPENDING ON THE VOTE, AS LONG AS WE HAVE A, A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
4, 4, 4 MEMBERS AT THAT MEETING.
SO DOES THAT MEAN WE NEED TO HAVE FOUR APPROVAL? UM, JUDGE, THIS IS JEREMY.
UH, SO AS LONG AS SOMEBODY THAT WAS AT THAT MEETING, UH, CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS IN RETAINING, UH, REGARDING THE MINUTES, THEN ANYBODY CAN HAVE AN OPEN CONVERSATION ON THAT.
THEN THE FULL BOARD CAN VOTE ON IT OR ABSTAIN.
UH, BUT WE JUST NEED TO HAVE ONE PERSON FROM THAT MEETING AT THIS MEETING, UH, MEETING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, UH, FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE MEETING MINUTES.
UH, SO I GUESS THAT WE ONLY HAD FROM THAT MEETING, WE ONLY HAD, ARE THERE ONLY TWO HERE THAT WERE FROM PRESENT IN THAT MEETING? CORRECT.
I GUESS, UH, I MAKE THE, THAT I WAS THERE THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE JULY 28TH MEETING.
I'LL SECOND IT SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? DO A ROLL CALL FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL BAR HERE.
K SPENCER RAMEL, SPENCER RAMEL.
AYE, UM, JENNIFER, CAN, IS THERE ANY THAT, UH, YOU DID NOT GET A RESPONSE ON? BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I ACCIDENTALLY MUTED YOU.
I WANNA MAKE SURE, UH, WE HAVE THE PROPER COUNT.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE, UH, LOUIS OLIS, AYE.
IF WE THAT DONE, LET'S, UH, MOVE ON
[1. Discussion and Action on appeal submitted by Jose Villarreal, P.E. pertaining to Building Officials decision to not accept his inspection reports or designs.]
BACK TO THE DISCUSSION AND APPEAL SUBMITTED BY JOSE AL PERTAINING TO HIS RULING OFFICIAL DECISION TO NOT ACCEPT THE INSPECTION REPORTS.UH, THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE STAFF GO AHEAD AND CALL UP MR. AL TO HAVE HIM PATCHED IN SO HE CAN, UH, FLASH 3 1 1.
UM, AND WHILE WE'RE READY TO, UH, GET HIM ON THE LINE, I'M GO AHEAD AND, UH, READ THE MEETING FORMAT STATEMENT TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19.
THE BUILDING RELATED FIRE CODES AND ADVISORY APPEALS BOARD IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE.
THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETING OF ACT ISSUED BY TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING WWW.SANANTONIO.GOV/DSD OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3.
TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES.
THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL OF COMMENT, DROPPING OFF COMMENT, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING.
STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO
[00:15:01]
TWO MINUTES FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE PPLICANT.STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED.
STAFF WILL ALSO PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL.
LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK, WE WILL CALL THEM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS.
SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED.
THE APPELLANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH UNLIMITED TIME LI LIMIT, ALONG WITH OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.
THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, WE'RE JUST CONFIRMING THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO HEAR, UH, THE CURRENT PRESENTATION.
UH, CURRENTLY I'M GONNA PUT YOU BACK ON MUTE AS, UH, STAFF MAKES THEIR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD.
UH, FOLLOWING, UH, CONVERSATIONS AND FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS TO THAT PRESENTATION, WE WILL UNMUTE YOU TO ALLOW YOU TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.
UM, I DO HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION ITEMS AND ALL YOUR APPENDIX ITEMS ARE, ARE EXHIBIT ITEMS READY TO BRING UP AT YOUR, UH, UH, DURING YOUR TIME, UH, AS YOU LET ME KNOW, UH, WHAT YOU WANT PRESENTED AT THE BOARD AT TIME.
THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GOING TO, UH, START AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
UH, HEARING THE APPEAL OF MR. JOSE RE, UH, WITH DELAL DESIGN GROUP.
THIS IS THE APPLICATION FOR APPEAL THAT WE RECEIVED.
I, MR. AL PE WITH ELLE DESIGN GROUP IS BILLING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION TO NO LONGER ACCEPT HIS ENGINEER'S LETTERS, INSPECTION REPORTS.
OUR ENGINEER'S DESIGN NOTICE OF THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED TO HIM ON JANUARY 24TH, 2020 VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL.
MR. VIRE APPEALED THE DECISION ORIGINALLY, UH, TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MR. MICHAEL SHANNON, PE ON JULY 1ST, 2020, AND PROVIDED A LETTER WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION ON JULY 2ND, 2020.
SO THIS APPEAL WAS A SUB CONFERENCE, UH, WITH D S D STAFF, INCLUDING MR. SHANNON AND MR. BILLY RAIL.
UH, DISCUSSING THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE GONNA GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE FURTHER DETAIL HERE.
UH, THAT WAS MADE USED TOWARDS THE DECISION TO NO LONGER ACCEPT THESE, THESE DOCUMENTS FROM MR. BILLY RAIL AND HIS DESIGN GROUP.
UH, BASED OFF OF THAT APPEAL AND MEETING, MR. SHANNON UPHELD HIS, THE DECISION TO NOT ACCEPT MR. BILL'S LETTERS, REPORT AND DESIGN.
THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IS ENGINEER'S LETTERS RECEIVED FROM MR. AL IN REGARDS TO A NEW STRUCTURE BEING BUILT AT 3 5 5 CABLE DRIVE, DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY STAFF AND REVIEW OF THESE LETTERS.
AND ON THE SITE MEETING WITH MR. AL AT 3 5 5 CABLE DRIVE WITH CITY STAFF PREMIER CARILLO, JOSEPH BURNELL AND JEREMY MCDONALD TO INSPECT THE STRUCTURE AND DISCUSS STAFF'S CONCERNS WITH THE APPROVED FOUNDATION DESIGN.
UH, FOR REFERENCE, UH, THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS PRESENTATION, THESE, THIS IS THE, UH, FOUNDATION IN QUESTION.
UH, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WILL BE, UH, ADDRESSED AS, UH, STAFF CONCERNS ON THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, UH, PREDOMINANTLY IS THE PIERS, UH, DESIGN OF THE PIERS LOCATIONS, UH, AND STRUCTURES OF THE PIERS, AS WELL AS THE BEAMS. AND, UH, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS WHEN WE, UH, AS WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION, WE CAN COME BACK TO SOME OF THESE PICTURES, UH, BUT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE CLEAR TO KIND OF SHOW YOU THE DESIGN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, AND THEN GO INTO MORE DETAIL.
SO, HISTORY OF THE, ON THE, ON THIS PROJECT, UH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE, UH, THE BOARD IS AWARE THAT, UH, MOST OF THIS WAS PRIOR TO, UH, MR. VI A'S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PROJECT, BUT WE WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME, UH, BACKGROUND OF, OF THIS PROJECT.
UH, THE STRUCTURE IS BEING BUILT BY THE HOMEOWNER.
UH, ORIGINALLY THE STRUCTURE WAS IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT HOUSE, THAT WAS WHAT WAS APPLIED IN THE PERMIT APPLICATION, UH, THAT THE CITY RECEIVED ON MAY 20TH, 2020.
UH, DURING THE ZONING AND BUILDING CODE REVIEW, IT WOULD DETERMINE THE STRUCTURE WOULD ENCROACH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDITION.
UH, SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT, UM, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDITION AND FOR A NEW STRUCTURE.
AND, UH, BASED ON THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOCATION OF THE ADDITION, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE ENCROACHING ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS AN ADDITION, BUT AS A STANDALONE STRUCTURE, THEY WOULD NOT BE.
SO, BECAUSE OF THAT, THE HOMEOWNER REVISED THE PROJECT AND APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE TO A STANDALONE BUILDING TO MEET
[00:20:01]
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.THIS WAS UPDATED ON JUNE 8TH, 2020 TO REFLECT THE STRUCTURE AS BEING A STANDALONE AND NOT AN ADDITION.
UH, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, UH, SOME OF THE LAYOUTS.
THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL, UH, PROPOSAL TO BE AN ADDITION.
THIS WAS THE REVISION TO MAKE IT A STANDALONE STRUCTURE AND, UH, DOCUMENTING THE SETBACK.
UH, THE SETBACKS IN THE, UH, IS NOT IN QUESTION.
UH, IT'S JUST MORE OF A CLARIFICATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD.
SO, HISTORY OF THE INSPECTIONS.
UH, STAFF FROM D F D PERFORMED A STAFF, UH, SITE VISIT ON JUNE 2ND, AND CONFIRMED THAT THE NEW STRUCTURE WAS CURRENTLY AT DEX FOUNDATION.
THE CITY VISIT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE D F D RECEIVED FROM CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS AND THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH THE FOUNDATION BEING BUILT ON THE PROPERTY NOT BEING CODE-COMPLIANT.
UH, SO THIS WASN'T, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING BEYOND, UH, NEIGHBORS SEEING THAT FOUNDATION GOING UP AND JUST HAVING SOME CONCERN, UM, WITH THE SOUNDNESS OF THE FOUNDATION AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, EVERYTHING WAS CODE-COMPLIANT AND THERE WAS NO ISSUES.
SO THEY, UH, ORIGINALLY WENT THROUGH CITY COUNCIL.
CITY COUNCIL REACHED OUT TO D S D AND D S D, UH, DID A SITE VISIT, UH, PRIOR TO ANY INSPECTIONS BEING CALLED, UH, TO, UM, LOOK INTO THIS MATTER AND, UH, SEE WHAT THE ISSUES WERE AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION.
THE HOMEOWNER'S PLANS WERE TO ATTACH THE STRUCTURE TO THE EXISTING HOME THROUGH A ROOF SYSTEM.
UH, SO THIS ON JUNE 2ND, AS WE KIND OF DISCUSSED, UH, THE, THE CHANGE TO A DETACHED STRUCTURE DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL JUNE 8TH.
THIS WAS KIND OF THE CATALYST OF THAT REVIEW.
UH, WE WENT OUT THERE, WE SAW THAT, UH, BASED ON THE NEW LOCATION OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE, UH, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THOSE SETBACK ISSUES, WE NOTIFIED THE HOMEOWNER OF THAT.
UM, AND THEN SINCE THEN, UH, D S D WORKED WITH HIM, UH, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, HEY, YOU CAN MAKE IT A DETACHED STRUCTURE, UH, BUT YOU WOULD NEED TO UPDATE YOUR PERMIT.
UH, ACCORDING, BASED ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, HOMEOWNER REVISED HIS PERMIT TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE TO A STANDALONE HOME.
THE FOUNDATION WAS ALSO INSPECTED ON JUNE 2ND.
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT DID NOT MEET THE PRESCRIPTIVE DESIGNS FOUND IN THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.
THE FOUNDATION WOULD NEED TO BE EITHER MODIFIED TO MEET THE PRESCRIPTIVE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN THE I R C, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD APPROVE, OR A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WOULD NEED TO BE HIRED TO MAKE RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND OR APPROVE THE FOUNDATION WITH THE LETTER.
SO THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT, UH, THE HOMEOWNER WAS ENGAGED THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
UM, OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THE DESIGN THAT WAS CURRENTLY BEING INSTALLED, UH, WAS SOMETHING THAT THE HOMEOWNER, UH, KIND OF MADE ON, UH, MADE HIMSELF.
UH, THERE WAS NOT A, ANY, ANY INDICATION THAT ANY ENGINEER, UH, WAS INVOLVED WITH THE INITIAL DESIGN OF THE, OF THE FOUNDATION.
THE HOMEOWNER STATED THAT HE HAD AN ENGINEER WORKING WITH HIM, UH, BUT DID NOT PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE FIRM.
SO, IN RESPONSE TO THAT INITIAL REQUEST THAT THEY PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION APPROVING, UH, OR CERTIFYING THE FOUNDATION AS IS, UH, THE HOMEOWNER INITIALLY PROVIDED, UH, WHAT WAS A TREK INSPECTION REPORT ON JUNE 9TH, 2020, CERTIFYING THE FOUNDATION.
THE HOMEOWNER WAS INFORMED THAT ATION CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO COME FROM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
UH, THIS IS A, UH, A SNIP FROM THAT TRUCK INSPECTION REPORT.
UM, BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE INDIVIDUAL THAT PROVIDED THAT REPORT IS NOT A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
UH, THERE WAS NO STAMPS OR SKILLS INDICATING, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'RE STATE APPROVED, UH, TO MAKE THESE CERTIFICATIONS.
UH, SO AS SUCH, THAT LETTER WAS NOT EXPECTED.
UH, AND THE, UH, HOMEOWNER, UH, ADVISED THAT, UH, WE NEEDED, UH, EITHER AN ENGINEER OR AN ARCHITECT OR SOMEBODY WITH A, UM, STATE LICENSING AND PROFESSIONAL, UM, LICENSING WITH THE STATE TO APPROVE.
D F D RECEIVED AN ENGINEER'S REPORT FROM MR. REEL, DATED AND SIGNED JUNE 11TH, 2020, CERTIFYING THE PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATION STAFF REVIEWED THE LETTER AND EXPRESSED CONCERN TO MR. VIAL ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. THE LETTER REFERENCED THE REPLACEMENT OF LUMBER BEAMS, THE HEIGHT OF THE DOWNHILL HILLS PIERS IN REFERENCE TO, UH, THE HEIGHT, I THINK IS, WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PICTURES THAT THE FOUNDATION SPANS ACROSS A A DOWN SLOPE.
UM, AND STAFF HAD CONCERNS WITH THE PIERS THAT WERE ON THE DOWNSIDE OF THAT, UH, THE STRUCTURE AND CAPABILITY OF THOSE ITY LATERAL MOVEMENT.
UH, THE DESIGNS OF THE PIERS OVERALL AS BEING, UM, JUST C M U BLOCKS, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY DESIGN, UM, DETAILS OF HOW THOSE BLOCKS WERE, UH, STUCK TOGETHER, OR, YOU KNOW, WAS THERE ANY RODS INSIDE THE BLOCKS? UH, WAS IT FULLY ENCASED? UH, IS THERE ANY, UM, ANY STRAPS THAT GO DOWN INTO THE GROUND? UH, HOW FAR DID THE PIERS GO DOWN? WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY DETAILS ON THE PIERS BEYOND JUST A VISUAL INSPECTION.
THE MEANS OF ENSURING A SHEAR LOAD WOULD NOT LEAD TO LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE DOWNHILL AND FAILURE OF THE PIERS AND THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE BEAMS AND THE OVERSPENDING OF THE BEAMS. SO, ON THE PRESCRIPTIVE DESIGN, UH, BASED ON THE I R C ALLOWED, UH, CHARTS AND TABLES, UH, THE BEAMS THAT WERE
[00:25:01]
BEING USED WERE OVERSTANDING, UH, BASED ON THE PRESCRIPTIVE DESIGN.UH, THE LETTER IN REFERENCE THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING.
UH, THIS IS THE LETTER THAT WAS RECEIVED ON JUNE 11TH FROM MR. REEL.
I, UM, AS WE SAID, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS, UM, THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO, UH, 216 LINEAR FEET OF TREATED LUMBER, UM, FOR A NEW FOUNDATION.
UH, WE JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION ON, UH, THE WORD, UH, REPLACEMENT.
UM, ALSO OF NOTE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE LETTER DID INDICATE THAT QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS FROM THE OFFICE VISITED THE SITE, UH, TO CHECK THE CONSTRUCTION IS STATE, UH, STATED ABOVE.
AFTER OUR INITIAL RESPONSE TO MR. AL'S LETTER, UH, D S D RECEIVED AN AMENDED ENGINEER'S REPORT, UH, FROM MR. VIAL DATED JUNE 11TH, 2020, AND SIGNED ON JUNE 12TH, 2020, CERTIFYING THE PEER AND THE BEAM FOUNDATION.
UH, THE CHANGES BETWEEN, UH, THE INITIAL REPORT RECEIVED ON JUNE 11TH AND THE SECONDARY REPORT RECEIVED ON JUNE 12TH WAS THE, UM, REFERENCE TO A REPLACEMENT BEAM WAS REMOVED.
UH, BUT THERE WAS AN ADDITION, UH, TO THAT LETTER, UH, THE WORD ADDITION, UH, IN REFERENCE TO THE FOUNDATION.
SO, UH, THE WAY STAFF WAS INTERPRETING IT WAS THE LETTER, UM, WAS CERTIFYING THE FOUNDATION AS AN ADDITION TO THE REG, UH, ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT AS THE STANDALONE STRUCTURE.
THIS IS THE, UH, LETTER IN REFERENCE.
UM, FIRST WE'RE INDICATING THAT THE INSTALLATION OF THE 216 FOOT, THEY REMOVED THE REPLACEMENT TO INDICATE THAT THIS WAS ALL NEW LUMBER.
UH, BUT THE WORD ADDITION, UH, WAS ADDED.
UH, SO THE NEW FOUNDATION ADDITION VERSUS A, UH, STANDALONE FOUNDATION.
FOLLOWING RECEIVING THE SECOND LETTER, UH, STAFF REVIEWED THE AMENDED LETTER AND STILL HAD CONCERNS WITH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. UH, THE LETTER OF REFERENCING FOUNDATION AS BEING AN ADDITION VERSUS A STANDALONE STRUCTURE, THE, ONCE AGAIN, THE DOWNHILL PEERS AND THE HEIGHT, THE DESIGN OF THE PIERS.
UH, THE ISSUE OF, WITH SHEER LOADS, CREATING A LATERAL LOAD, UH, LATERAL MOVEMENT THAT COULD CAUSE FAILURE OF THE PI AND THE MINIMAL OF THE BEAM AND OVERSTANDING OF THE BEANS.
IN RELATION TO THAT, UH, STAFF TO INCLUDE ROMERO CARILLO, JOSEPH BURNELL AND JEREMY MCDONALD HELD A CONFERENCE CALL WITH MR. RE ON JUNE 16TH, 2020 TO ADDRESS THE REMAINING CONCERNS.
DURING THAT CONFERENCE CALL, UH, STAFF REVIEWED THE LETTER WITH MR. VIAL FOCUSING ON STAFF'S CONCERNS.
DURING THE CALL, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT MR. VIAL WAS BASING HIS APPROVAL OF THE FOUNDATION AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
UH, SO IN THAT CONVERSATION, IT WAS KIND OF THE FIRST TIME THAT, UH, MR, YOU KNOW, BASED ON, UH, OUR, UH, READING OF THE, OF THE CONVERSATION, UM, MR. VIAL WAS, UH, ASSUMING THAT THE ATTACHMENT OR THE STR THE FOUNDATION WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, UH, WHICH WOULD GIVE IT THAT SUPPORT NEEDED TO, UH, STOP THE LATERAL MOVEMENT.
UH, SO THAT WAS BA BASED INTO HIS, UH, DESIGN OF THE, OF THE FOUNDATION AND APPROVAL OF IT CERTIFICATION.
UH, MR. VIAL STATED THAT THIS WAS HIS FIRST TIME THAT HE HAS LEARNED ABOUT THE STRUCTURE AS AN INDEPENDENT BUILDING.
DURING THE CALL, MR. VIRE INFORMED STAFF THAT HE COMPLETED HIS REVIEW OF THE FOUNDATION VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING WITH THE HOMEOWNER.
UH, BASED OFF OF THAT, WE DECIDED TO, UH, SCHEDULE AN ONSITE MEETING, UH, WITH MR. VIAL FOR JUNE 17TH, 2020.
MR. VIAL MET ON SITE WITH RAMIRO CARRIO, JOSEPH AL AND JEREMY MCDONALD TO REVIEW THE FOUNDATION AND DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES WERE REQUIRED.
BASED ON THE INSPECTION, MR. VIAL CONFIRMED THAT A PRIMARY CENTER BEAM WOULD BE REQUIRED DUE TO THE OVERSTANDING OF THE EXISTING BEAMS, AND THAT ADDITIONAL SUPPORT BETWEEN THE PEERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT FROM LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE FOUNDATION.
MR. BIAL DID CONFIRM AT THE MEETING THAT JUNE 17TH, 2020 WAS HIS FIRST TIME ON SITE.
UM, WE ASKED MR. VAAL TO PROVIDE AN, UH, HIS TIMELINE OF THE INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PROJECT, AND HE EMAILED THAT TO US LATER.
THIS IS THAT EMAIL, UH, FROM MR. RE GIVING HIS, HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PROJECT, UH, INDICATING THAT HE WAS FIRST CONTACTED BY MR. RODRIGUEZ.
UM, ON JUNE 11TH OR AROUND JUNE 11TH, UH, HE PERFORMED AN INTERVIEW OF THE INSTALLATION, UM, AND VALIDATED SOME OF THE KEY INFORMATION.
HE PROVIDED THE CERTIFICATION BASED ON THE INTERVIEW AND THE LIVE VIDEO INSPECTION JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BUILDING'S OFFICIALS DECISIONS.
UM, SO ONE OF THE KEY ASPECTS OF REGULATION IN THE CITY ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE IS, UM, THE SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECEIVES, UH, FROM THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, UH, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE, UH, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS.
UM, THE ADOPTED CODES ALLOW FOR THE VOTING OFFICIAL TO ACCEPT THE DESIGNS AND CERTIFYING REPORTS.
A CRITICAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT, UH, RECEIVING LETTERS FROM FOUNDATIONS AND FRAMINGS IN LIEU OF DOING INSPECTIONS, UM, ARE WHEN DESIGNS ARE NOT, UH, SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN I R C AND ARE ABLE TO BE, UH, INTER OR INSPECTED
[00:30:01]
AS PRESCRIPTIVE, AS CRITICAL, UH, FOR A CONTINUATION OF VARIOUS TYPES OF BUILDINGS IN THE CITY.UH, THAT IS BEYOND, UH, THE ABILITY OF A LOT OF THE DSDS INSPECTORS TO INSPECT AGAINST ARE ALSO, UH, DUE TO A LOT OF THE TIME CONSTRAINTS OF OUR INSPECTORS.
UH, SO HAVING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS BE PART OF THAT, UH, APPROVAL OF VARIOUS ASPECTS ON THE INSPECTION SIDE IS CRITICAL.
UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE NEED THAT SUPPORT, UH, FROM THE DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, UH, TO HELP US OUT IN, IN FULFILLING THAT ROLE, UH, REGULATING, UH, FOR LIFE SAFETY.
THE DESIGN OF THE FOUNDATION BUILT AT 3 5 5 CABLE DRIVE WAS CONCERNING MANY RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, AND WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THROUGH CITY COUNCIL.
BASED ON INSPECTIONS, D F C STAFF AGREED WITH THE CONCERNS AND NOTIFIED THE HOMEOWNER AS AN OPTION.
THE HOMEOWNER WAS ABLE TO HIRE AN ENGINEER TO INSPECT THE FOUNDATION AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDED CHANGES OR TO CERTIFY THE FOUNDATION MET CODE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON STAFF'S EXPERIENCE WITH PEER BEAM FOUNDATION.
THE ASSUMPTION WAS THE FOUNDATION WOULD NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE OVER SPANNING AND LATERAL MOVEMENT CONCERN.
WHEN D S D RECEIVED THE CERTIFYING ENGINEER'S LETTERS WITH NO RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE FOUNDATION, STAFF FELT IT NECESSARY TO FOLLOW UP MR. WITH MR. BIAL TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERNS AND DETERMINE HOW THEY WERE ADDRESSED.
DURING OUR FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATION WITH MR. REEL, THE IMPRESSION WAS THAT MR. BIAL HAD A VERY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORK PERFORMED AT THE SITE PRIOR TO CERTIFYING THE FOUNDATION.
THIS WAS EVIDENT BY MR. RE'S ASSUMPTION THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME AND NOT AN INDEPENDENT BUILDING, AND THAT THE BEAMS WERE ADEQUATE FOR THE ADEQUATE FOR THE SPANS.
SUMMARY OF THE REASONS CAN LONGER ACCEPT ENGINEER'S LAYERS, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR ENGINEER'S DESIGNS FROM MR. BIEL, BUT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WAS A DETACHED STRUCTURE AND BUILT DESIGN ELEMENT INTO ASSUMPTION.
IT WAS, IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, DID NOT PERFORM A THOROUGH ENOUGH OF THE INSPECTION PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION TO DETERMINE IF THE BEAMS WOULD HOLD THE FANS.
BOTH OF THESE ITEMS WERE RECOMMENDED THAT MR. VARE MADE IT TO THE, UH, BOTH OF THESE ITEMS. RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MR. RE MADE TO THE HOMEOWNER AT HIS FIRST SITE VISIT ON JUNE SEVEN, 17TH, 2020.
THE BUILDING'S OFFICIAL'S DECISION IS D S D WILL NOT ACCEPT ENGINEER'S LETTERS, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR ENGINEER'S DESIGNS FROM MR. REEL FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, EFFECTIVE JUNE 24TH, 2020, UNTIL THE DECISION IS MADE BY THE TEXAS BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, AT WHICH TIME THE DECISION WILL BE REEVALUATED.
D S D IS WORKING WITH MR. RIO ON HIS EXISTING WORK TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT THIS DECISION HAS ON CURRENT PROJECTS.
UH, TO ELABORATE, UH, TO ELABORATE ON THAT IS, UH, WE DID RECEIVE A LIST, CURRENT PROJECTS, UH, EITHER ON THE DESIGN SIDE THAT WE WERE, UH, DOING PLAN REVIEWS OF, OR ON CONTRACTS THAT HE HAS TO REVIEW AND, UH, CERTIFY FOUNDATIONS AND FRAMING AND, UH, CASE BY CASE.
WE ARE WORKING WITH EACH ONE OF THOSE TO DETERMINE, UH, WHAT IS THE BEST MEANS OF APPROVING, UH, THE DESIGNS, OUR, UH, INSTALLATION, AND, UH, TO MINIMIZE, UH, THE NEED FOR THE HOMEOWNER OR DEVELOPER, UM, OUR DESIGNERS TO, UH, REACH OUT TO A, A SECONDARY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
THAT CONCLUDES, UH, STAFF'S PRESENTATION ON THE APPEAL.
AT THIS TIME, CAN I ASK THAT IF WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
BOARD, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF D S D STAFF? YES.
UH, CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A, A CO COUPLE OF POINTS.
UH, JEREMY, CAN YOU GET THIS SLIDE BACK UP ON THE SCREEN? WHOA, GO BACK ONE RIGHT THERE.
YOU KNOW, UH, I JUST, I WANTED THE, THE, THE COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND A COUPLE OF THINGS BEFORE I TALK ABOUT THE SLIDE.
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE POWER TO REVOKE OR SUSPEND THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER'S SEAL FOR PRACTICE THAT ONLY COMES OUT OF THE TEXAS BOARD, A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, A STATE AGENCY EMPOWERED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
I TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE MR. VIAL AND HIS COMMENTS SAID, YOU'VE IMPACTED MY ABILITY TO PRACTICE MY PROFESSION, THE CITY.
AND MIKE SHANNON'S LETTER SAYS, WE'RE NOT TAKING YOUR ENGINEERING LETTERS OR YOUR DESIGNS AT THIS TIME.
UM, SO IT'S NOT, THE CITY IS NOT SUSPENDING HIS ABILITY TO PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THE CITY IS NOT ACCEPTING HIS DESIGNS OR HIS ENGINEERING LETTERS.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL KNEW THAT.
WHEN I LOOK AT THIS PICTURE, I WANT TO SORT OF REAFFIRM MR. CARILLO,
[00:35:01]
MR. BERNAL AND MR. MCDONALD, BECAUSE I LOOK AT THAT DRAWING AND I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO LEWIS RAUS AND I'LL DEFER IT TO JACK AND BRIAN WHO'D BEEN CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS FOR MANY YEARS.AS, JUST AS SOMEBODY WHO, WHO HASN'T WORKED IN THE INDUSTRY FOR 43 YEARS, WHICH I HAVE, I HAVE SO MANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.
I LOOK AT THINGS FOR, THERE'S NO DISTURBANCE AROUND THE BOTTOM OF THE C M U, SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FOUNDATION IS, BUT IF THIS IS A RECENT CONSTRUCTION, AND LOOKING AT THE AGE ON THE WOOD, IT TELLS ME IT'S FAIRLY RECENT.
SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE'S A FOOTING.
BUT IF I WAS A CITY OFFICIAL, AND I DON'T WANT TO SORT OF SECOND GUESS, I ALWAYS HATE TAKING SOMEBODY'S A PART OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
'CAUSE WE'RE NOT TAKING THIS WHOLE LIVELIHOOD AWAY.
I LOOK AT THIS AND IT JUST RAISES QUESTIONS.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH THE CITY STAFF WHO SAID, OH, WE HAVE A CONCERN, AND FOR SOMEBODY TO STAMP SHOP IS WHAT I'M GONNA CALL IT, BECAUSE WE HEAR THIS IN THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL, COULD YOU STAMP SOMETHING FOR ME? UH, YOU DO THAT, THAT'S A RISK THAT YOU TAKE COGNITIVELY ABOUT HOW YOU'RE GONNA PRACTICE YOUR PARTICULAR BUSINESS.
AND I, I CAN'T PROVE THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE DID, BUT SINCE HE SENT THE LETTER IN BEFORE HE SAW THE PROJECT, THAT'S WHAT IT, IT, MY CONCLUSION IS, IS THAT'S WHAT HE DID.
BUT ANYWAY, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE REST OF THE, UH, COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
MY QUESTION OR CONCERN WAS THE, UH, SIMILAR TO, UH, THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN, UH, ABOUT THE FOOTINGS AND WHETHER OR NOT THESE BLOCKED ARE ACTUALLY SITTING ON THE DIRT, OR ARE, IS THERE A CONCRETE, UH, A BASE DOWN BELOW THEM THAT WE JUST CAN'T SEE? AND THEN I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR ILLUSTRATION, YOU CAN SEE THE WAVE, UH, FROM THE LUMPER THAT'S ON TOP OF IT, UH, SORT OF CONFIRMING THE LACK OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF WHAT'S BEING BUILT THERE.
I'D LIKE TO ASK, UH, OR POSE A QUESTION, UM, TO MR. VIAL.
UM, DID DURING HIS, UM, UH, VIDEO, UH, INSPECTION OF THE PROJECT OR CONFERENCE WITH, UH, WITH THE HOMEOWNER, DID ANYBODY EVER, UH, DIG UP ONE OF THE EXISTING PEERS, THE NEW PEERS, TO SEE IF THERE WAS A FOOTING UP UNDERNEATH HER? OR WAS IT ALL, UH, WORD OF MOUTH BY THE OWNER? IT WAS JUST FOR A POINT OF ORDER.
THIS IS, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF AT THIS TIME UNTIL WE GET THE PRESENTATION FROM MR. VIAL.
SO IF YOU WANNA DIRECT THAT CORRECT QUESTION TO THE STAFF, UH, AS, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, PRIOR DESIGN OR IF THEY'D SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF, OF WHAT THE PRE STRUCTURE WAS, IF YOU COULD ADDRESS IT THAT WAY, PLEASE.
AND I, I ADDRESSED THE, UH, QUESTION TO THE STAFF.
WAS ANY, UH, UH, DISCOVERY DONE, UH, TO TRY AND DETERMINE WHAT'S REALLY THERE? THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THIS, THAT'S NOT KIND OF OUR PART OF OUR PROTOCOL.
UH, EITHER WE LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT'S PRESCRIPTIVE AND THAT'S WHAT GONNA INSPECT AGAINST.
IF IT IS NOT, THEN, UH, THAT'S WHERE WE RELY ON THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AND DO THAT RESEARCH.
UM, HAS MR IS THIS THE FIRST, UM, CASE THAT HAS COME UP ABOUT THIS TYPE OF, UH, ISSUE? CORRECT.
THIS IS THE FIRST, UH, ITEM THAT WE'VE, UH, INVESTIGATED AGAINST MR. BILLY.
YEAH, IT'S, I'VE PERSONALLY WORKED WITH HIM MANY TIMES.
I'VE FOUND HIM TO BE PROFESSIONAL AND OVERALL, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS, IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT, THIS IS NOT NORMALLY WHAT I'VE, I'VE SEEN, UH, OR WOULD DO, UM, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY.
SO HE CAME IN, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECT, HE CAME IN AFTER THE FACT, AFTER THE HOMEOWNER APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT.
WHY WAS THE PERMIT ACCEPTED WITHOUT AN IN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE DOING, WE ALWAYS DO AN ENGINEERED DESIGN, WHICH SHOWS YOUR FOOTINGS, YOUR STEEL, IT SHOWS THE SPACING, IT SHOWS THE FLOOR JOISTS.
BEFORE I EVEN GET MY PERMIT, WHEN I'M DOING AN ADDITION, I HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT TO EVEN GET THE PERMIT.
HOW IS THAT, HOW IS HE ABLE TO GET A PERMIT WITHOUT ALL THAT TO BEGIN WITH? UH, THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD.
I'LL HAVE TO DEFER, UM, DEFER TO OTHER STAFF AND SEE IF WE HAVE, UH, SOMETHING AVAILABLE.
[00:40:01]
I, I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE ON, UH, THE INTAKE AND PLAN REVIEW SIDE.UH, AND ALSO THE SCOPE OF WORK, UH, OF THIS ONE.
UH, SEE IF ANYBODY, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS 25 YEARS AND THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED OF ME WHEN I'M DOING MY REMODELING OR EVEN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
I HAVE TO, ESPECIALLY IF I'M DOING A PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATION, UM, I HAVE TO PRESENT TO NOT ONLY THE PEER DESIGN WITH ALL THE DETAILS WITH THE STEEL.
UH, IT SHOWS THE DEPTHS, IT SHOWS, UH, THE SIZE OF IT, UH, HEIGHT DIFFERENTIALS, DEPENDING ON HOW HIGH WE'RE OUT OF GRADE, IT WILL SHOW THE SPACING AS WELL AS THE FLOOR JOIST DESIGN.
SO I CAN'T GET MY PERMIT WITHOUT HAVING ALL OF THAT.
SO I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED TO BEGIN WITH, WITH WHY WE YES, SIR.
UH, ACTUALLY, I RECEIVED, UH, SOME COMMENTS FROM, UH, CRYSTAL GONZALEZ.
UH, SHE'S THE, UH, D S E ENGINEER OVER THE PLAN REVIEW SECTION.
UM, RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS ARE PERMITTED WITHOUT DRAWINGS UP TO A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, SO IT SEEMS LIKE MOST LIKELY
AND THEN, NO, ACTUALLY EVEN LESS.
I STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE AN ENGINEER, UH, DESIGN, EVEN WHEN I'M UNDER A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT, THEY, IT WOULD NOT GIVE ME A PERMIT WITHOUT DOING THAT.
I RECEIVED IS ENGINEER'S LETTER IS ALWAYS REQUIRED FOR THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION.
UH, BUT I KNOW, BUT TO GET THE PERMIT, I CAN'T STILL GET A PERMIT EVEN UNDER A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT WITHOUT SHOWING AN ENGINEER DESIGN.
IF IT'S AN ADDITION, I'VE BEEN DENIED.
I'VE BEEN DENIED GETTING IT OR HAVING ONE OF MY PROJECT MANAGERS GETTING IN A PERMIT BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO HAVE THAT.
I BELIEVE, UH, THE STAFF RULES ARE, UH, UNDER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, DON'T NEED PLANS IF IT'S AN ADDITION, BUT IF IT'S A DETACHED STRUCTURE, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT PLANS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
I HAD TO DO ADDITION AS WELL, UH, LEWIS.
BUT, UH, AS AN, UH, DETACHED ADDITION, BOTH D YEAH.
UH, LEWIS, UH, IN RESPONSE TO THAT, UH, I THINK, UH, THE ISSUE WAS, IT ORIGINALLY CAME IN AS AN ADDITION OF LESS THAN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
IT WAS ONLY AFTER WE, UM, WENT OUT THERE FOR OUR INITIAL INSPECTION ON JUNE 2ND, THAT WE, UH, LET 'EM KNOW ABOUT THE SIT SETBACK ISSUES, WHICH TRIGGERED THEM AMENDING THEIR PERMIT, UH, TO A, UH, DETACHED STRUCTURE AT THAT POINT.
AT THAT POINT, THEY SHOULD HAVE, UH, REQUIRED SUBMITTAL OF PLANS IN, UH, DESIGN SCHEMES BECAUSE IT IS A DETACHED STRUCTURE.
SO, WAS THAT NOT DONE, JEREMY? I'LL HAVE TO RESEARCH THAT.
UH, BUT AT THAT POINT, THE FOUNDATION WAS ALREADY COMPLETED.
UH, SO I, I WOULD HAVE TO, UH, SEE WHAT THE, UH, STEPS WERE TAKEN WHEN THEY MADE THE DECISION TO MOVE IT FROM A DETACHED TO A, I'M SORRY, FROM AN ADDITION TO A DETACHED.
UM, AND IF ANYTHING WAS TRIGGERED, UH, MY ASSUMPTION IS, UH, YOU KNOW, COMING IN AFTER THE FACT AND JUST GIVEN SOME VERBIAGE, YOU KNOW, THE PERMIT WAS ALREADY ISSUED.
UH, I THINK WE MADE SOME COMMENTS, UH, TO THE, UH, TO THE PERMIT THAT WAS PULLED.
UH, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT, YOU KNOW, RETROACTIVELY HAD, UM, TRIGGERED TO GET THOSE, UH, DOCUMENTS IN, BUT I WAS NOT PART OF THAT.
SO I CAN DO SOME RESEARCH AND TRY TO GET, JUST MENTION ON THAT.
UH, WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE HOMEOWNERS HAVE STARTED, UH, DID THE FOUNDATION, AND THEN THEY GOT, UH, STOPPED BY
UH, THEY'RE GONNA ACT LIKE THE DESIGN, THE FOUNDATION DOESN'T EVEN EXIST AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IF MODIFICATIONS OR CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE THEM.
QUESTION FOR YOU, JEREMY, AS PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
THE ENGINEER HAD SUBMITTED LETTERS OF CERTIFYING THIS FOUNDATION AFTER THE FACT IS, IS FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, AND HE CERTIFIED THE SIZE, THE DEPTH, UH, FROM WHAT I RECALL READING, IT WAS 18 INCHES AND DEPTH INTO THE GROUND, AND IT WAS SOLID CONCRETE WITH C M U BLOCK.
AND SO HE, HE SUBMITTED THAT INSPECTION REPORT WHEN HE CERTIFIED THE FOUNDATION.
[00:45:01]
WITNESS OR SEE ANY OF THAT INSTALLATION, OR SEE ANY OF THE BASE, DID, UH, I GUESS IT WOULD BE MORE OF A QUESTION, DID HE ACTUALLY, HE, HE GAVE IT A, A REPORT AFTER THE FACT, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A DESIGN TO EVEN BUILD THOSE, UH, PIERS AND THOSE STRUCTURES BEFORE THEY WERE BUILT.AND DID HE, DID, DID HE OR SOMEBODY CERTIFY THE ACTUAL DEPTH AND THE, AND THE WIDTH AND EVERYTHING THAT HE'S STATING IN HIS LETTER? UH, THE LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED IS THE ONE ON THE SCREEN.
IT DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS.
UH, IT KIND OF JUST GAVE US A GENERIC CERTIFICATION OF, OF THE, UH, PEER AND BEAM FOUNDATION, UH, FOR 2018 I R C REQUIREMENTS.
BUT HE IS IN THERE ALSO CERTIFYING THE BEAM FOUNDATION IS ACCEPTABLE AND COMPLIANT WITH THE 2018 I R C REQUIREMENT.
SO THAT'S PART OF THE, THAT PART OF THE FRAME, OR IS THAT CONSIDERED PART OF THE FOUNDATION SINCE IT IS P AND BEAN? WELL, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED, THIS IS LO'S PRO, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE FOUNDATION.
THAT'S, I JUST WANTED CLARITY ON THAT.
THE OTHER THING, UH, THIS IS LEWIS AGAIN.
THE OTHER THING IS I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE, THE, UH, MODIFICATION WAS REQUIRED FOR, UH, THE ADDITIONAL BEAM SUPPORTS.
WHETHER IT WAS AN ADDITION OR A, UH, A DETACHED STRUCTURE.
THE, THE, UH, LOADS DON'T CHANGE.
SO IF THEY WERE, UH, BAD FOR THE, UH, DETACHED STRUCTURE, THEY WERE ALSO GONNA BE BAD FOR THE ADDITION.
THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, REALLY IT WAS THE, THE REFERENCE OF IT BEING ATTACHED WAS MORE IN THE, UH, LATERAL SUPPORT.
UNDER THIS, SHE, SO, UH, IT WASN'T, UH, REALLY, WE NEVER GOT IT AN ADDRESSED, UM, UNTIL ON ONSITE, UH, FOR THE SPANNING.
UM, IT WAS WHEN WE WERE ON SITE ON JUNE 17TH, UH, THAT MR. VI DISCUSSED ABOUT THE NEED TO ADD, UH, A LARGER, UH, CENTER BEAM, UH, TO, TO, UH, RUN THE SMALL
SO, UH, JACK UP MORE AGAIN, JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE HOMEOWNER, WHEN THEY DID THIS, THIS STRUCTURE, THEY DID NOT SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR THAT PURE AND BEAM FOUNDATION, OR ARE THEY NOT REQUIRED TO, OR ARE THEY REQUIRED TO, AND IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO, DID THEY ACTUALLY SUBMIT SOMETHING ON THE ORIGINAL, UH, APPLICATION OF A LESS THAN A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT ADDITION? UH, THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED.
UM, AFTER THE FACT ON JUNE 2ND, AFTER OUR FIRST INITIAL, UM, FIGHT VISIT, AND WE SAW THAT, UH, THERE WAS GONNA BE CONCERNS WITH SETBACKS, AND WE INITIATED THEM TO, UM, MOVE FORWARD TO CHANGE IT TO A DETACHED, UH, THEY RESUBMITTED, UH, DOCUMENTATION.
UM, I DON'T HAVE THE FULL STORY ON THE, UH, CHANGE OF THE PLAN REVIEW.
UH, I'M NOT SURE IF, IF THE INTENT WAS, UH, SINCE IT WAS ALREADY, UH, TO A CERTAIN POINT TO, UH, TRY TO BE CUSTOMER SERVICE FRIENDLY, UH, WE WOULD RELY ON, UH, THE INSPECTION AS THE CERTIFICATION FOR BOTH THE DESIGN AND, UH, THE INSTALLATION OF THE FOUNDATION, UM, JUST TO HELP THE CUSTOMER MOVE FORWARD, UM, OR IF THEY'RE HOLDING UP, UM, ANYTHING MOVING FORWARD UNTIL THEY RECEIVE THAT DESIGN AS WELL.
UH, EVERYTHING WE'RE BASING OFF OF, UH, FOR THIS PRESENTATION IS JUST THE RECEIVING OF THE LETTER OF CERTIFYING THE, UH, THE FOUNDATION, UH, THAT WAS PRIOR BUILT, UH, BEFORE THE CHANGE IN THE, IN THE APPLICATION FROM A DETACHED OR FROM AN ATTACHED TO A DETACHED.
AND, UH, ONCE AGAIN, THIS ALL KINDA HAPPENED FAIRLY QUICKLY.
UH, YOU KNOW, OUR FIRST SITE VISIT WAS ON JUNE 2ND.
UH, THE CUSTOMER, UM, CAME BACK IN ON JUNE 6TH AND, UH, TO APPLY TO HAVE IT CHANGED TO A DETACHED.
UH, THE FIRST LETTERS WE RECEIVED ARE ON JUNE 11TH.
THIS IS, UH, LEWIS FOR OFFICE.
AGAIN, JUST TO, UH, CLARIFY TO THE BOARD AN ISSUE ON THE FOUNDATION, WHETHER IT'S UNDER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OR OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, UH, THE CITY STILL REQUIRES AN ENGINEER TO GO OUT THERE AND, UH, CERTIFY TO THE FOUNDATION.
AND AT THAT POINT, IF IT, IF PLANS WEREN'T SUBMITTED, IT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO GO OUT THERE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES COMPLY WITH I R C, UH, REGULATIONS AND STANDARD, UH, ENGINEERING PRACTICE DESIGN PROCEDURES.
SO, UH, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT, UH, THERE'S A PLAN, UH, PREPARED OR NOT, THE ENGINEER STILL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, UH, UH, FOUNDATION DESIGN.
AND, AND WITH THAT SAID, JUST TO CONTINUE WITH THAT, IT'S THE CITY'S,
[00:50:01]
UH, POINT OF VIEW THAT THIS IS THE DESIGN OR THAT HE'S CERTIFYING IS NOT CORRECT OR IS NOT CERTIFIABLY, UH, CORRECT.IS THAT, IS THAT RIGHT, JEREMY? UM, IN REFERENCE TO THE, THE REASON THAT WE MADE THE DECISION, YES.
UM, REALLY IT'S MORE, YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED THE LETTERS AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF DID HAVE CONCERNS, UM, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED.
AND IT WAS WHEN WE FOLLOWED UP WITH MR. BILL JUST TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE, UH, ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED, YOU KNOW, TRY TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.
UM, INSTEAD OF JUST TAKING THE LETTER AT FACE VALUE, UH, IT WAS WHEN WE DISCOVERED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, HE HAD DONE EVERYTHING THROUGH A VIDEO CONFERENCE, WHICH, UH, THAT'S NOT REALLY THE, THE POINT IN QUESTION.
UM, IT WAS MORE JUST HOW MUCH DESIGN INFORMATION DID HE HAVE THAT HE WAS CERTIFYING.
IT WAS THE STATEMENT OF NOT KNOWING THAT THE HOUSE WAS A DETACHED STRUCTURE, UH, SO THAT NO LONGER COULD BE USING THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A LATERAL SUPPORT.
UM, AND THEN ALSO ON THE SITE VISIT, SEEING THAT ADDITIONAL BEAM WERE GONNA BE REQUIRED.
UM, THOSE WERE THE ITEMS THAT WERE, UH, THAT ARE BEING ADDRESSED.
UH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE, THE LACK OF INFORMATION, UH, THAT IT APPEARED THAT MR. VIAL HAD, UH, PRIOR TO CERTIFYING THE LETTERS.
IF, IF EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, IF EVERYTHING WOULD'VE BEEN FINE AND, YOU KNOW, WE'D DONE THESE INSPECTIONS, LIKE NO CHANGES ARE REQUIRED.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS, UH, KIND OF DEFAULT OUT TO THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
UH, THAT'S, THAT'S THEIR TRADE.
AND, AND, UH, THAT'S, THAT WASN'T, THAT WASN'T WHAT WAS IN QUESTION.
IT WAS MORE, UH, THE, THE KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF A LETTER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.
AT THIS TIME, UH, WOULD LIKE THE STAFF TO LET MR. REVEALER, UH, PRESENT HIS PRESENTATION.
MR. VI, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES, SIR.
UH, I HAVE YOUR SLIDE PULLED UP.
I KNOW YOU'RE ON THE, UH, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, UH, BOTH OF THE BOARD IN YOU FOR YOURSELF.
UH, HE'S SEEING THIS IN OUR LIVE FEED, UH, SO HE IS ABLE TO SEE WHAT WE HAVE PULLED UP.
UM, BUT HE'LL BE ABLE TO HEAR US LIVE, UH, THROUGH THE CONFERENCE.
BUT ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT HE WANTS US TO ADDRESS, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DELAY.
UH, SO, UH, PLEASE FORGIVE ANY TIME THAT WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE RIGHT SCREEN, UH, ANYTIME HE'S POINTING SOMETHING OUT.
BUT MR. VALERA, I HAVE YOUR SLIDE UP.
IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC SLIDE NUMBER YOU WENT AND MOVE TO, I CAN DO THAT.
AND I ALSO HAVE YOUR, UH, VARIOUS EXHIBITS, UH, THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THE STAFF, UM, READY TO GO.
SO IF YOU WANT US TO OPEN UP A SPECIFIC EXHIBIT, UH, I CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
MAY I PROCEED? YES, SIR, YOU MAY.
AS TEAM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME TO BE A PART OF THIS BOARD THIS MORNING.
I HAVE BEEN A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, SPECIALIZED IN INSTRUCTIONAL ENGINEERING IN SAN ANTONIO FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS.
I ALSO HAVE 35 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MOSTLY FEDERAL PROJECTS.
I'VE SUPPORTED THE AIRPORT CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER AS A CONTRACT PROJECT MANAGER, INCLUDING, UH, WORKING IN AG IRAQ FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
UH, THE, UM, FOR MY HONESTY AND INTEGRITY AS WELL AS THAT OF EVERYONE ELSE ON THE TEAM, WAS A KEY PART OF MISSION SUCCESS TO REBUILD THE COUNTRY AND PROVIDE SECURITY EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE FACILITIES FOR THE CITIZENS OF THAT COUNTRY.
I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY ACCUSED OF NOT EXERCISING SUFFICIENT CARE AND MY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER IS THE INSPECTION I CONDUCTED TO ASSESS THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATION ELEMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED DURING THE JOINT INSPECTION REFERENCED BY THE D S T BUILDING OFFICIALS.
QUESTIONS WERE AROSE, UH, AROSE REGARDING THE SUBFLOOR FRAMING WHETHER BEAM SHOULD REST MORE TIGHTLY ON THE FOUNDATION OR WHETHER A FLOOR JOCE IS ADEQUATE, DECIDES FOR THE SPAN.
THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE FOR A FRAMING INSPECTION, BUT WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FOUNDATION BEING CERTIFIED.
THE ALLEGATION OF LACK OF CARE AND LACK OF SAFETY IMPLIES THAT I SOMEHOW DID NOT PROPERLY ASSESS THE CAPACITY OF THE FOUNDATION TO CARRY ITS CODE REQUIRED.
LOADS TO REPORT ON SOMETHING I HAD NOT SEEN WOULD INDEED BE A VIOLATION OF ENGINEERING ETHICS, AND THIS WAS NOT THE CASE.
NEVERTHELESS, A LETTER WAS ISSUED DENYING ME THE ABILITY TO SUBMIT INSPECTION REPORTS AND DESIGNS TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT NOTICE DISCUSSION OR DUE PROCESS.
THE QUESTIONS REGARDING PROCEDURE COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN A VARIETY OF MEASURES, SHORT OF A SUDDEN TERMINATION OF AN ENGINEER'S PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE IN THE CITY, ESSENTIALLY DENYING THAT PERSON OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I INTEND TO SHOW THAT THE D S D DIRECTOR'S
[00:55:01]
DENIAL OF MY REQUEST TO RESUME MY PRACTICE WAS NOT BASED ON THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT CODE, BUT ON THE INSPECTOR'S VIEW THAT THE SUB SHORE FRAMING IS PART OF THE FOUNDATION BEING EVALUATED.ALSO, GIVEN THE FACTS, YOU'LL AGREE THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS WAS HANDLED POTENTIALLY PLACES ALL CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS AT THE RISK OF LOSING THEIR LICENSES TO PRACTICE DUE TO AN ISSUE INVOLVING CODE INTERPRETATION.
I ASSURE YOU THAT MY ONLY GOAL IS TO PROMPT RESOLUTION OF THIS APPEAL TO ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC OF THE CITY.
OKAY, I HAVE THE SLIDE NUMBER TWO UP.
THE D SS D HAS REVIEWED THE SITUATIONS THAT THAT LED HERE, AND I WOULD REMIND THAT I DIDN'T GO ON PERSONALLY IN KEEPING WITH THE GOVERNOR'S MAYOR'S ORDERS TO MINIMIZE EXPOSURE TO THE PUBLIC.
UH, BECAUSE OF THE C OVID 19 PANDEMIC, I DID INSTRUCT THE OWNER TO ENABLE LIVE VIDEO AND AUDIO TO VIRTUALLY ASSESS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS.
BASED ON MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS A PRACTICE INSTRUCTIONAL ENGINEER, AND BASED ON MY VIRTUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS, THE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER SUITABLE TO SUSTAIN THE PRESCRIBED LOADS AS REQUIRED BY CODE.
I ISSUED A LETTER CONSISTENT, UH, WITH THE IV 1 72 WITH, UH, TEMPLATES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF, UH, SAN ANTONIO.
TO ANSWER MR. PEROS QUESTION, THE AL APPEARS SIR, UH, THE TOP OF THE FOOTING WAS AVAILABLE TO BE SEEN VIRTUALLY, AND SAW THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT A 28 BY 28 INCH SOLID CONCRETE, THE DEPTHS OF WHICH WAS NOT DETERMINED DURING THE VIRTUAL INSPECTION, BUT THE SIZE OF IT WAS, UH, THE NEXT, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UH, DURING THE CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIALS, I DID ACKNOWLEDGE THE POSSIBILITY OF POTENTIAL CONCERNS THEY BROUGHT UP REGARDING THE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY AWARE.
AFTER THE JOINT SITE INSPECTION, FURTHER REVIEW, THE PIERS PROVIDED ARE ADEQUATE FOR LATERAL LOADS WITH THE POWER PIERS BEING USED PRIMARILY FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE GRAVITY LOADS.
THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE BENEFIT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO FRAMING DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT THE FOUNDATIONS THEMSELVES WERE ADEQUATE AS INSTALLED.
SO AS WE SEE THE, THE FOUNDATION IS REINFORCED CONCRETE MASONRY, AND AS A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER SPECIALIZED IN STRUCTURES, THE I R C R 3 0 1 0.13 STATES THAT ENGINEER TO SIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH I B C IS PERMITTED FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND PARTS THEREOF.
THEREFORE, IT IS THE ENGINEER'S JUDGMENT AND EXPERIENCE THAT DETERMINES THE SUITABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THE CONVERSATION THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS FROM THE, FROM THE RESIDENTS, THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT LIKELY QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN ENGINEERING OPINION REGARDING THE INTEGRITY OR CAPACITY OF A FOUNDATION.
REGARDING, UH, C M U PEERS, I WOULD POINT THE D S D TO I R C R 6 0 6 0.7 PI, IN WHICH THE UNSUPPORTED HEIGHT OF MASONRY PEERS SHALL NOT EXCEED 10 TIMES THE LEAST DIMENSION WHERE CLAY TILE, STRUCTURAL CLAY TILE, OR HOLLOW CONCRETE MASONARY UNITS ARE USED FOR ISOLATED PIERS SUPPORT BEAMS AND GIRD GIRDERS.
THE CELLULAR SPACES SHALL BE SOLIDLY FILLED WITH GROUT M WITH GROUT, OR TYPE M OR S MORTAR.
IN THIS CASE, THE LEASE DIMENSIONS EIGHT INCHES, ALLOWING THE PIER TO EXTEND TO A MAXIMUM OF AD INCHES.
IN THE LETTER CERTIFYING, UH, THE FOUNDATION PROVIDED BY TEMPLATE IB 1 72, THE KEY WORDING OF THE LETTER IS THAT THE FOUNDATION IS ACCEPTABLE AND COMPLIANT WITH THE 2018 I R C, AND THAT IT DOES NOT ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
THAT ASPECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION IS TRUE.
THE LETTER IS REQUIRED BY I R C R 1 0 9 0.1, WHICH IS FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS.
IN THE, THE ACTION BY THE D S D, THE OF JUNE 24TH, THE LETTER DATED 2019, BY THE WAY, WAS INTENDED FOR 2020.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALLEGES VIOLATIONS AND ISSUANCE, UH, OF A MISLEADING REPORT.
THE DECISION WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR REVOKES THE PRIVILEGE OF ME TO PRACTICE AND MAINTAIN MY LIVELIHOOD IN CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
THIS IS DONE WITHOUT WARNING, DISCUSSION OR
[01:00:01]
DUE PROCESS.IT DOES NOT SPECIFY A PARTICULAR CODE VIOLATION NOR WHICH INFORMATION WAS MISLEADING.
I DISAGREE WITH THE ADVERSE SEARCHING, THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORT THAT THAT FOUNDATION PEERS ARE SAFE AND ADEQUATE FOR THE ATTENDED LOAD ARE CORRECT.
THE CITY D S T HAS NOT SHOWN CALCULATIONS OR ANALYSIS TO THE CONTRARY AND REMINDS YOU THAT I R C 3 0 1 0.13.
THE ENGINEER ULTIMATELY DETERMINES GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE, BUT ALSO NOTE THAT THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED TEXAS ENGINEERING PRACTICE ACT AND RULES CONCERNING THE PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING AND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING LICENSURE.
SECTION 1 37 0.55 IS ENTITLED, ENGINEERS SHALL PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
THE PARAGRAPH A, THE FIRST SENTENCE READS, ENGINEERS SHALL BE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, PROPERTY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE PRACTICE OF THEIR PROFESSION.
PARAGRAPH B, FIRST SENTENCE READS, ENGINEERS SHALL NOT PERFORM ANY ENGINEERING FUNCTION WHEN, WHICH, WHEN MEASURED BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED ENGINEERING STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES, IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN THE ENDANGERMENT OF LIVES, HEALTH, SAFETY, PROPERTY, OR WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
PARAGRAPH C, FIRST SENTENCE READS, ENGINEERS SHALL FIRST NOTIFY INVOLVED PARTIES OF ANY ENGINEERING DECISIONS OR PRACTICES THAT MIGHT ENDANGER THE HEALTH, SAFETY, PROPERTY, OR WELFARE OF, OF THE PROP OF THE PUBLIC.
I NOTE THAT WITH REGARDS TO SIR PARAGRAPH C, THE NOTIFICATION CAME IN THE FORM OF A SUDDEN LETTER MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
NO OTHER NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO ME OF THIS ACTION.
MY FIRST NOTICE WAS WHEN CLIENTS BEGAN, BEGAN CALLING ME THE MORNING OF THE 26TH OF JUNE, STATING THE DESIGN FOR BEING DENIED.
THEREFORE, I WAS NOT AFFORDED THE COURTESY OF NO NOTIFICATION REQUIRED IN SUBPARAGRAPH C OF SECTION 1 37 0.55 OF THE STATE LAW REGARDING THE TEXAS ENGINEERING PRACTICE ACT.
NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE NINE, PLEASE.
IN MY APPEAL TO THE D S C DIRECTOR, UM, PRIOR TO THAT, ALL LETTERS DESIGNED, SUBMITTED BY V D G BEFORE THAT DATE, BUT I REVIEWED UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE, WERE BEING SUMMARILY DENIED.
THIS CREATED CONSIDERABLE DISRUPTION TO ONGOING WORK THAT WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE NOTICE TO CEASE SUBMISSION AND LETTERS OR DESIGNS.
AN APPEAL WAS PROMPTLY REQUESTED.
AND GRANTED, THE VIDEO CONFERENCE MEETING OCCURRED ON JULY 1ST AT 2:00 PM I REQUESTED, I WAS REQUESTED TO SUMMARIZE THE DISCUSSION AND SUBMIT THE SAME TO THE DIRECTOR IN WRITING.
THIS WAS SENT TO HIS EMAIL BEFORE THE START OF THE FOLLOWING DAY.
REVIEWING OF MY APPEAL TO THE D S D DIRECTOR, I DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FORM USED MENTIONED, UM, ADDITION INSTEAD OF A NEW BUILDING.
UH, THESE ARE TEMPLATE LETTERS AND IT WAS THE, THE WRONG TEMPLATE.
THE REMOTE INSPECTION IS NOW MY NORMAL OPERATION.
I WAS ATTEMPTING TO COPE WITH THE GOVERNOR MAYOR'S ORDERS TO MINIMIZE TRAVEL IN THE CITY.
ALTHOUGH REMOTE INSPECTIONS ARE CURRENTLY DONE BY CITY INSPECTORS, I RECAP MY 35 YEARS EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION, UH, MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING POSITIONS OF HIGH TRUST AND RESPONSIBILITY, AND BY THEN, TWO WEEKS OF SUSPENSION OF WORK WOULD'VE WE HAD ALREADY GONE BY.
AND SO THIS HAD BEEN ALREADY VERY DISRUPTIVE AS ALL AS COSTLY, UH, CONSIDERABLE LOSS REVENUE.
SO THIS HAS FORM OF PUNISHMENT, MADE IT VERY CLEAR THE NEED FOR GREATER PRECISION.
HE ALSO OFFERED TO BUILD, UM, TRUST, UH, BY EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY SERVICE.
UH, BUT D S D WAS THE SUBSEQUENT DENIAL TO PRACTICE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WAS ISSUED ABOUT TO DATE BUSINESS DAYS LATER.
THE REASON GIVEN WAS QUOTE, DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF YOUR INFRACTION AND THE LACK OF CAREFUL INSPECTION OF STRUCTURAL AND SAFETY ISSUES, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NATURE OR DEGREE OF SEVERITY IS NOT DEFINED.
AND PROOF OF LACK OF SAFETY TO THE PUBLIC IS NOT OFFERED.
THERE'S A LACK OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TO DISCUSS TECHNICAL CONCERNS AND ISSUES AT D S D.
CITY INSPECTORS ARE NOT TECHNICALLY TRAINED SUFFICIENTLY TO JUDGE AN ENGINEER'S KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, OR CALCULATIONS.
THIS WAS A SEVERE AS, UH, ACTION TO STOP MY BUSINESS IN THE CITY WITHOUT THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AND EVIDENCE.
UH, IT SAYS VERIFICATION LETTER WAS FOR VIOLATION ONLY.
I THINK, UH, MY, THE SLIDE DECK IS, UH, SLIGHTLY OUTTA SEQUENCE, BUT CONTINUING MY DEFENSE DURING THE SITE VISIT WITH THE CITY INSPECTORS, QUESTIONS DID ARISE ABOUT FRAMING.
I WOULD NOTE THAT WOOD FLOOR FRAMING IS COVERED IN CHAPTER FIVE FLOORS.
QUESTIONS REGARDING STORE FRAMING.
[01:05:01]
SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IS A FLOOR FRAMING ISSUE AND WAS NOT IN MY SCOPE OF SERVICE AND IS NOT PART OF THE REPORT.THIS COULD BE AN ISSUE OF CONFUSION BY CITY INSPECTORS EXPECTING THE SUBFLOOR FRAMING TO BE PART OF THE FOUNDATION.
WE SEE THAT THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHAPTER OF THE CODE TO EMPHASIZE THE FOUNDATION PEERS.
THE FOUNDATION STOPS AT THE TOP OF THE PIER.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS FRAMING ON THE, ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
ENTITLED, CODE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS PROCESS, PLEASE.
WE NOTICED THAT FOUNDATION INSPECTION COMES FROM R 1 0 9 0.1, WHICH IS ED HERE.
R 1 0 9 0.4 IS MA FRAME AND MASONRY INSPECTION WAS NOT IN MY SCOPE.
I WAS ACCUSED OF LACK OF CARE.
THE ENGINEERS INVOLVED AT D S D ARE JEREMY MCDONALD, PE, FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER AND MECHANICAL ENGINEER, AMIN TOMA PE, ELECTRICAL COMPUTER ENGINEER AND FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER, MICHAEL SHANNON, PE M SS S P E FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER.
ALL OF THESE GENTLEMEN ARE CERTIFIED BUILDING OFFICIALS WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES, UH, AND THEIR SPECIALTY IS NOT IN QUESTION, BUT NONE ARE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS NOR QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE LACK OF CARE REGARDING A FOUNDATION CAPACITY.
FURTHER TO CONFLATE THAT THE SUBFLOOR FRAMING WITH THE FOUNDATION, AND THEN TO CLAIM THAT LACK OF PROPER INSPECTION OF THE FRAMING IS AN INDICATION OF LACK OF SAFETY, IF THE, IS THEREFORE AN INAPPROPRIATE DETERMINATION.
AS EVIDENCE OF MY DEDICATION TO SAFETY AND CARE FOR THE PUBLIC IS MY RECENT COMPLETION OF A MASTER'S SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING DEGREE IN STRUCTURES.
THIS WAS DONE IN 2013 AT U T S A 30 YEARS AFTER MY COMPLETION OF A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING STRUCTURES, UT ALPHA IN 1981.
THIS WAS DONE TO MAINTAIN MASTERY OF THE CURRENT CODE.
WHO DOES THIS THAT DOES NOT CARE TO PROVIDE THE BEST AND MOST CURRENT ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS? NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
REGARDING FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS.
THE US LEGAL DICTIONARY DEFINES REASONABLE AS JUST RATIONAL, APPROPRIATE, OR USUAL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS THE RIGHT TO NOT ACCEPT THIRD PARTY ENGINEERS INSPECTION REPORTS HAVE, PERHAPS EVEN TO NOT ACCEPT HIS OR HER ENGINEERING DESIGNS.
HOWEVER, THIS HAS THE EFFECT OF CLOSING DOWN THAT PERSON'S BUSINESS AS IT RELATES TO PRACTICING THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, WE TAKE AN UNPROVEN CLAIM BY AN INSPECTOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE ACCUSED WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE.
THIS APPEARS TO HAVE OCCURRED.
IF A CONCERN IS RAISED, WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT REASONABLE ACTION WOULD BE TO REVIEW ALL THE FACTS, INCLUDING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND SEEK A SOLUTION SHORT OF DENYING ENGINEERING HIS OR HER LIVELIHOOD, UNJUST.
MY RECOMMENDATION HERE IS THAT AN OPEN DIALOGUE COULD HAVE RESOLVED THE CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE NATURE OF THEIR CONCERN HAD TO BE DERIVED AFTER RECEIPT OF THE DENIAL LETTER TO REITERATE, IT WAS ONLY UNTIL AFTER I RECEIVED THE DENIAL BY MR. SHANNON, WHERE HE MENTIONED A SAFETY ISSUE THAT I FIGURED OUT.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FRAMING, NOT THE PEERS.
SO I SHARE THE BILLING OFFICIALS CHARGED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND ALL BY ALL PRACTICING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS.
HOWEVER, THE PUBLIC WAS NOT IN DANGER.
THE REVOCATION OF THE USE OF AN ENGINEERING LIFE INSURED IN THE CITY IS A GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE PENALTY FOR THE ACCUSED ACTION.
THE SOURCE OF THE ACCUSATION COMES FROM THE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDING THAT SUBFLOOR FRAMING IS PART OF THE FOUNDATION.
CLEARLY IT IS NOT, AND D S D HAS FAILED TO BE SPECIFIC WITH THE CONCERN THAT DISCLAIMED, WHICH PLACED THE PUBLIC IN DANGER.
THE PROHIBITION OF PRACTICE WAS DONE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
THIS BOARD IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE TO REVIEW DETERMINATIONS BASED ON COURT INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD AFFECT AN ENGINEER'S OR CONTRACTOR'S LIVELIHOOD.
THEREFORE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION TO THE DIRECTOR THAT I BE PERMITTED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC OF THE CITY AND BE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT INSPECTION LETTERS AND DESIGNS AND THE PREVIOUS RESTRICTIONS BE LIFTED OR RESCINDED.
JEREMY, ARE YOU ABLE TO OPEN THE LAST SLIDE TO UN HIDE IT, PLEASE? ONE SECOND.
I I POINT THAT OUT IS, IS THAT EVEN THOUGH I WAS ABLE TO SEE THE TOP OF THE FI OF THE FOOTING AT THE, DURING THE VIRTUAL INSPECTION, I, I HAD NOT SEEN THE DEPTH OF THE FOOTING.
SOME OF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, UH, THAT DETERMINATION.
IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A RIGHTLY POSED QUESTION.
THE BUILDER IS THE, IS THE HOMEOWNER IS ALSO A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR MAKING THE HOUSE FOR HIMSELF.
AS I INTERVIEWED HIM REGARDING WHAT HE DID
[01:10:01]
AND SAW THE SIZE OF THE FOOTING, I, IN MY OPINION, DID NOT HAVE DOUBT OF HIS CAPACITY TO, TO DO, AS HE SAID.THIS WAS THEN VALIDATED, UH, TO CONFIRM THAT IT ACTUALLY IS AT LEAST 12 INCHES DEEP, 28 BY 28, AS YOU'LL SEE THE, SEE HOW THE TOP OF THE FOOTING IS JUST BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE SOIL.
THIS IS WHERE I COULD SEE DURING THE INSPECTION, AND YOU COULD JUST, WITH YOUR FOOT, MOVE THE, THE DIRT AND SEE THE EXTENT OF THE TOP OF THE FOOT.
SO THAT, THAT'S HOW THAT WAS DONE.
JUST TO GO BACK AND ANSWER MR. S'S PROPER QUESTION THAT HE POSED EARLIER.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M GLAD TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENT? WERE YOU ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM, UH, CITIZENS? NO.
THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE FROM MR. DERA FROM THE BOARD.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION THAT
UH, IN THE PAST, I'VE BILLED, UH, 30 FOR CLASSROOMS FOR NORTHEAST NORTH SIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
AND AT THAT TIME WE HAD, OF COURSE, A, A PERMIT AND PLAN COMMITTED TO THE CITY, UH, BLOCKS SIMILAR TO THIS WITH, UH, BASE SIMILAR TO THIS.
UH, AND THAT DESIGN AND THE BEAMS AND THE FLOOR JOISTS WERE ALL A SYSTEM THAT HAD TO BE INSPECTED BEFORE PLYWOOD BE, WOULD BE PLACED SO THAT THEY COULD INSPECT THAT, THAT ALL THE BEAMS THAT THEY HAD, UH, IN OUR PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WERE ACTUALLY AS A SYSTEM, UH, THAT WERE INSPECTED.
AND, AND SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS STILL THE CASE TODAY, THAT THE, THAT THE FLOOR SYSTEM AND THE BEAM, UH, AS THEY ARE SUPPORTING THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF ARE A SYSTEM OR, OR CONSIDERED A SYSTEM, UH, ALL IN ONE AS OPPOSED TO JUST, YOU KNOW, THESE, THE C U BLOCKS AS THE PEERS ONLY.
UH, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR MAYBE AND THE, AND THE CITY, UH, I, I I, I CAN ANSWER THAT WHEN I DO A, A DESIGN AND GO BACK TO DO AN INSPECTION, UM, EVEN THOUGH THE SUBFLOOR FRAMING IS PART OF THE FRAMING INSPECTION, BECAUSE IT WILL BE HARD TO SEE ONCE THE SUPERSTRUCTURE IS ON, I ALSO VALIDATE THAT IT IS ON CORRECTLY, UH, DURING THAT TIME.
YOU KNOW, WHEN I'M AT A JOB SITE DOING A FRAMING INSPECTION OR A FOUNDATION INSPECTION, I'M LOOKING AT ALL THE SYSTEMS THAT ARE THERE.
I LOOK AT FIRE BLOCKING ANCHORAGE.
I LOOK AT EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE I USE A METHOD OF RISK MANAGEMENT.
I LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG, AND I, I THEN COUNSEL WITH THE BUILDER REGARDING THAT ELEMENT AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT.
AND, UH, BECAUSE I TAKE MY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFETY VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND SO THIS INCLUDES EVERYTHING REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR, GOING BACK TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE FOOTING THEMSELVES, THE CONCRETE FOOTING IS SUFFICIENT TO CARRY THE LOAD.
THE, THE FRAMING ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSPECTION.
UH, IT IS A DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT.
I DON'T DOUBT THAT IT, THAT IT NEEDS TO IMPROVE.
WE TALKED ABOUT MULTIPLE WAYS TO IMPROVE IT WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, TO THE STABLE, TO THE LATERAL STABILITY, UH, WHEN THE INSPECTORS BROUGHT UP THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE IMPROVED.
YES, THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS OF DOING THIS.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE TO THE HOMEOWNER ON THE SITE WHERE FOR FUTURE FRAMING CORRECTIONS, THE FOUNDATION ENHANCEMENTS WERE IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIALS, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF A CALCULATED LACK OF LATERAL STABILITY.
I WAS JUST GOING, GOING BACK TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
THE, THE, THE LOWER PIERS, THE FIRST TWO ROWS OF PIERS ARE LOW ENOUGH TO PROVIDE THAT LADDERAL STABILITY.
THE BACK PIERS ARE PROVIDING MOSTLY, UH, GRAVITY LOW TRANSFERENCE.
SO THE, THE LATERAL STABILITY IS THERE.
THE FRAMING MEMBERS THAT WE MENTIONED BEING, BEING ADEQUATE, THAT WAS TRIPLE TWO BY EIGHT.
MOSTLY THESE, UH, APPEAR AND BEAM FOUNDATIONS USED TREATED FOUR BY SIX.
[01:15:01]
A TRIPLE TWO BY EIGHT, MR. FAROS KNOWS, HAS CONSIDERABLY MORE BENDING CAPACITY THAN A FOUR BY SIX MEMBER.AND THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS BASED ON.
DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR? YES, IT, IF YOU DID TO A POINT, UH, I GUESS MY BANK QUESTION WAS, IN YOUR INSPECTION REPORT, YOU HAD CERTIFIED THAT THE PEERS AND THE S THAT WERE BEING, UH, REPLACED OR, UH, SO IT, TO ME, THAT WAS KIND OF PART OF YOUR INSPECTION OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE BEFORE THE PLYWOOD WOULD BE PLACED AND WALLS WOULD BE PLACED AND FIRE BLOCKING WOULD BE PLACED, THAT YOU'D ACTUALLY INSPECT ALL OF THAT AT ONE TIME BEFORE THE WHOLE BUILDING IS FRAMED UP ALL THE WAY THROUGH ROOF RAFTERS.
UH, IT WOULD BE TOO LATE AT THAT POINT TO GO IN AND CHANGE THE, THE STRUCTURAL BEAMS, UH, THAT WERE IN THERE.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT WAS MAINLY MY QUESTION IS, WAS THAT PART OF THIS FOUNDATION? NO, SIR.
THE, THE, THE SLOPE FOUR FRAMING RECOMMENDATIONS WERE, WERE MADE FOR, WERE FOR FREIGHTING.
THE FOUNDATION IS WHAT WAS BEING ACCEPTED, THE FOOTING AND THE PIER TO THE TOP OF THE PIER ONLY IS WHAT'S BEING CERTIFIED BY THE LETTER FOR ID 1 72.
THE ONLY, THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, AND YOU JUST HAVE TO, I, I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE, SO BELIEVE ME, I KNOW, UH, EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU HAVE TO BE, UH, COGNIZANT WHEN YOU WRITE, UH, THE LETTER, WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, THE BEAMS THAT ARE BEING REPLACED, THEN YOU'RE STARTING TO CROSS OVER INTO THAT, UH, FRAMING ISSUE.
AND, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I JUST FOUND IT'S EASIER TO INCLUDE IT ALL AND BE SAFE THAN, UH, JUST, UH, TRY TO SEGREGATE THESE ITEMS. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, ABOUT APPROXIMATELY HOW FAR APART, UH, WERE THE, UH, THE PIERS, THE SPACINGS, WERE THEY, UH, SIX, EIGHT FEET? WHAT WERE THEY? YES, SIR.
IT WAS ABOUT SIX, YES, ABOUT SIX TO EIGHT, SIX TO EIGHT FEET.
BUT THERE WAS A TRIPLE TWO BY, UH, TRIPLE TWO BY EIGHTS ON THIS.
I'M, I'M NOT EVEN, AND YOU SEE BY THE, THE WHOLE THING IS ONLY A 20 BY 20.
IT'S A LITTLE GAME ROOM THE GENTLEMAN WAS BUILDING IN THE BACK OF HIS HOUSE.
BUT THOSE BEAMS, THE PERIMETER BEAMS WERE, WERE, WERE ADEQUATE FOR THE LOAD WITHOUT QUESTION THE PERIMETER BEAMS. OKAY.
UH, THIS IS MARK BEAM AS QUESTION FOR MR. VIAL.
WHEN YOU DO AN INSPECTION LIKE THIS, MR. VIAL, DO YOU LOOK AT, IS EVERY, UH, PEER, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WERE OUT THERE, OR DO YOU SPOT CHECK A COUPLE AND ASSUME THAT THE REST ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, BUILT IN THE SAME FASHION? I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CON.
UM, AND MAYBE NOT UNDERSTANDING THE TIMING OF THAT.
THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN, BUT THE ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT, CLEARLY, YOU SEE LOTS OF GROUND DISTURBANCE AS POINTED OUT, LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE WHEN, UH, MR. HANLEY, UH, POINTED THAT OUT IN ONE OF THE EARLIER PHOTOS PRIOR TO YOU JOINING US, WHERE IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS TOTALLY UNDISTURBED EARTH AROUND THE, THE PIERS.
UH, JUST SO I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, WERE ALL THE PEERS LOOKED AT OR JUST A, A, A SAMPLE? NO, SIR.
THE, THE BACK PIER WAS THE ONE, THE ONE IN THE PHOTO WAS, WAS, WAS DONE LATER TO VALIDATE THE DEPTH OF THE, OF THE CONCRETE.
UH, WHAT I VALIDATED DURING THE VIRTUAL INSPECTION WAS THE SIZE OF THE PIER, THE SIZE OF, OF, OF THE, THE FOOTING RATHER.
AND THAT YOU CAN TELL BY THIS LAST ROW OF PIERS IS ONLY AN INCH OR TWO BELOW THE, THE SURFACE.
AND THAT WAS EASILY SHOWN TO ME BY, BY THE OWNER DURING THAT VIRTUAL INSPECTION THAT IT WAS AT LEAST TWO FEET BY TWO FEET.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS BASING THE, UM, THE APPROVAL ON THAT HE HAD ACTUALLY BUILT THEM AS HE DESCRIBED.
UH, THIS IS, UH, LEWIS OLIS AGAIN, AND I DID A, A REAL QUICK CALCULATION ON, ON, UH, ONE OF THE PIERS AND FOUND THE, UH, THE CAPACITY OF THE PIER, UH, BEARING CAPACITY OF THE PIER TO BE ABOUT FOUR TIMES WHAT IT, UH, THE ACTUAL LOADS ARE.
SO DESIGN WISE, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH, UH, AS LONG AS YOU VERIFY THE DEPTH OF THE FOOTING, WHAT I I'VE SEEN BEFORE IS SOMETIMES THESE PEOPLE SAY, YEAH, FOUR TO FOOTING.
YOU DIG IT UP AND YOU FIND IT'S ONLY TWO INCHES THICK, WHICH IS NOTHING.
AND IF THIS WERE A CONTRACTOR DOING IT FOR A PROFIT, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE.
UH, AND WE, WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY MOVING FORWARD.
[01:20:01]
CASE, HE, HE'S, HE'S A CONTRACTOR THAT'S DOING THIS FOR HIMSELF OR HIS FAMILY, UH, TO BUILD A GAME ROOM BEHIND HIS HOME.AND, UM, AND, AND, AND MY MY JUDGMENT WAS THAT, THAT HE, HE DID AS, AS HE, AS HE SAID, AND THEN IT WAS PROVEN THAT HE ACTUALLY DID.
I THINK THIS IS THE CONFUSION TO, IT STARTS WITH WHEN THIS WAS A DETACHED, UH, AS FAR AS THE PERMIT, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE OF, OF HAVING A DESIGN AND THE SUBFLOOR, UH, YOU KNOW, UPON LOOKING WHAT HE HAS HERE, I MEAN, HE, HE DID THE INSPECTION FOR THE FOUNDATION.
LEWIS SAID IT, IT DOES MEET THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
THE CONFUSION IS, IS WHETHER THE FLOOR GEORGE DESIGN, WHICH HIS LETTER DOES NOT STATE, AND A DESIGN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ONCE THIS PERMIT CHANGED AS FAR AS DESIGNATION, UH, CAME INTO PLAY.
SO I, I THINK IT REALLY IS, IT'S, IT'S THAT KIND OF CONFUSION THAT, UH, COULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED.
CHAIRMAN TH THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY.
I GUESS WHAT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT MR. VILLAREAL, UH, ON THE, THE, IS THE TIMELINE.
IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE GONE BACK AND YOU'VE VERIFIED THAT THERE'S A FOOTING AND THAT THE BEAMS AND EVERYTHING AND SOME CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION CAME AFTER YOU ISSUED YOUR ORIGINAL LETTER THAT SAID IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE I R C.
SO I THINK THAT MAY BE THE PROBLEM THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS TOO.
BUT LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
UM, IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND REDO THIS AND RESET, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY IN THIS PROCESS SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPEAL THE CITY'S DECISION AT THIS TIME? WELL, THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS I WOULD DO.
ONE IS I WOULD NOT DO A VIRTUAL INSPECTION.
UM, I WOULD TAKE THE RISK OF, OF EXPOSURE AND, AND GO OUT THERE AND VERIFY THAT, UH, EXPOSE THE, THE, THE COMPLETE FOOTING AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, NOT JUST THE TOP OF THE FOOTING TO VALIDATE THE, THE, THE LENGTHS AND WIDTH.
UH, I WOULD, UH, USE THE CORRECT TEMPLATE THAT DIDN'T MENTION ADDITION, UH, THAT SAME TEMPLATE OF THE IB 1 72 IS USED FOR, UH, FOUNDATION REPAIRS THAT ARE COMMONLY DONE, UH, BY, BY CONTRACTORS.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT LETTER IS USED, PRIMARILY USED BY ME.
I WOULD, I WOULD CHECK THE, UH, THE VERBIAGE MUCH MORE CAREFULLY.
UM, THE, SO THERE HAVE BEEN MANY LESSONS LEARNED, IF YOU WILL.
HOWEVER, ONE THING THAT I DO NOT, UH, UH, REPENT OF IS HAVING APPROVED THE SAFETY OF THOSE FOOTINGS.
UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WAS NO SAFETY TO THE PUBLIC.
AND, AND, AND, AND THAT, AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE, THE REASON FOR THE APPEALS IS THAT, BUT MY RIGHT TO OR PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE IN THE CITY IS BASED ON AN ACCUSATION THAT I SOMEHOW PLACED THE PUBLIC IN DANGER OR THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IN DANGER.
AND I, AND, AND THAT WAS NOT EVEN BROUGHT UP UNTIL AFTER MY APPEAL TO THE DIRECTOR, WHERE, WHERE HE, HE NOTED A SAFETY CONCERN AND, AND WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHAT CONCERN SPECIFICALLY THEY, THEY HAD.
UH, BUT YES, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY TAKE MUCH MORE CAREFUL FIELD NOTES, UH, PHOTOGRAPHS AND, AND DO, AND TAKE EVIDENCE OF, OF THIS, BELIEVE ME, SIR, THAT, UH, THIS MONTH THAT I'VE BEEN WITHOUT THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING THE CITY, HAS CAUSED ME TO, TO REFLECT ON, ON MANY THINGS THAT I WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY AND BETTER.
BUT PLEASE ALSO KNOW THAT I HAVE NEVER, EVER RISKED THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC WOULD NEVER DO.
SO, UH, I WAS RAISED IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
I'VE BEEN IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FOR 50 YEARS, UH, SINCE I WAS 12.
I UNDERSTAND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND, AND SAFETY IS, IS VERY, AT THE MUCH, AT THE TOP OF, OF MY RESPONSIBILITY.
THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT CAN DESTROY A BUILDING, UH, LACK OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND FIRE AND, AND, AND FIRE IS NORMALLY CAUSED BY BAD ELECTRICAL, UH, INSTALLATION, UH, AMONG OTHER THINGS.
UM, I WOULD DEFINITELY DO SEVERAL THINGS IN A, IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
AND I, I GUARANTEE YOU THAT GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE AGAINST, YOU WOULD SEE, UM, CONSIDERABLY MORE, UH, UH, ATTENTION TO DETAIL IN THE, IN MY RESPONSES, IN MY PROOF, AND IN MY ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE SAFETY TO THE PUBLIC.
MAY I, QUESTION IS, IS I DON'T WANT TO MAKE WHATEVER ACTION, UH, THIS COMMITTEE TAKES IN REGARDS
[01:25:01]
TO MR. VIRES APPEALS BE CONTINGENT ON WHAT T B P E DOES IN THEIR INVESTIGATION.BUT EITHER WAY, IF THERE'S THE TEXAS BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FINDS ACTIONABLE, UM, UH, PROBLEMS THERE, AND THEY WANT TO, UH, FINE OR SUSPEND, UH, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, WILL THAT, WILL THE CITY BE NOTIFIED OF THAT? AND THEN WE COME BACK AND REVIEW IT DEPENDING ON WHICH DIRECTION THAT THIS BOARD GOES? UH, I'M NOT SURE OF THE PROCESS OF NOTIFICATION.
UH, BUT WE WILL, UH, CONTINUE TO CHECK, UH, THEIR, THE RULINGS COMING OUT FROM THE BOARD.
UM, AND IF WE DO SEE ANYTHING, UH, THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I PUT THAT IN THERE AS YOU KNOW, UH, FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION.
BUT AT THIS POINT, IT'S MOSTLY, UH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION IS THE, UH, ONE YEAR, UM, YEAH, YOU KNOW, IT, WE'RE NOT PUTTING TOO MUCH CONTINGENCY ON THE BOARD, UH, THE TEXAS BOARD'S RESPONSE BACK.
UH, BUT WHAT IT, I DID WANNA MENTION THAT BASED OFF OF THAT WE WOULD AT LEAST REEVALUATE, UH, WE WOULDN'T NOT LISTEN TO IT AT ALL.
J JEREMY, ROBERT HANLEY, AGAIN, I, I, I DON'T WANT OUR DECISION AS A BOARD TO BE CONTINGENT ON THAT, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THE, IF WE, UH, GIVE RELIEF TO MR. VILLAREAL AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS LATER DOWN THE ROAD, THE T D P P E, UH, HAS FINDS ACTIONABLE CAUSE FOR, UH, SOME SORT OF, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, DISCIPLINE.
DO, DOES THIS COME BACK TO THE CITY? AND, AND SO I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE, UH, WE'RE GOING TO BASED ON, UH, WHAT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED TODAY BY BOTH CITY STAFF AND BY MR. VILLA REAL, AND WE HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE AS A COMMITTEE.
AND SO WE'RE GONNA MAKE OUR DECISION REGARDLESS OF T B P E, BUT IF P T B E P E FINDS, UH, A CAUSE AND EFFECT, BASICALLY DOES THAT, WHAT DOES THE CITY DO IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE? UM, I THINK THE, JEREMY, GO AHEAD.
THIS IS, I MEAN, TOMA, LET ME, LET ME RESPOND TO THAT.
SO TECHNICALLY, THE CASES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS WILL SUBMIT PERIODIC LETTERS TO ME, INFORMING ME OF THE STATUS OF THE INVESTIGATION.
ADE, THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.
UH, JUST, UH, TO CLARIFY, UH, FURTHER, IF THE STATE BOARD, UH, DEEMS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST MR. VIAL, IT'S NOT GONNA MATTER WHAT THE CITY DOES.
THE, UH, THE STATE WILL TAKE OR REVOKE HIS LICENSE OR SUSPEND IT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE HE COULDN'T, UH, HE COULDN'T PRACTICE ANYWAY.
SO IT'S NOT, UH, THE, THE CITY'S, UH, DECISION IS, UH, INDEPENDENT AND, UH, SEPARATE FROM THE STATE LEWIS.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT HAPPENS IF, IF, IF WE GIVE RELIEF TO MR. VIAL AND THEN THE STATE FINDS HIM, UH, HAVE SOME SORT OF ACTIONABLE CAUSE.
SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND OUR DECISION SHOULD NOT BE CONTINGENT ON THAT.
I'M JUST ASKING IF WE MAKE A DECISION TO GIVE HIM RELIEF.
AND THEN THE, THE STATE BOARD FINDS HIM AT FAULT, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THE CITY DO? WELL, THE, THE STATE, THIS IS LO OLI AGAIN, THE STATE DOES THAT.
IT SUPERSEDES WHATEVER THE CITY'S GONNA DO ANYWAY.
UH, THIS IS JERRY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND AM MEAN, COULD STEP IN IF, IF THIS IS AN OVERSTEP, BUT I, I THINK THE OPINION IS WE WOULD DEFER TO, UH, THE STATE BOARD, UH MM-HMM.
SO, AND THE REFERENCE OF WAITING TO FEEL, UH, OR REEVALUATING AFTER THAT.
BUT, UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE A DEFERRED.
SO JEREMY, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT, UM, IF AFTER THE TEXAS BOARD COMES BACK WITH THEIR RESULTS OF THEIR INVESTIGATION AND FINDS NO ACTIONABLE CAUSE THEN THE CITY WOULD DEFER TO THAT, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I MEAN, I MIGHT DEFER TO THAT ONE ON YOU.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE STEP ON, ON THAT STATEMENT.
UM, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE STATE.
THE STATE ISSUED FOR MR. VIAL TO BE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
SO HE CAN OPERATE ANYWHERE IN TEXAS, IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BASED ON CHAPTER ONE.
[01:30:01]
OFFICIAL, OR AS REPRESENTATIVE, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WE HAVE THE, THE DUTY TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS DONE APPROPRIATELY IN REGARDS TO LIFE SAFETY.AND, UH, BASED ON THAT, WE HAVE SECTION IN CHAPTER ONE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN ACCEPT LETTERS FROM ENGINEERS OR ARCHITECTS, BUT THEY NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
SO NOW THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE WE HAVE, IS WE DON'T BELIEVE, UH, WE, WE SHOULD TRUST, UM, THE SUBMITTAL OF ANY LETTERS TO US AT THIS POINT.
KIND OF LIKE WHAT ROBERT MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, WE, WE FEEL THIS WAS DONE.
I'M NOT SAYING INTENTIONALLY, BUT I THINK IT WAS DONE AS LIKE, YOU KNOW, RUBBER STAMPING THE PLANS WITHOUT REALLY LOOKING AT IT APPROPRIATELY.
SO, UH, ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THIS IS, SEEMS TO BE THIS JACK UP MORE, UH, A, A TRUST ISSUE FROM WHAT I'M HEARING OF LIFE SAFETY.
AND BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A, A MOTION, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, IN THE 15 YEARS THAT MR. VILL HAS BEEN PRACTICING IN SAN ANTONIO, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER INCIDENCES OR QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES THAT HE HAS PRESENTED THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD, UH, CREATE MORE OF THAT TRUST ISSUE? OR IS THIS A STANDALONE, UH, ISSUE THAT I'M SURE THE CITY IS VERY CONCERNED WITH? UH, MR. VIRA SEEMS TO BE, UH, CONING IT A LITTLE BIT WITH THE FRAMING.
AND THERE'S, UH, UH, SOME, LIKE MR. BARAKA HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE'S, THERE'S THAT, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME CONFUSION OF THE OVERLAPPING, OF, OF FRAMING SUBSTRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO ONLY FOUNDATION PEERS.
SO I GUESS MY SIMPLE QUESTION IS, IS THIS A STANDALONE, UH, ONE TIME ISSUE, OR HAS THERE BEEN OTHER INCIDENCES THAT, THAT CREATES THAT TRUST ISSUE? YES.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRIOR INCIDENCES WITH MR. AL, BUT KEEP IN MIND, WE STARTED, UH, WE CREATED A TEAM CALLED THE STRIKE TEAM ABOUT A YEAR AGO.
SO THAT'S WHEN WE START SENDING THE TEAM OUT THERE TO INVESTIGATE AND, AND FIND, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT MEET CODE AND THINGS THAT
SO POTENTIALLY, I MEAN, YEAH, IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, THERE WAS NOTHING BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THE STRIKE TEAM.
BUT IN THE LAST YEAR, THAT'S WHY WE ARE COMING TO YOU AS THE BOARD WITH BUNCH OF THOSE CASES WHEN THEY APPEAL.
UH, AND IT'S NOT JUST MR. ARIA F.
OBVIOUSLY, THE CITY HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BOARD, UH, ABOUT ACTION.
UH, BUT THE BOARD ALSO HAS THE, UH, ABILITY, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS CORRECT, CHAIRMAN, THAT WE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANT TO REDUCE THIS SUSPENSION FROM A YEAR TO SIX MONTHS OR THREE MONTHS, THAT'S ALSO, 'CAUSE I JUST, IT'S ALMOST A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO SAY, UH, YOU GUYS WERE 100% WRONG.
BUT IS THERE, THERE'S SOME MIDDLE GROUND, I BELIEVE, ISN'T THERE, CHAIRMAN, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND AND ACTIONS THAT WE'VE TAKEN, AND IN THE PAST THAT IS CORRECT.
THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I CONFIRMED WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, AMENDMENTS TO DURATION IS, UH, PART OF THE RESPONSE THE BOARD CAN MAKE.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF, STAFF AT THIS TIME? HEY, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS MIKE GROSS.
UM, I'M SORRY, I, I JOINED LATE AND MISS PART OF THE CITY'S, UH, PRESENTATION.
UM, I THINK I HEARD, UH, MR. OLI SAY THAT THE, THE STRUCTURE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE CALCULATIONS HE MADE SEEMED TO BACK UP, UH, MR. AL'S CONTENTION THAT THE, THE STRUCTURE IS CORRECT.
UM, BUT CAN YOU JUST CATCH, MAYBE SOMEBODY CATCH ME UP, IS THE STRUCTURE, WAS IT, UM, STRUCTURALLY SOUND AS PRESENTED OR NOT? WHO'S THE, UH, QUESTION DIRECTED TO? UH, WELL, I GUESS I WOULD DIRECT IT TO, TO, UH, I GUESS IT'S TO THE CITY, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OPINION TOO.
[01:35:01]
UM, IT SOUNDS WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS, UH, ADEQUATE, THE APPEARS OR, OR, UH, UH, CAN SUSTAIN THE LOAD.THE QUESTION IS, UH, THE, WELL, THE, UH, WHAT WASN'T, UH, SUSTAINABLE WERE THE WOOD FRAMING, AND NOW IT BECOMES A QUESTION, WAS IT PART OF HIS, UM, UH, INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE THAT? OR WAS IT DISCLUDED AS, UH, HE'S ALLUDING TO? THANK YOU.
WHAT'S THE CITY'S OPINION ON THAT, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ALSO, UH, TO KIND OF FOLLOW UP TO MAKE SURE, UH, THE, THE RESPONSE IS TO, UH, BE CLEAR ON, ON THIS STAFF'S APPROACH TO THIS AND WHAT WE, UH, WANNA MAKE CLEAR.
IT'S, IT'S NOT THE CALCULATIONS OR, UH, AFTER THE FACT, UH, THAT EVERYTHING IS GOOD.
IT'S MORE THE LEAD UP TO THE LETTER AND, UH, WHAT WAS DONE PRIOR, UH, TO THE CERTIFICATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO IT IS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INTERPRETATION, THAT THOSE CALCULATIONS WEREN'T COMPLETED.
THAT, UH, THE LETTER WAS APPROVED AND CERTIFIED AND SENT TO THE CITY, UH, PRIOR TO ANY CONFIRMATION, UH, THAT THE LOAD, UH, WAS ADEQUATE.
THAT THERE, THERE IS NO ISSUES WITH SHEAR AND LATERAL MOVEMENT, UH, BASED OFF OF, OF THAT, UM, INITIAL REVIEW.
UH, IT APPEARS YES, AFTER THE FACT, UH, THERE ARE SOME CONFIRMATION THAT, UM, THERE ISN'T GONNA BE AN ISSUE.
UH, BUT IT'S MORE THE LEAD UP TO AND CERTIFICATION PRIOR, UH, TO DOING THE JUSTIFICATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. VIAL OR JUST FOR THE STAFF? IF NOT, I'D TO ENTERTAIN A, A MOTION, UH, REGARDING THE APPEAL, THIS IS BRIAN SMITH.
I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT, UH, MR. REAL'S, UH, WITH THE CITY AS FAR AS HIS ABILITY WOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR 30 DAYS FROM TIME THAT THE CITY STARTED, UM, THE SUSPENSION.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO, UH, STAND WITH THE CITY ON THE DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT ENGINEERS LETTERS, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR ENGINEER DESIGNED FOR 30 DAYS.
DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? JUST REAL QUICK, I JUST WANT TO SAY WHY, WHY IT'S DOING THE 30 DAYS? UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATIONS IN HERE.
COULD THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER? YES.
UM, TO, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST INFRACTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE TIMES WHEN WE'VE DONE THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO, TO SHOW WITH THE CITY THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOMETHING, THERE IS SOME CONSEQUENCES, BUT IT IS HIS LIVELIHOOD.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS EVERYTHING THAT HE'S DONE, UM, IT, I THINK IT'S MORE FROM THERE.
AND I, I THINK A 30 DAYS IS, IS ADEQUATE.
UH, BRIAN, CAN I ASK ONE CLARIFICATION AND, AND EITHER, THIS IS ROBERT HAMMOND, I APOLOGIZE.
ROBERT CITY, YOU SAID 30 DAYS EFFECTIVE FROM WHAT DAY? FROM THE DATE THAT THEY DID NOT ALLOW HIM TO UTILIZE, UH, HIS ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, LETTERS, ANY OF THAT? UM, WAS THAT, I THINK ON THE SEVENTH, UH, CITY STAFF? WE'LL HAVE TO CLARIFY, ROBERT.
THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, UH, THE INITIAL DATE IS, UH, JUNE 25TH.
UH, SO THIS WOULD BECOME A TIME SERVED POSITION.
JEREMY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AND SECOND FROM JUNE 25TH, 30 DAY RECOMMENDATION? IF NOT, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL.
[01:40:05]
MOTION PASSES WITH A VOTE OF 11 TO ZERO AND, AND I'M SURE THAT YOU DID WRITE DOWN WHO MADE THE, UH, MOTION AND THE SECOND JENNIFER, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.BRIAN WAS BY BRIAN SMITH, SECOND BY MIKE RUST.
CHAIRMAN, CAN CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING WHILE WE'RE AT THIS POINT? YES.
YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS, THIS ROBERT
AND YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS WAS A, A PARTICULAR CASE THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BECAUSE THEY SERVE A VERY IMPORTANT CRITICAL TASK.
AND THEY NEED TO BRING THESE THINGS UP AS THEY OCCUR.
THE, THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE, PEOPLE WILL LEARN, HEY, YOU, YOU DON'T DO IT THAT WAY, MAN.
AND SO, I I, I DON'T WANT THE, THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF TO WALK AWAY, SAY, MAN, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY TOOK IT ON THIS ONE.
I, I WANNA REAFFIRM THAT'S HARD WORK.
THEY BROUGHT IT TO US AND I JUST, I I WANNA EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE AND APPRECIATION FOR THEIR EFFORTS SO THEY DON'T GET DISCOURAGED.
BUT BRIAN SMITH, THAT, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE MENTION OF THAT, ROBERT, BECAUSE I MEAN, I THINK IT DID IMPACT, UH, JOSE AS FAR AS ON THIS, AND IT SHOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH YOUR LICENSES AND THAT KINDA STUFF, THOSE ARE SERIOUS THINGS.
SO THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT IT TO NOT BE ANYTHING.
IT NEEDED TO AT LEAST BE SOMETHING.
UM, AND I THINK IT WAS RIGHT TO BRING, UH, YOU KNOW, UP.
AND AS FAR AS ON THIS, I, I THINK EVERYONE COULD DO BETTER AS FAR AS HOW WE CAN PROTECT, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR PUBLIC AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, BOTTOM LINE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
AND ROBERT, I, I, I THINK THIS WHOLE BOARD AGREES WITH THAT AS, AS EVIDENCED BY THIS, UH, VOTE.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, IT'S ON NOTICE THAT YES, THEY, WE WANT 'EM TO BRING EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES IN FRONT OF US.
THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS BOARD AND CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
AND THE, AND THE NEXT TIME, IF THAT SAME PERSON OR ENTITY COMES UP AGAIN, IT WILL BE DEALT WITH QUITE DIFFERENTLY AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
SO WE WE'RE, UH, MAYBE SOMETIME A SECOND CHANCE GROUP THAT HAS TO DO IT WITHIN REASON, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL BUSINESS PEOPLE, BUT WE ALL RESPECT HIGHLY WHAT THE CITY IS DOING, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT 'EM TO KEEP DOING.
OKAY, WITH THAT SAID, UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR,
[2. Briefing and possible action on the adoption of the 2018 ISPSC and proposed amendments]
UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BOARD, THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD.
UH, MOVING TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, TOOK A WHILE.
SO I'M GONNA TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE, BUT I WANNA GIVE, UH, AS MUCH DUE CREDIT TO SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT CAME UP DURING THE, UH, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UH, MEETINGS.
SO, UH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I, UH, GO TOO QUICKLY.
UH, YOU KNOW, UH, BUT I, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF THE INFORMATION, UM, THAT WILL INHERENTLY BE APPROVED.
UH, BUT, UH, THERE ARE, I WANT TO POINT OUT THE, THE, THE SIGNIFICANT ITEMS, UH, THAT, UH, FOR DISCUSSION AND, AND TRY TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR THAT.
UM, SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE ADOPTION OF THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE, UH, WITH AMENDMENTS.
QUICK OVERVIEW OF THIS, UH, AGENDA ITEM.
I WILL REVIEW THE TEXAS HOUSE BILL 28 58, UH, DISCUSS THE SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM, UH, COMMITTEE MEETINGS, UH, REVIEW THE APPROVED AMENDMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SO, UH, ALL OF THIS IS STEMMING FROM TEXAS REQUIRING THAT, UH, REALLY IT'S NOT THAT ALL MUNICIPALITIES START, UM, ADOPT THIS, BUT REALLY IT'S JUST THAT IT, IT'S A REQUIREMENT ACROSS THE STATE THAT ARE BEING FORCED.
UM, SO, UM, INHERENTLY IT JUST MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITY TO GO AHEAD AND ADOPT IT.
UH, ORIGINALLY, UH, THE CODE LANGUAGE, UH, FOR THIS BILL, UH, OR THE BILL LANGUAGE DIDN'T ALLOW FOR ADOPTION.
UH, SO WE KIND OF STARTED THIS ENDEAVOR.
WE WERE LOOKING MORE, UH, FOR THE BOARD, UH, FOR SUPPORT ON HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT THE, UH, THE PROCESS OF FORCING, UH, SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF AREAS THAT, OF THE POOL CONSTRUCTION THAT WE DIDN'T ORIGINALLY ENFORCE.
UH, THE BILL WAS BROUGHT UP TO OUR ATTENTION DURING THIS PROCESS THAT ACTUALLY, UH, THE BILL WAS AMENDED, UH, PRIOR TO ADOPTION, UH, SO THAT IT DOES, IT DOES ALLOW, UH, THE ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL AMENDMENTS, UH, TO THE CODE.
UH, SO THAT KIND OF CHANGED OUR APPROACH, UH, TO THE COMMITTEE, UH, TO MOVING MORE INTO, UH, REVIEWING EACH OF THE ITEMS AND, UH, COMING UP WITH THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE.
UM, SO, UH, BEFORE I MOVE TO, UH, THE SIGNIFICANT ITEMS, WHAT WE DID TO KIND OF C UH, CREATE THOSE AMENDMENTS, SO WE REACHED OUT TO A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS.
WE HAD AN ORIGINAL STAKEHOLDER MEETING, UM, PRIOR TO ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
[01:45:01]
AS PART OF, UH, REACHING OUT TO A LOT OF THESE, UM, WAS REACHING OUT TO A ORGANIZATION CALLED THE, UH, PULL AND HOT TUB ALLIANCE, UH, THAT REPRESENTS A LOT OF THE, UH, DEVELOPERS IN TOWN.UH, THEY DID PROVIDE US WITH A LOT OF INFORMATION.
THEY WERE WORKING WITH A LOT OF THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN THE CITY OR IN THE STATE, UH, THROUGH THIS ADOPTION.
AND THEY, UH, PRESENTED US A LOT OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.
UH, THE OTHER STATES WERE U UH, CITIES WERE USING.
UM, WE KIND OF FACTOR THOSE IN.
UM, SO WE'LL ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT OF THOSE, UH, ITEMS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS.
UH, BUT, SO RIGHT NOW WE'LL MOVE TO THE, UH, SIGNIFICANT, UM, ITEMS OF DISCUSSION.
UH, REAL QUICK, I AM STARTING TO SEE, I UNDERSTAND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAD AN IMMEDIATE DROP OFF, OR THE MEETING WAS ORIGINALLY GONNA GO TO 11.
UM, I, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF, UH, INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE LETTING ME KNOW THAT THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO STICK AROUND PAST 11.
UM, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE WE MAINTAIN FORUM, UM, DOING A QUICK COUNT.
I BELIEVE WE HAD 10 BEFORE WE HAD, UH, AND WE HAD MIKE, UH, RUSS JOIN US.
SO I HAVE, UH, TWO THAT WILL NEED TO DROP OFF AT 11.
UH, SO THEY'LL KEEP US AT NINE SO THAT, UH, THAT'LL BE, UH, AND, UH, RONCO NEEDS, UH, WILL NEED TO LEAVE AT 11.
SO WE'LL STILL MAIN BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE, UH, QUORUM AT THAT POINT.
UH, JEREMY, ROBERT HENLEY, THIS ROBERT HENLEY, IF I DROP OFF, DOES THAT GIVE YOU LESS THAN A QUORUM? UH, WITH THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE NEEDING TO, THAT WOULD DROP US BELOW A QUORUM.
I, I, I CAN STAY A LITTLE BIT PAST 11, NOT A LOT.
BRIAN SMITH, MAYBE 10 MINUTES.
THAT GIVES US APPROXIMATELY 17 MINUTES TO FINISH THE, UH, THIS ITEM.
AND, UH, IF WE WANNA HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT, DO CAN WE GET IT DONE THAT TIME? I CAN PRESENT IT IN THAT TIME.
UH, IT'LL BE DEPENDENT ON THE DISCUSSION INVOLVED.
UM, SO I, I THINK WE CAN MOVE TO THE HIGHER THE MATTER.
UH, I THINK THE ONLY, UH, MAJOR ISSUE THAT CAME OUT OF THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, UH, WAS, UH, THE SIGNIFICANT ITEM RIGHT HERE, WINDOW ALARMS. UM, SO I, I THINK I, I LEAVE IT UP TO THE FULL BOARD.
I, I DON'T WANT TO, UH, SHORTCHANGE ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE COMMITTEE ME MEETING, UM, ON ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS. SO I, IF ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS, UH, ANY OF THEIR CONCERNS AND GIVE US, UH, CITY'S RECOMMENDATION BACK, UH, JUST, UH, FOR, UH, POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
SO THE, THIS AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD, UH, TO THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, SO THAT WE CAN GET IT ADOPTED.
WE'RE LOOKING AT A FAIRLY SHORT TIMEFRAME.
UM, I NEED TO SUBMIT OUR, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO, UH, CITY, UH, EXECUTIVE TEAM ON AUGUST 5TH.
SO, UM, NOW THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A LEEWAY IF WE, IF WE DIDN'T ASSUME THAT THERE'S GONNA BE TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UH, WE COULD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT IT TO 'EM WITH, UH, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE STILL NEED TO HAVE THE FULL BOARD MEET ONE MORE TIME TO PROVE IT.
UH, BUT ONCE AGAIN, I KNOW I'M KIND OF USING UP SOME TIME TO CLARIFY THIS, BUT, UH, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE BOARD ON HOW THEY WANT TO APPROACH, UH, THIS, THIS PRESENTATION.
CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT HANLEY.
JEREMY, UH, IF I, I BELIEVE IN THE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE, AND IF THIS IS WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S SUBMITTING TO THE LARGER BOARD, CAN WE ONLY COVER INSTEAD OF GOING FIVE PAGES ITEM BY ITEM, THOSE ITEMS THAT MAYBE THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS THINK THEY WANT TO DISCUSS WITH THE LARGER BOARD? I, I AGREE.
UH, STAFF HAS NO ISSUES, UH, WITH THAT APPROACH.
AND, UH, MY, MY THOUGHT IS TO, UH, HAND IT OFF ON SOME OF THE, UH, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UH, TO ADDRESS ANY OF THOSE MAJOR CONCERNS.
I, I THINK I HAVE THE ONE PULLED UP HERE THAT'S GONNA BE, UH, THE SIGNIFICANT ONE THAT TO ADDRESS.
YOU WANT ME, BRIAN, BRIAN SMITH? JEREMY, DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THIS? BECAUSE I, I'M THE ONE THAT HAD THE MOST ISSUE WITH THIS.
WELL, BRIAN, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, UM, LET ME, SINCE YOU WEREN'T AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE HAD, LET ME JUST, I WAS AT THE FIRST ONE, NOT THE SECOND ONE.
THE SECOND ONE THAT WE APPROVED TO PULL THIS TO THIS BOARD.
UM, AND, AND MIKE WAS THE, UH, CHAIRMAN OF IT.
BUT I JUST, UH, JUST REAL QUICKLY, UH, I, I THINK I MADE A MOTION AND I'LL, AND I'LL TELL YOU MY REASONING, WHETHER IT'S AGREED WITH OR NOT, UH, WHICH THAT IS A VOTE WE HAVE TO HAVE, BUT MINE WAS AFTER ALL THE DISCUSSION OVER AN HOUR OR SO, AND, AND, AND MIKE HAS SOME, UH, A GREAT INPUT THAT HE COULD GIVE HERE SHORTLY, BUT MINE WAS THAT MR. WIGGINS, THAT IT REPRESENTS ALL THE MANUFACTURERS AND INSTALLERS, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE ASSOCIATION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, UH, STATED THAT THEY WERE ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS,
[01:50:01]
UH, ADDITION AND THAT IT WOULD BECOME A RESPONSIBILITY OF, OF, UH, THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE HOMEOWNER, WHETHER IT WAS, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY, THEY DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AND CONTINUED TO MONITOR IT AND, AND TOOK CARE OF IT OVER TIME.THAT WAS ALL THE HOMEOWNER RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT AS FAR AS GETTING THE PERMIT AND GETTING APPROVED, THE, THE ASSOCIATION THAT MR. WIGGINS REPRESENTED FOR ALL THE POOL INSTALLERS AND MANUFACTURERS, UH, AGREED WITH IT.
MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION WAS WITH IT, HAVE WE HAD JUST ONE INCIDENT OF A, A CHILD GOING THROUGH A WINDOW, WHICH SEEMED REALLY RANDOM TO ME WHY THEY'D GO THROUGH A WINDOW, BUT, UH, THEY DID HAVE ONE LETTER THAT SHOWED WHERE A CHILD HAD GONE THROUGH A WINDOW AND, UH, HAD, HAD DROWNED IN A POOL.
UH, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THAT.
AND, AND THEN THERE WAS A LOT MORE DISCUSSED, BUT THAT WAS PROBABLY MY TWO MAJOR POINTS.
AND MIKE, YOU MAY HAVE SOME OTHER POINTS YOU WANNA MAKE.
YEAH, SO JUST AS A QUICK RECAP, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THIS, UH, CODED ADDITION, IT WAS REQUIRED THAT, UH, IF YOU HAD A PULL IN YOUR BACKYARD, THE BACK DOOR HAD TO HAVE AN ALARM ON IT.
UM, AND, BUT THIS CHANGE IS THAT BASICALLY ANY OPERABLE OPENING THAT, UM, OPENS INTO THE GATED AREA WHERE THE POOL WILL BE, OR THE FENCED AREA WHERE THE POOL WILL BE, UH, REQUIRES THE SAME KIND OF ALARM.
SO, UH, ESSENTIALLY THAT BOILS DOWN TO WINDOWS.
SO, UM, INSTEAD OF JUST A DOOR, ANY OPERABLE WINDOW THAT OPENS INTO THE POOL, THE POOL ENCLOSURE, UH, NEEDS TO HAVE AN ALARM OR, OR NOT BE OPERABLE, UH, IS WHAT YOU CAN SEE.
THAT WAS THE MAIN CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.
THE REST OF 'EM, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WENT THROUGH, THERE WERE SOME SOLVES ISSUES THAT ENDED UP BEING TAKEN OUT.
UM, YOU KNOW, FOR MY PART, I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR, UH, ADDING THIS PARTICULAR THING, BUT I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN OUR FIRST AND SECOND MEETING, THE, THE STAFF WENT BACK AND BROUGHT BACK SOME, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY WERE VERY THOUGHTFUL IN THEIR CONSIDERATIONS AND THE RECOMMENDATION THEY MADE, UH, TO INCLUDE THIS.
AND THEY BROUGHT BACK SOME, SOME EVIDENCE OF WHERE THIS HAD BEEN AN ISSUE.
UM, AND AT THE END, THE, THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO, UH, FORWARD IT TO THIS BOARD, UH, WITH ITS INCLUDED.
UH, AND I SUPPORT THAT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, BUT THAT, THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, FROM THE COMMITTEE PERSPECTIVE, MY, MY PART.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS? MY, I'M SORRY, I INTERRUPTED YOU, BRIAN.
SO GO AHEAD AND, UH, PRESENT WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO.
NO, JACK, YOU, YOU DID IT RIGHT.
SO I, I, I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP THAT THIS, THIS WAS THE CONTENTIOUS ONE THAT WE HAD AN ISSUE ON OF, OF TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE WAS ISSUES OUT THERE.
WE, WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER, AND I WASN'T ABLE TO BE HERE AT THIS TUESDAY MEETING.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE, THERE HAS BEEN ONE INSTANCE.
UM, MY ISSUE AGAIN IS FROM EXISTING, UM, HOMES AND SUCH, WHEN YOU'RE ADDING THESE POOLS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND FOR THE DESIGNS OF THE DIFFERENT WINDOWS TO MEET THIS KIND OF GUIDELINES.
UM, I, I, I, I JUST THINK IT'S, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S A PRESSING ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO DO, AND IT, IT CAUSES AN UNNECESSARY, UH, DESIGN ISSUE AND ADDITIONAL COST THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A, A CRYING NEED FOR YET.
AND, AND SO JUST, AND, AND I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT VERY MUCH, AND I THINK WE, WE HASHED THAT VERY MUCH IN DEPTH FOR SEVERAL, AT LEAST TWO HOURS THE OTHER DAY.
AND THERE WAS A LOT OF PRESENTATIONS FROM, AGAIN, MR. WIGGINS, UH, FROM THE MANUFACTURERS, UH, AND INSTALLERS, UH, ASPECT OF IT.
AND, AND ONE THING WE DIDN'T EVEN MENTION, AND IT'S NOT PART OF THIS, BUT JUST TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO ON THE INTERNET AND SAY, I WANT A POOL, YOU CAN GET A POOL FROM WALMART OR FROM ALL THESE PLACES, THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES YOU CAN ORDER A BIG OLD POOL THAT'LL HAVE 20 PEOPLE IN IT IN YOUR BACKYARD THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT FOR.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE, THE CITY'S, UH, PURVIEW THAT'S NOT OURS EITHER.
BUT THAT STILL REMAINS A FACT THAT THERE'S A, A, A LOT OF BAD THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN.
BUT THERE'S A BEEN TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD, UH, WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS.
AND IT SEEMS TO BE, UH, AGREED WITH THROUGH THE INSTALLERS AND MANUFACTURERS THAT, AND, AND I THINK THAT'S THE OVERLYING FACTOR OF WHY WE APPROVED IT LAST TIME.
SO OBJECT TO, THIS IS BRIAN SMITH AGAIN.
SO A QUICK QUESTION I HAD ON BASEMENT WINDOWS, THEY SAID, FOR THE ALARMS TO BE PUT ON THE OUTSIDE PART OF IT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A FASCIA, YOU HAVE A CASEMENT WINDOW, THAT ALARM.
HOW ARE YOU GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S MAINTAINED AND NOT GET MESSED UP BY WEATHER? UH, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE IT SAYING THAT IT HAD TO BE ON THE EXTERIOR.
THAT WAS IN OUR MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
'CAUSE YOU CAN'T PUT IT THE ALARM ON THE INSIDE PART OF THE WINDOW, UH, DUE TO THE SCREEN AND SUCH.
SO THEY SAID YOU PUT THE ALARM ON THE OUTSIDE
[01:55:01]
PART, BUT SOME OF THE DESIGNS WE'RE DOING IS VERY LITTLE OVERHANGS AND SUCH, AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA PUT THE ALARM THAT ISN'T GONNA HAVE, I MEAN, IT JUST TO, TO ME, THERE, THERE WAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAN COME UP WITH THIS THAT I DON'T THINK HAS BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH ENOUGH THAT IF WE DO IT, THERE WILL BE SOME ISSUES FROM A DES FROM A DESIGN AND APPLICATION PART THAT, UM, PLUS AS, AS FAR AS A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE THAT WILL HAVE IT IF THEY DON'T PUT THE LOCKS ON OR SOMETHING, AND IF THEY TAKE 'EM OFF, UH, OPEN UP FOR, UM, BASICALLY LEGAL, UH, REPRESENTATION.WELL, I, AND I, I THINK THAT DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WAS THAT THAT IS GONNA BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSTALLER OF THE POOL TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE HOMEOWNER IS AWARE THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT THOSE ALARMS ON THE HOMEOWNER'S, THEN GONNA HAVE TO CONTRACT SOMEBODY TO PUT THOSE ALARMS ON.
THE CITY'S GONNA INSPECT IT ONE TIME AND THAT'S IT.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, JUST LIKE A SMOKE DETECTOR OR MANY OTHER THINGS THAT THEY REQUIRE, IT BECOMES A HOMEOWNER ISSUE AND NOT A CITY ISSUE.
I I JUST THINK THIS JUST OPENS IT UP MORE.
IF THE BOARD DECIDES FOR THIS, THAT'S FINE.
UM, I KNOW WE WENT ROUND AND ROUND WITH THIS, SO, UM, I, I APPRECIATE THE TIME.
AND, UH, BRIAN, THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE, AND I, AND WE UNDERSTAND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS UNDERSTAND THERE ALWAYS BE, UH, DESIGN CHALLENGES.
UH, BUT I, I THINK EVERYBODY HERE, UH, THAT'S BEEN DEALING WITH THE CITY, I, I KNOW SINCE THE COUPLE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE NOW, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO BE VERY CUSTOMER SERVICE FRIENDLY.
UH, WE ALWAYS TRY TO FIND SOLUTIONS.
UH, WE, WE TRY NOT TO SAY IT'S THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
YOU HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK.
WE ALWAYS, UH, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME WE COME ACROSS ONE OF THESE VERY, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC UNIQUE SCENARIOS, UM, TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WILL WORK, UH, YOU KNOW, TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE, UH, WITHOUT SOMEBODY SAYING, HEY, YOU CAN'T INSTALL THAT WINDOW.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE TYPE THING.
BUT THE WAY THAT THIS IS WRITTEN, YOU HAVE TO MEET IT.
SO, I MEAN, THIS IS PRETTY CUT AND CLEAR HOW THIS IS WRITTEN.
I, YOU KNOW, JEREMY, Y'ALL HAVE DONE, YOU KNOW, A GREAT JOB AS FAR AS DOING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, BUT THIS IS PRETTY WELL WRITTEN AS FAR AS WHAT WE HAVE TO MEET.
AND, UM, I, I, I JUST SEE SOME ISSUES AS FAR AS, UH, UM, MEETING THE INTENT AND DOING THIS AND, AND POTENTIAL ISSUES LONG TERM.
IF YOU, IF YOU CAN THINK OF A, A WORD OR TWO, A VERBIAGE THAT WOULD WE, UH, UH, AS PART OF A MOTION, BRIAN, I, I'M SURE WE COULD, UH, ENTERTAIN THAT BRIAN SMITH.
CRAP, YOU'RE PUTTING ME ON THE, UH,
THAT WOULD BE NICE IF IT WOULD BE EASY TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT A, A, A COMPROMISE IN HERE.
UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW, BRIAN, WE'LL GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES.
IS THERE ANY OTHER PRESSING ISSUES ON THE AGENDA OF THIS LIST OF, OF FIVE PAGES THAT JEREMY DISTRIBUTED? UH, BRIAN SMITH, ROBERT, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I SAW THAT WAS POTENTIALLY AN ISSUE THAT I JUST SAW FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION AND A LONG TERM, UM, JUST TRYING TO MEET THE INTENT, UM, OF POTENTIALLY HAVING SOME ISSUES.
IT, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE TO PUT THIS, GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS ROBERT LEY, PUT THIS IN EFFECT, BRIAN, AND IF WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND MODIFY IT AT SOME TIME, IT'LL COME BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE AND WE CAN LOOK AT, SEE WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE.
ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, I DO HAVE AN IDEA, ROBERT, UH, THAT THIS WOULD BE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY OR NEW, NEW, NEW BUILDINGS ONLY EXISTING STRUCTURES WOULD NOT APPLY.
IS THIS WHERE, YEAH, JEREMY, THIS IS, THIS IS MIKE.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF THE HOUSE IS ALREADY THERE, THAT YOU'RE ADDING A POOL TO, IT DOESN'T APPLY, BUT IF IT'S BEING BUILT WITH THE HOUSE AND IT WOULD APPLY OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT? YES.
BECAUSE THAT WOULD GO INTO THE DESIGN OF ONE, LIKE ROBERT WAS DESIGNING THE HOME.
HOW'S IT GONNA WORK WITH THE POOL? UH, I HAVE THAT IN, IN ACCORDANCE.
SOMEBODY HAS AN EXISTING ONE, THEY'RE DOING IT.
I MEAN, ADDING, IF THEY HAD, YOU KNOW, 20, YOU KNOW, WINDOWS IN THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE, THEN THEY GOTTA PUT ALARM ON 20 DIFFERENT ONES.
THAT ADDITIONAL COST, UH, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE COME IN WHEN THEY'RE DESIGNING THE HOUSE AND FIGURING IT OUT.
SO THE, THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE, THIS IS MIKE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD AMEND THIS TO SAY, UH, WHERE A WALL OF A DWELLING OR STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2020, UM, SERVES AS PART OF THE BARRIER AND WHERE DOORS OR WINDOWS PROVIDE DOT, DOT, DOT.
IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT? YES, BUT I DO STILL WANT THE DOORS FOR SURE, WHETHER IT BE EXISTING OR NEW.
THE DOORS SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS FAR AS THE ALARM.
[02:00:01]
THAT IS A SAFETY FACTOR THAT IS, IS VERY EFFECTIVE.MY ONLY CONCERN WAS THE WINDOWS HAVING A SEAL HEIGHT OF LESS THAN 48 INCHES.
BRIAN, THIS ROBERT HENLEY, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE GOT YOUR AMENDMENT THAT JACK RECOMMENDED THAT YOU PROPOSED.
WELL, YOU'VE GOTTA TONE IT DOWN.
YOU, YOU'VE GOT IT IN ABOUT 18 SENTENCES SO FAR.
MIKE, MIKE, YOU, YOU HAD IT PERFECTLY.
SO IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND STATE IT, IT'D BE GREAT STATED FOR CLARITY, AND THEN WE CAN GET A MOTION.
UH, SO I GUESS YOU WOULD WANT TO AMEND THIS TO, TO SAY, UH, WHERE A WALLER STRUCTURE OF DWELLING CONSTRUCTED AFTER SEPTEMBER 20 OR SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2020.
UM, I, I DON'T, I, I THINK THAT THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE, UH, MAYBE SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PLAYED WITH A LITTLE BIT, UH, TO MAKE IT WORK, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME CHARACTERS THAT WOULD NEED TO GO IN THERE.
UH, JEREMY, MAYBE YOU, YOU COULD HELP.
UM, I, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD GO INTO A CLEANLY INTO A MOTION.
I MEAN, I GUESS WE COULD MAKE THE AMENDMENT REAL FAST AND THEN THE MOTION WOULD BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
UH, BUT I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WORTHY OF SOME DISCUSSION, UM, FROM THE CITY AND FROM THE REST OF THE, THE, OF THE BOARD.
BECAUSE I, I WONDER ABOUT HOW WELL THAT WOULD BE, HOW WORKABLE THAT WOULD BE, ALTHOUGH I LIKE THE IDEA, UH, THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, A, A UNIQUE WAY, UH, TO APPROACH IT.
UM, I, I WOULD THINK THE FIRST THING WE'D WANNA LOOK AT IS TRY TO, TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND SOME DATA ON HOW MANY POOLS ARE BEING INSTALLED AFTER A BUILDING IS COMPLETED OR THE HOME IS COMPLETED VERSUS BEING INSTALLED AT THE SAME TIME.
WE'D HAVE TO KIND OF LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE JUST TO STAGGER, UH, THEIR POOL PERMIT, UM, UNTIL THE, THE HOUSE IS COMPLETED, THEN NOW THEY CAN, IT'S KIND OF A LOOPHOLE OUT OF THIS REQUIREMENT AS A WHOLE, EVERY SINGLE TIME OF, IF I DON'T HAVE MY POOL PERMIT, I CAN BUILD MY BUILDING AND THEN COME BACK AND PUT THE POOL IN LATER
MOST, MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE GONNA WANNA DO IT AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING.
I BUILD POOLS AFTER THE FACT TO COME IN, OTHER THAN WHEN I'M BUILDING THE HOUSE RIGHT AWAY AND DOING THE POOL, I HAVE ACCESS.
I'M NOT MESSING UP THE GROUNDS, THE LANDSCAPING, SPRINKLERS, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
UH, THE COST TO DO IT LATER, UH, IS PROHIBITIVE.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THEY'LL GET AROUND FOR DOING THAT PART.
AND THIS IS A MINOR THING AS FAR AS FROM THAT, AGAIN, I'M, I'M TRYING TO KEEP FROM AN UNBEARING COST FROM EXISTING HOMES TRYING TO MEET SOMETHING THAT MAY BE VERY DIFFICULT TO MEET IN NEW HOMES, LIKE WE'VE DONE IN A LOT OF PART OF OUR CODES.
IT ALLOWS THEM TO DESIGN AND KNOW THIS AHEAD OF TIME AND ADDRESS IT.
UH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING WITH, WITH MY MOTION.
UM, THIS IS JEREMY MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I, I SEE THE, THE BENEFITS OF GOING THIS ROUTE.
UM, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO SEE, I MEAN, I KNOW WE'RE GETTING REAL CLOSE TO THAT, THAT CUTOFF, AND WE'RE ABOUT TO LOSE QUORUM.
UM, AMIN, CAN WE JUMP IN? MY THOUGHTS ARE MAYBE WE SHOULD, UM, PAUSE THIS ONE, UM, AND, AND COME BACK TO DISCUSS.
I, I, I DON'T WANNA RUSH THIS ONE THROUGH IF, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.
THIS IS, I MEAN, THOMAS, UH, IF THE BOARD CAN APPROVE EVERYTHING EXCEPT THIS ONE ITEM AND GIVE US SOME DIRECTION ON WHAT YOU WANT.
SO IF BRIAN'S MOTION IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, WE CAN WORK TOWARDS THAT, AND THEN WE CAN BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS IN PROBABLY A FEW DAYS OR, OR A WEEK.
UM, I THINK THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE, AND IN A SECOND I'LL, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.
I THINK DIRECTION WISE, I THINK, AND BRIAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CREATE SOME KIND OF CARVE OUT SO THAT WHEN THERE'S A STRUCTURE THAT HAS WINDOWS THAT ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO EASILY, UM, INSTALLING THESE ALARMS, UH, THAT THERE'S, THAT THERE'S A WORKAROUND FOR THOSE.
UH, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN COMMITTEE, IT WAS BASICALLY THESE ARE REALLY NOT EXPENSIVE ALARMS TO JUST GET TO STICK ON ALARMS THAT YOU CAN PUT ON.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE COST OF THE POOL, IT'S NOT VERY HIGH.
SO IT'S NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, VERY, UH, UH, IT'S NOT A BIG OBSTACLE TO GETTING THE POOL DONE.
UM, AND THE KIND OF THE SITUATIONS BRIAN TALKED ABOUT, MAY, MAY MAYBE CHANGE THAT MAP A LITTLE BIT.
SO IF, IF IT'S DIRECTION, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT'D BE, FIND A WAY TO CREATE A CARVE OUT FOR, FOR THOSE KIND OF SITUATIONS.
UM, SO THIS, THIS IS IS, I MEAN, FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REALLY QUICK, UH, MIKE, UM, SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS, UH, CREATE A SUBSECTION UNDER 3 0 5 0.4, AND WE HAVE TECHNICALLY TWO SECTIONS.
POINT ONE IS EXISTING STRUCTURE.
ALL WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE IS THE DOOR ALARM, BUT THEN NEW
[02:05:01]
CONSTRUCTION, IT'S GONNA LIST EXACTLY WHAT WE SEE NOW ON THE SCREEN.YEAH, I THINK THAT COULD BE, I MEAN, THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.
BRIAN, DID I ENCAPSULATE YOUR, YOUR CONCERN CORRECTLY? YES, MIKE, THAT WAS PERFECT.
SO, UH, I THINK AS A BOARD, SINCE WE STILL HAVE QUORUM, UM, IF JACK OR MIKE, WE CAN MAKE THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION AND THEN STAFF TO LOOK AT THE PROVISION FOR, UH, FOR NEW HOMES AND THEN COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR THAT AMENDMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT ALLOWS THE, UM, UH, CITY STAFF TO BE ABLE TO FORWARD THIS AND, UM, UM, AND KEEP THINGS MOVING FORWARD.
I MOVED TO APPROVE THE, UH, I S T, UH, WHATEVER THE POOL AND SPA, UH, AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 3 0 5 0.4, MR. ROBERT HANLEY.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MIKE RUST AND A SECOND BY ROBERT HANLEY FOR APPROVAL OF ALL ITEMS ON THE POOL AND SPA, EXCEPT FOR 3 0 5 0.4 TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE FUTURE.
TIME TO DISCUSS A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION ON TIMING AND WORKABILITY OF ALARMS. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION, SIR? ALL I'S, AND NAYS, IF WE COULD HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
CARRIE, UM, MOTION PASSES WITH A VOTE OF 9 2 0.
MOTION PASSES IN A, IN A QUICK CLARIFICATION, I DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY, UH, CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON THAT.
DID WE HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY? UH, WE DID, BUT IT WAS PERTAINING TO THIS ITEM SPECIFICALLY.
SO I THINK THAT CAN BE TABLED, UH, WITH THE, UH, 3 0 5 0.4 RECOMMENDATIONS.
COULD WE HEAR THAT JUST FOR, OR DO YOU WANNA PRESENT THAT THE NEXT TIME? UH, WHAT IT WAS WAS JUST THIS, UH, LETTER COMING IN FROM THE, UH, POOL AND HOT TUB ALLIANCE.
UM, AND I, I CAN SEND THAT OUT TO EVERYBODY PRIOR I RECEIVED THIS.
CAN YOU JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL HAVE THAT AND THEN WE CAN CONSIDER THAT, UH, WE'LL HAVE THAT INFORMATION SO WHEN WE HAVE THE NEXT, UH, THE NEXT TIME THAT WE GET TOGETHER? YES.
AND I'LL ALSO, UH, REACH THE INVITE, UH, THE POOL AND HOT TUB LINES, AND ALSO ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED, UH, TO THE MEETING AS WELL.
DO WE CLARIFY THAT ONE MAJOR POINT? YES, SIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS AT THIS TIME? CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT HENLEY.
WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY, UH, VOTED ON THAT ISSUE, SO THANK EVERYBODY.
I, I HAVE A MEETING THAT'S BEEN STARTED AS WELL.
I HAD TO WAIT, UH, TO HELP OUT FOR THAT VOTE, BUT I DO HAVE TO GO.
UH, SO THAT PUTS THIS BELOW QUORUM, BUT NO STAFF, UH, IN MEETINGS, UH, OR ITEMS TO ADDRESS AT THIS POINT.
UM, SO DO WE HAVE A, I GUESS A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT THIS POINT? DO WE NEED ONE? REALLY? YEAH.
WE CAN'T TAKE A MOTION FOR THAT.
IT, IT'S AUTOMATIC ADJOURNMENT BASED OFF OF, UH, LOSING FORUM.
WELL THEN I'M, I'M SAYING WE'RE ADJOURNED AND, UH, THANK YOU.
GOOD MEETING AND EVERYBODY HAVE A GREAT DAY.