Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2016 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingBuilding Review Board Page 1 August 25, 2016 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Michael Doddridge, Vice Chair City Hall West Andrea Dunlap 300 Laporte Avenue Tim Johnson Bernie Marzonie Justin Montgomery Fort Collins, Colorado Rick Reider The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing August 25, 2016 1:00 PM • ROLL CALL • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. Approval of Draft BRB Hearing Minutes - February 25, 2016 2. Approval of Draft BRB Verbatim Minutes - March 7, 2016 3. 2015 Proposed IBC Amendments: Amendments and deletions to the 2015 International Building Code 4. 2016 Proposed Changes to IPMC: Proposed changes to the adopted Structures and Premises Condition Code of the City of Fort Collins (2006 International Property Maintenance Code – IPMC) 5. 2017 Annual Work Plan • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Building Review Board Hearing Agenda ATTACHMENT 1 Building Review Board Page 1 August 25, 2016 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Michael Doddridge, Vice Chair City Hall West Andrea Dunlap 300 Laporte Avenue Tim Johnson Bernie Marzonie Justin Montgomery Fort Collins, Colorado Rick Reider The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing February 25, 2016 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Roll Call: Alan Cram, Chair Mike Doddridge, Vice Chair Rick Reider Andrea Dunlap Justin Montgomery Tim Johnson Bernie Marzonie Absent: None Staff Present: Lisa Olson, Staff Support to the Board Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Brad Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office Russ Hovland, Plans Examiner 1. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 28, 2016 MINUTES: Dunlap requested a language change to the minutes to reflect a question rather than a statement. Building Review Board Minutes Building Review Board Page 2 February 25, 2016 Reider made a motion, seconded by Doddridge, to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2016 meeting as amended. Vote: Yeas: Dunlap, Johnson, Montgomery, Reider, Doddridge, Cram and Marzonie Nays: None Abstain: None 2. APPEAL FOR AN EXAM WAIVER FOR CONTRACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL – APPEAL #2016-01, RON AUCH, EAGLE PEAK CONSTRUCTION Gebo discussed the history of Mr. Auch’s license dating back to 1985 noting he has completed two non-required courses in 2004 and 2011 through the City. He stated Mr. Auch’s license expired in May 2015 and due to the length of time since Mr. Auch has held his license in good standing, it is not believed Mr. Auch has ever taken a licensing exam. Gebo went on to outline the duties of the Board in this case and stated staff does not recommend approval of an exam waiver in this case. Mr. Auch presented the Board with various materials supporting his case, noting his license expired due to an illness. He stated he has a Larimer County license but occasionally receives requests to work in the city limits. Additionally, he noted he is no longer physically able to do much of the work on his own and will act primarily as a general contractor in the future. Gebo asked Mr. Auch if he has taken any contractor classes recently other than the local amendment classes and asked about his reason for not wanting to take the test. Mr. Auch replied test-taking has always been difficult for him and stated his IRC test in 1985 was quite challenging. Dunlap asked if the current test would be for the 2012 IRC. Gebo replied in the affirmative and stated the test is open book; however, it is timed and could be stressful for someone with test- taking difficulties. Doddridge asked if the test is the general IRC and not the Fort Collins local amendments. Gebo replied in the affirmative. Montgomery asked Mr. Auch if he has any upcoming projects for which he would need this license. Mr. Auch replied he has a couple bathroom remodel clients who are awaiting the outcome of this hearing. Reider asked Mr. Auch if he has any information he could provide for the Board indicating reading or exam-taking would be an extreme hardship. Mr. Auch replied he does not have any reports from doctors but described struggles he has in terms of instructions. Reider asked if there is the possibility for other arrangements during the test which may help Mr. Auch. Gebo replied the testing outlet may offer additional time; however, he was unsure what would be required on behalf of the test taker to prove the need for that. Cram discussed a previous case in which the Board waived a testing requirement due to a language barrier. Dunlap asked if subcontractors need to be listed when a homeowner applies for a permit. Gebo replied a homeowner can pull his own permit and any person being paid needs to be a licensed contractor. Gebo went on to state there is a grey area regarding ‘project management.’ Building Review Board Page 3 February 25, 2016 Johnson asked if Mr. Auch’s Larimer County license ever expired. Mr. Auch replied in the negative. Cram asked if the Larimer County Class C license is comparable to the City’s Class D license. Gebo replied he is unfamiliar with the County’s licenses. Doddridge replied the two are comparable. Gebo stated he is always in support of the construction industry; however, he is uncomfortable taking a position on this issue. He noted Mr. Auch is currently licensed elsewhere and stated his recommendation of denial is purely based on the language in the Code. Cram argued there is no undue hardship as Mr. Auch is currently working in the County. Montgomery stated Mr. Auch’s illness was potentially a hardship and he discussed the thoroughness of the materials presented by Mr. Auch. He stated he would be in favor of offering an exam waiver in this case. Doddridge expressed agreement with Montgomery stating a hardship situation did exist. Doddridge made a motion, seconded by Marzonie, that based on a previous hardship, that Mr. Auch be granted an exam waiver in this particular case and to reinstate his license upon payment of the necessary fees. Vote: Yeas: Marzonie, Johnson, Doddridge, Cram, Montgomery, Reider and Dunlap Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. OTHER BUSINESS Gebo asked how the Board would like to be updated regarding progress of the Code committee. The Board held a brief discussion and opted to receive Code committee updates and emails as they come. Gebo discussed the upcoming hearing regarding the Coy Hoffman silos on the Woodward property and stated they will be hearing the item on March 7th. Gebo briefly outlined the case and discussed the specific issues of the remand. Reider asked about whether the silos are eligible or already designated as historic structures. Gebo replied there are two sections in the Municipal Code dealing with historic structures; one is dealing with state designated structures, and one deals with locally designated structures. He stated the entire Coy Farm property is state designated but not yet locally designated. The Board held a discussion regarding design wind speeds and standards. Redier asked about Woodward’s reasoning for wanting to take the silos down. Dunlap noted Woodward has stated they cannot get insurance for the property with the silos as is. Gebo replied that would be a good question for the Woodward team and stated the insurance companies have not indicated whether or not they will insure the silos and barn if they are stabilized. Gebo suggested additional questions should be held until the next hearing. Gebo stated the Board must decide on who will Chair the next meeting. Montgomery volunteered for the position. Building Review Board Page 4 February 25, 2016 The Board held a discussion regarding the process and time allotments for the appeal hearing. Gebo noted a luncheon with Councilmember Cunniff has been confirmed for April 28th. Cram asked if construction is still occurring at a rapid level. Gebo replied in the affirmative. The meeting adjourned at 2:24 p.m. _____ Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair BUILDING REVIEW BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Monday, March 7, 2016 Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Coy-Hoffman Silos – Woodward Inc. Second Round Appeal to Building Review Board as Remanded by City Council on January 19, 2016 Case #2015-02 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Justin Montgomery, Acting Chair Bernie Marzonie Rick Reider Andrea Dunlap Tim Johnson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Lisa Olson, Staff Support to the Board Brad Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office Attachment 2 2 1 CHAIR JUSTIN MONTGOMERY: Good afternoon. I’d like to welcome you to the 2 March 7, 2016 Building Review Board meeting. We are here to hear a second round appeal on the Coy-Hoffman Silos from Woodward, Inc. as remanded by the City Council on January 19 th 3 , 4 2016, and it’s case number 2015-02. This hearing will be recorded and so it’s important that all 5 who are speaking do talk into the microphones when they speak. And then, for the members out 6 there, the microphones are here at the podiums. And, can we have the representative from 7 Woodward please identify themselves and I’ll ask if you’re ready to proceed? 8 MS. CAROYLYNNE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Boardmembers, City Staff, Carolynne 9 White, land use counsel for the applicant; we are ready to proceed. I just wanted to not that we 10 do have one procedural item to dispense with, for the record. 11 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay. And the City Staff, Chief Building Official…please. 12 MR. MIKE GEBO: Yes, Mike Gebo with the City of Fort Collins, ready to proceed. 13 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, now the City Attorney has a few announcements about 14 the hearing procedure and we can address your concerns. 15 MR. BRAD YATABE: Thank you Mr. Chair…a couple of things before I go into the 16 hearing procedure for this afternoon. I did want to note the following…Building Review 17 Boardmember Bernie Marzonie has been newly appointed. My understanding that, although he 18 wasn’t present during the initial hearing as a member of the Board, he is allowed to hear this as 19 long as he reviewed the record on appeal; and my understanding is that he has. The newly 20 appointed chair Alan Cram has actually recused himself from this matter. I just wanted to note 21 that’s the reason for his absence today is he basically has recused himself. And Mike Doddridge 22 is not present due to a scheduling conflict. 23 In terms of the overview of today’s procedure, this is an appeal of the Chief Building Official’s September 18 th 24 , 2015 determination. It’s back before the Board on remand from the 25 City Council, and it’s to be heard in accordance with the direction provided by City Council as contained in the January 26 th 26 , 2016 Council Resolution. Council’s direction is that the Building 27 Review Board receive and consider evidence and analysis regarding the effects of natural 28 conditions and events of a one in ten year probability on one or both of the silos to consider 29 whether one or both poses an imminent threat or danger as that term is defined in the 30 International Property Maintenance Code. 31 The hearing procedure for the Building Review Board consideration is as follows…we’ll 32 start with a City staff overview of the appeal, that will be followed by consideration of any 33 procedural issues by the Building Review Board…and it sounds like Woodward has at least one 34 issue to discuss there, the appellant, Woodward, Inc. then will present their case, the appellee, 35 the City of Fort Collins Chief Building Official will present his case, there will be the 36 opportunity for public comment, the appellant, Woodward, will then have a chance to rebut any Attachment 2 3 1 of the comment coming from the Chief Building Officer or information in public comments, the 2 Chief Building Official will then have an opportunity to rebut Woodward and any public 3 comments at that time. The Building Review Board will then have an opportunity to ask 4 questions, and indeed it may ask questions at any time of anyone making a presentation, but that 5 will be another period to ask any follow-up questions that need to be done. At that point, the 6 taking of additional evidence will be closed and the BRB will then deliberate and make a determination whether to uphold or overturn the Chief Building Official’s September 18 th 7 , 2015 8 determination. 9 The sole issue before the Board today, as directed by City Council, is the consideration of 10 evidence and analysis regarding the effects of natural conditions and events of a one in ten year 11 probability on one or both of the silos, to consider whether one or both poses an imminent threat 12 or danger as that term is defined in the International Property Maintenance Code. As such, all 13 speakers, whether it be the appellant, the appellee, or members of the public who are addressing 14 this Board today, are requested to confine their presentations and their comments to that issue 15 and that issue alone. 16 In terms of the evidence on which the Building Review Board will make their decision today, we have the following…relevant information received in the record at the October 29 th 17 , 18 2015 Building Review Board hearing, relevant information received into the record at the January 19 th , 2016 City Council appeal of the Building Review Board decision, the January 26 th 19 , 20 2016 City Council Resolution number 2016-009, information compiled by City staff and 21 submitted to the Building Review Board in advance of this hearing, copies of which were posted 22 online or linked to on the City of Fort Collins website, relevant documentation in whatever form 23 presented by speakers during this proceeding, copies of such documentation must be provided to 24 the Building Review Board for inclusion in the record and the documentation will not be 25 returned, relevant testimony given before the Building Review Board at this hearing. The 26 relevance and the weight of any particular evidence that is part of this hearing will be determined 27 by the individual Building Review Boardmembers in making their decision. 28 At this point, I’ll turn this back over to you, Mr. Chair, and I believe we have the staff 29 presentation to start things off. 30 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank you. You can proceed, Mike, please. 31 MR. TOM LEESON: Good afternoon Board, my name is Tom Leeson; I’m the 32 Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director. I’m going to just kind of give 33 you an overview, some of which will be repetitive from the last time you heard this, but I do 34 think it’s important to address some of the same issues for the benefit of the public. 35 Again, we’re talking about the Coy-Hoffman silos which are located on the new 36 Woodward campus. It is a state designated historical site. The two silos were constructed in 1912 and ’13, respectively, and they were declared as dangerous structures on September 18 th 37 , Attachment 2 4 1 2015 by the Chief Building Official. The two silos…the left one in this picture…is what you’ll 2 see referred to as the concrete slip pour, and the right silo is the concrete stave. Both are 3 approximately 40 feet in height. 4 Woodward is appealing the dangerous classification, as they believe the silos are an 5 imminent danger, and the appeal is on the ground that the Chief Building Official failed to 6 properly interpret and apply the Codes. Originally, three engineering firms evaluated the silos to 7 determine their structural conditions. Martin and Martin and JVA were hired by Woodward, and 8 Exponent was hired by the City to make that determination. The reports were reviewed by the 9 Chief Building Official, and the silos could be considered an imminent danger…the 10 determination was that they could be determined an imminent danger under the design wind 11 loads, which is high winds of 120 to 130 miles an hour. But in the current state, they are not 12 considered an imminent danger. The City did provide the definition of imminent danger to all 13 three engineering firms; however, imminent danger was not established and the dangerous 14 classification was given, again, by the Chief Building Official. 15 Just for clarification purposes, under historical structures, dangerous classification 16 requires the silos to be stabilized and repaired. An imminent danger classification requires the 17 silos to be repaired or demolished at the owner’s choice. The Building Review Board reviewed the appeal on October 29 th 18 and upheld the Chief Building Official’s decision declaring the silos 19 as dangerous and not an imminent danger. That decision was then appealed to the City Council. City Council heard the appeal on January 19 th 20 , 2016, and remanded the decision back to you, the 21 Building Review Board. As Mr. Yatabe said, quote, to receive and consider evidence and 22 analysis regarding the effects of natural conditions and events of a one in ten year probability on 23 one or both of the silos to consider whether one or both poses an imminent threat or danger as 24 that term is defined in the International Property Maintenance Code. 25 Both JVA and Exponent completed and submitted their supplemental analysis. The 26 engineers looked at other natural events, such as rain, hail, seismic conditions…and based on the 27 probabilities, determined that the wind would have the greatest impact on the structures. In that 28 analysis, JVA did voice concern over the general condition of the silos and stated that, given the 29 conditions of the cast-in-place silo, that silo could fail at 80-90 mile an hour winds, which was 30 what was determined to be the one in ten probability. Exponent believes the silos would resist 31 the one in ten year probability of a wind event. 32 The Chief Building Official then reviewed those supplemental analyses and found no new information that would change the original classification dated September 18 th 33 , 2015, that 34 the silos are dangerous and not an imminent threat. So, again, the Building Review Board’s 35 action is to rule on the appeal, specifically related to the request by City Council on the remand, 36 and the rule is on whether or not the Chief Building Official failed to properly interpret 37 specifically Section 14-71(b) of the City Code, 547-15 of the City Code, and amended Section 38 111 of the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code. That concludes my presentation. Attachment 2 5 1 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Thank you. We’ll move into the consideration for procedural 2 issues. First, I want to ask, from the public, how many members from the public would be 3 wishing to speak at the meeting today, by a show of hands please. Do I see four? Four? Okay. 4 We are going to…before any public comment, we are going to limit the amount of time to five 5 minutes for each, if that’s acceptable. Do we have any objections to that? Okay. And, 6 Woodward expressed one procedural issue they’d like to bring up, and you can do that now 7 please. 8 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Carolynne White again for Woodward. I just 9 wanted to note for the record the two exhibits that we will be introducing as part of our 10 presentation this afternoon. I have already provided the paper exhibit to Mr. Leeson and Mr. Gebo, and it simply is a transcript of the January 19 th 11 , 2016 City Council hearing, at which the 12 remand was decided, and some of the discussion around the nature of the remand illuminates 13 some of the issues before us today. We’re going to be referring to it so we wanted to make sure 14 everybody had a copy, and it wasn’t in the packet. So, that’s the first exhibit, and the second is a 15 demonstrative exhibit which Mr. Carpenter with JVA will be using to illustrate the points he’ll 16 be making regarding the silos. And there’s only one of those, and it is a physical exhibit and it 17 will be provided to the City acknowledging that it won’t be returned, at the conclusion of this 18 hearing. So, I just wanted to mention those, and if there was any discussion about them, to have 19 that ahead of time. 20 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: The second exhibit, are we talking about the physical samples 21 from the silos…? 22 MS. WHITE: No, this is a different demonstrative exhibit. 23 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay. 24 MS. WHITE: Those are already in the record. 25 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, got you. Do we have any issues with that? 26 MR. YATABE: No, it’s just information I believe. That sounds fine. 27 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, that sounds good. Thank you. 28 MS. WHITE: Thank you. 29 MR GEBO: Mr. Chair? We also…Exponent has one exhibit that they’d like to present 30 with their presentation. 31 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank you Mike. 32 MS. WHITE: May we have a copy of it? Okay, nevermind. Attachment 2 6 1 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, do we have any other procedural issues that the public 2 would like to bring up at this time? Okay, seeing none, we’ll move forward to Woodward’s 3 presentation. 4 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, just so I’m clear…the timer is reading 5 minutes, but that is 5 not a limit on our presentation, correct? 6 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: That’s correct. 7 MS. WHITE: Sorry…just figuring out how this works…there we go. Okay…alright. 8 Mr. Chairman, Building Review Boardmembers, staff, members of the public…once again, my 9 name is Carolynne White; I’m land use counsel for the applicant. We appreciate the opportunity 10 to present this appeal to you this afternoon on remand from City Council. 11 I’d like to briefly introduce the rest of the team that’s here with me today, although not all 12 of them will be necessarily presenting, we are available for questions. I have with me Steve 13 Stiesmeyer, Director of Corporate Real Estate, Chris Fawzy, Woodward Corporate Vice 14 President and General Counsel, Wayne Timura with Next Level Development, and Steve 15 Carpenter, Senior Project Manager with JVA. 16 This summarizes briefly what we intend to present to you today. We are going to 17 summarize the terms of the City Council remand, the engineering reports and calculations from 18 each of the relevant different engineers, and we request that the BRB overturn the decision of the 19 Building Official and find that the silos are an imminent threat, especially under the question 20 posed by City Council, and agree that Woodward may deconstruct the silos in order to proceed 21 with its adaptive reuse plan. 22 In order to arrive at the question before you today, we need to unpack a number of the 23 directives and definitions that are applicable. First, City Council’s remand posed one very 24 particular scenario regarding the condition of the silos: specifically to determine the effects of 25 natural conditions and events of a one in ten year probability on one or both of the silos to 26 consider whether one or both poses an imminent threat or danger as that term is defined in the 27 IPMC, the International Property Maintenance Code. That’s the exact remand language. Under 28 the IPMC, the definition of imminent danger is: a condition which could cause serious or life- 29 threatening injury or death at any time. 30 We need to look at the definition of the word ‘could,’ especially in comparison to a few 31 of the other verbs that have been described in analyzing these silos. The IPMC does not use the 32 word ‘will,’ and it does not use the word ‘would,’ both of which are much stronger verbs that 33 imply frequent or likely behavior. The IPMC uses ‘could,’ which is defined as ‘possible.’ 34 Taking the remand language, along with the definitions, into consideration, the question before 35 you today is, is it possible that the silos could fail at any time during a ten year recurrence wind 36 event. This is important because the nature of the question in turn dictates the answer, and we Attachment 2 7 1 are going to present to you some information about why the answers are so different from the 2 different experts. The question is not ‘how likely is a ten year recurrence wind event to occur,’ 3 the question is not ‘could the silos withstand a ten year wind occurrence event?’ The question is, 4 ‘is it possible that they could fail in a ten year wind occurrence event?’ 5 With that question in mind, let’s look at what constitutes failure, or what creates the 6 opportunity for failure. There are two relevant calculations here: capacity and demand. Capacity 7 is how much load a particular structure can take, and demand is how much load certain 8 conditions exert on the structure. When the demand exceeds the capacity, then the structure is 9 said to be overstressed. When a structure is overstressed, it is no longer acting as a composite 10 unit, load distribution is not available throughout the entire structure, and ultimately failure can 11 occur. So to explain in a little more detail the findings that were arrived at in the analysis of this 12 question of capacity versus demand, I’d now like to introduce to the microphone Steve Carpenter 13 from JVA to explain to you his calculations and findings in that regard. 14 MR. STEVE CARPENTER: For the record, I’m Steve Carpenter from JVA, Incorporated 15 here in Fort Collins, Colorado. So, we have by now done a lot of analysis on this silo and after 16 the City Council meeting, the…we were directed to look at a ten year reoccurrence interval. So, 17 we did that…we did that via two methods. We used ACI Chapter 22, which is structural plane 18 reinforced concrete, and then we did ACI 313, which is specifically silos and stave silos. We 19 looked at both of those methods, and the ACI Chapter 22, we came up with it being 54% 20 overstressed, and using ACI 313, we came up with it being 33% overstressed. Going the wrong 21 way, sorry… 22 So, we didn’t draw our conclusion just based on those numbers. I like to stand back and 23 look at it, I like to say, from 30,000 feet, and look at the big picture. Other things that we see in 24 what’s going on out there, is that we assumed a stave thickness of one inch, and a concrete 25 strength of 2,000 psi. We believe, at the very base of that stave, fifteen inches off the ground, the 26 concrete almost uniformly around the entire perimeter is only one-half inch. We believe the 27 concrete strength there has diminished to being less than 2,000 strength…it decomposes to 28 touch. We think that the most important critical thing going on here is that the staves no longer 29 have the tongue-in-groove action to work with each other. There are 60 independent units 30 around the permiter of the silo instead of a single unit. That means that each stave is no longer 31 braced. We think there are second order effect occurring…that’s sort of getting up there a little 32 bit in the engineering terminology. And the other thing that concerns us is, over time, this silo 33 continues to deteriorate due to the freeze thaw cycles. So, when we looked at this in conjunction 34 with the overstress, we said, yes, we believe this could fail under an 85 to 90 mile per hour wind 35 speed. So then we went on…that’s the conclusion that it could fail. And fortunately, 36 Woodward, Mr. Timura, was able to get back with Martin Martin who wrote the very original 37 report, they reviewed our calculations and our summary and they agreed with this. They say, 38 therefore I agree that silo structures could fail at an 85 to 90 mile per hour ultimate basic wind 39 speed. Attachment 2 8 1 So then we moved on to the cast in place silo; the cast in place silo is a different type of 2 construction, it’s a different analysis. We looked at it, we said…the ACI 313 doesn’t apply here 3 because it’s not a stave silo…or at least Chapter 5 of ACI 313 doesn’t apply. We said it’s 29% 4 overstressed. This one, even more than the stave silo, I wanted to stand back and look at it from 5 30,000 feet. And, what I came up with was, there’s no positive attachment from the base of the 6 silo to the footing. There are significant void spaces between the bottom of the silo and the 7 footing. One of the original reports, actually Exponent’s original report, estimated 25-30% 8 noncontact. We agree with that, roughly. Unfortunately, a lot of the voids are grouped together, 9 so it’s not like it’s an even distribution around the entire perimeter. A lot of the base right 10 around the voids is less than two inches thick. And the reinforcing still, in the immediate base 11 area where this erosion of concrete is occurring, is deteriorating. So, when looking…combining 12 this with the stress analysis, once again, we said when considering the deterioration of the 13 reinforcing of the still at the base, lack of positive attachment to the foundation, voids at the base, 14 grouping of voids at the base, and the uncertainties of the base concrete adjacent to these voids in 15 general, coupled with the calculation results, we concluded that the case in place silo could also 16 fail under the associated…under loading associated with 85 to 90 mile per hour winds. Once 17 again, Martin Martin was able to review these results, and they say, therefore I agree that the silo 18 structures could fail at 85 to 90 mile per hour ultimate basic wind speeds. 19 So, then we did review the Exponent report, and what this really comes down to, there 20 are three things in the report that I don’t agree with. I don’t really get into nitpicking numbers 21 and rounding things, and 85 versus 90 miles per hour and stuff like that, I look for big picture 22 stuff. And the most critical thing, to me, is the failure mechanism for this silo. Those staves…so 23 this is the exhibit; it’s tongue-in-groove flooring, okay? And the staves are basically just like 24 this, they’re ten inches wide, they’re thirty inches tall, and they have a tongue-in-groove 25 mechanism. And so, when they’re new, they lock together. There’s a still ring that goes around 26 the outside that’s tensioned…they actually turn a nut to tension it. That compresses these and 27 they lock together. And so that helps restrain the staves from buckling. But what has happened 28 over time…these are the same pieces of wood flooring…75%, 70% has been cut away. So this 29 is what’s out there now, okay? So there’s a lot less, but that’s not the key point. The key point is 30 the tongue-in-groove mechanism is gone. So now there’s no longer anything locking these guys 31 together. So they act as individual units; they can’t transfer a load across each other. So when 32 we look at that failure mechanism, we’re clearly overstressed. And this is the mechanism that 33 causes the failure in these type of silos. 34 The other things that we saw were that there was a suggestion that somehow these silos 35 have withstood 40 mile per hour winds recently and so that will mean somehow that they will 36 withstand an 85 mile per hour wind, and I just disagree with that in general. And there’s also a 37 comment and some wind data that there was an 83 mile per hour wind 17 years ago, and the silo 38 withstood that. And I would just interject, going back to what I said previously, due to freeze 39 thaw cycles that are happening almost every day from October through April, the concrete that is Attachment 2 9 1 left out there is slowly but surely continuing to deteriorate. So that silo today is not the same silo 2 that was there 17 years ago. So, going back to our conclusions, we looked at the numbers, but 3 we also stepped back and looked at the big picture, common sense items, and when I combined 4 both of those and looked at it objectively, I think there is a chance that both of these silos could 5 fail under the ten year reoccurrence wind speed. 6 MS. WHITE: So, what we have for you now is just a quick illustration of the 7 phenomenon that was described by Steve Carpenter as one of the most common modes of failure 8 for these types of silos. Let’s see if this is going to work…there we go. 9 Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, could I ask you to request that the audience keep the 10 murmuring down to a minimum; it’s very distracting to present up here while there’s this 11 discussion going on. 12 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Sure, please hold your comments so we can have a…so we 13 can all hear the speaker and that they can do their presentation. Thank you. 14 MS. WHITE: Alright, this slide just simply is a quote from another professional engineer 15 journal talking about the frequency with which these types of silos in particular are prone to 16 failure in this regard. 17 Next I’d like to introduce Steve Steismeyer and Chris Fawzy to briefly talk to you about 18 the background of how the remand question got formulated and exactly what it is that you are 19 being asked to decide today. 20 MR. STEVE STIESMEYER: Good afternoon, Steve Stiesmeyer, the Director of Real Estate with Woodward. How we got here, is on February 3 rd 21 , we had a meeting with the Chief 22 Building Official to understand what the remand really was about. And it became clear to me 23 there was some confusion…it was well, imminent should be like they’d fail right now. And I’m 24 going, that doesn’t fit what the remand was all about. It was after that meeting we made a 25 request to the City Manager and the City Attorney to sit with our General Counsel, Chris Fawzy, 26 to say, we need to work through because I don’t want to false start…we’re paying these 27 structural guys a lot of money. I want to make sure we’re very clear what we’re asking them to 28 do. And Chris will cover that meeting, it was Chris Fawzy, myself, and the City Manager and the City Attorney…what that meeting on February 15 th 29 was about. 30 MR. CHRIS FAWZY: Chris Fawzy for the record, Woodward General Counsel. So, as Mr. Stiesmeyer mentioned, we did have this meeting on February 15 th 31 , and the question came up, 32 based on the earlier discussions with the Chief Building Official, as to whether we’re going in 33 the right path, because months ago, we were before BRB with some specific questions and those 34 were brought up to City Council. They were remanded, as Ms. White said, on a very specific 35 basis. And our concern was that, given the questions that were asked, maybe that remand 36 didn’t…that remand language and directive didn’t come through very clearly. Attachment 2 10 1 The question was posed, is the question for remand whether the silos could fail at any 2 time during a ten year event, natural condition, wind event in particular. And in agreeing with 3 that being the question, the City Attorney repeatedly said, I was actually part of the drafting of 4 the remand, I recall that that was…the ten year event was a very specific and key part of the 5 remand. And so, yes, we agree with how you are posing the question. So, it was a little 6 perplexing to us when we saw, ultimately, how the question was being posed by the City. 7 Additionally in that meeting, we discussed, what is the role of the structural engineers versus the 8 Building Review Board? And, specifically, it was stated and agreed amongst all of us at that meeting on the 15 th 9 , was that the structural engineers’ job was to provide the data, not to form 10 any legal conclusions, and in particular with regard to the terminology of imminent danger. And 11 it was for the BRB to make a determination as to the question of imminent danger. On February 23 rd 12 , we had a follow-up meeting. This involved the Chief Building 13 Official, structural engineers, both JVA and Exponent, the Deputy City Attorney, and 14 Woodward. In that case, there were numerous statements that were made that, from my 15 perspective, led me to believe that, yet again, the questions being raised certainly by the City’s 16 structural engineer, Exponent, were not the right questions at issue. Specifically, we were told, 17 well, even in the ten year event, the probability of that occurring on any given day is low. We all 18 know the probability of a ten year event; it’s one in ten years. But that’s not what City Council 19 remanded this for. The question is how would the silos act in a ten year event? And that was 20 followed by another comment that North Korea could launch a missile tonight, okay. Then, a 21 gentleman, and I apologize if I mispronounce his name, David Ojala, from Exponent in their 22 Menlo Park office, diverted the issue and said, no, the issue isn’t what you guys are talking 23 about. The issue is whether they can be repaired rather than focusing on, I’ll quote, ‘an arbitrary 24 ten year period.’ Again showing, in my mind, that Exponent is not regarding the remand 25 language of City Council. And I’ll also note, for the record, that it was stated multiple times, and 26 I think we all agree with this, that nobody knows exactly how these structures would behave in a 27 ten year wind event. 28 MS. WHITE: As a general rule, the conclusions in the Exponent report are irrelevant to 29 the determination before you today because the fail to answer the question posed by City Council 30 to you, the Building Review Board. Exponent answers the question of whether the silos can 31 withstand storms having a ten year return period, i.e. in the 85 to 90 mile an hour winds. They 32 do not answer the question of whether the silos could fail during such a wind storm event having 33 a ten year return period. 34 Even if the answer to the first question is yes, even if Exponent is correct and these silos 35 could or can withstand such a storm, the answer to the second question can still be yes, and in 36 fact it is yes, based on the analysis that JVA concluded. In other words, these two things are not 37 mutually exclusive, and the only answer that matters for purposes of the remand, the charge that 38 was given to you, is the answer to the second question, not the answer to the first question. And 39 that answer, according to both JVA and Martin and Martin, is yes. And nothing in the Exponent Attachment 2 11 1 report or in Mr. Gebo’s analysis changes that answer, because they all address the wrong 2 question. 3 There are some additional flaws with the Exponent report. As we noted, it poses the 4 wrong question, are the silos capable of withstanding wind storms having a ten year event? It 5 doesn’t answer the City Council’s actual question, could the silos fail during natural events? 6 Another flaw in the Exponent report, and I’ve excerpted some of the language here, is that 7 Exponent concludes, based on observed behavior and past performance, in the absence of 8 performing more advanced techniques, which their report says would be required to reach a 9 conclusion, that therefore the JVA conclusion that they could fail is not correct, and that the 10 Exponent conclusion that they could withstand a ten year wind event is correct. 11 Now, the burden of proof, we know in an appeal is originally on us…to demonstrate why 12 Mr. Gebo failed to interpret the Code correctly in the first instance. We have met that burden of 13 proof, and we’ve gone up to City Council and back. And City Council, in order to make their 14 decision is asking a very specific question of this body related to whether or not the silos could 15 fail during a ten year wind event. That burden of proof is more than adequately met with the 16 evidence put forward in the JVA report and the Martin and Martin report, and it is not 17 significantly or even remotely rebutted by the additional evidence on the other side. With that, 18 I’d like to turn it back over to Mr. Fawzy to address how this relates to Woodward. 19 MR. FAWZY: So again, I’ll note, as Mr. Carpenter did, that Exponent’s report states that 20 JVA’s report and approach is conservative. I want to talk about Woodward’s commitment to 21 safety. As you know, we have safety-critical parts in everything we do, and we are conservative 22 in evaluating safety. We are not overly conservative, but we are conservative. So, to take 23 isolated events of historic behavior and extrapolate that they don’t present a safety issue, is a 24 flawed approach, as Mr. Carpenter stated, particularly under different circumstances. We test 25 aircraft engines, for example. And if an aircraft engine was to be tested for utilization up to 26 60,000 pounds thrust, we wouldn’t test aircraft engines to 25,000 pounds thrust. So, we 27 wouldn’t say, well, less than half the thrust, it survived in that situation; therefore, it might 28 survive, or should survive, or will survive, or could survive, at 60,000 pounds thrust. Nor do we 29 look at historic isolated instances, like, alright, well 17 years ago, this aircraft flew at 60,000 30 pounds thrust; therefore, it is still fit for that purpose today. And so much time has passed, we 31 can’t extrapolate that into its current condition. 32 We always talk about safety margin. Safety margin is measured by what’s within 33 tolerance. If a product or a structure is overstressed, it is outside of its safety margin. The safety 34 margin is there for a reason; the tolerances are there for a reason. When something is 35 overstressed, it does not follow that, well, it has to be overstressed by a certain amount for it to 36 be outside of its safety margin. It’s already outside of its safety margin once it is overstressed at 37 all. Does that mean that it definitely will fail? No. Does that mean that it is not true that the 38 product cannot withstand those overstresses? No, that’s not true either. But, if we’re answering Attachment 2 12 1 the question, could the product fail given the stresses that it’s intended to operate in, or in this 2 case, could the structure fail at a ten year wind event as the City Council remanded? If the 3 answer to that is yes, it could fail, then it is not safe from Woodward’s standards. 4 MS. WHITE: The City, in the letter from Mr. Gebo dated last Thursday, in interpreting 5 the JVA report and the Exponent report, focuses not just on the language of the City Council 6 remand, but also on their initial interpretation of what constitutes imminent danger. The city 7 letter with Mr. Gebo’s conclusion that was presented to you today states, imminent danger is not 8 interpreted to be a condition that could happen at some point in time and under various 9 conditions, but rather a condition so hazardous that it could cause injury or death at any time. 10 But, regardless of whether you look at the original analysis of imminent failure or the specific 11 question that was posed to you today, JVA concluded in its reports that both of those conditions 12 are met. The answer to both questions is yes. Yes, the silos could fail at any time, and yes, the 13 silos could fail at any time during a ten year recurrence event. And no one is disputing that, if 14 the silos fail, it could cause significant or life-threatening injury or death. 15 So, the basic question before you on remand from City Council is, could one or both of 16 the silos fail in a ten year wind event. You have two pieces of data in support of a yes answer to 17 that question: you have the JVA answer, yes, based on their calculations measuring the capacity 18 versus demand, and the degree to which the silos are already today overstressed, you have the 19 yes answer from Martin and Martin reviewing and analyzing JVA’s conclusion. And you also 20 have two other data points which are not relevant to that specific question. You have Exponent’s 21 answer to a different question, could the silos withstand a ten year wind event, and they answer 22 yes. But the answer to this question could be yes, and yet the silos still could fail, thus this is not 23 a relevant data point to the question of, could the silos fail. You also have Mr. Gebo’s letter in 24 which he concludes the danger is not imminent, as follows…and I already quoted you his quote. 25 Compare this to the remand question and the definition in the IPMC. Oh, I thought I had another 26 quote for it there. Yes, this is the actual question, could further evidence and analysis regarding 27 the effects of natural conditions and events of a one in ten year probability, and to consider 28 whether one or both silos poses an imminent threat or danger as that term is defined in the IPMC. 29 And the definition in the IPMC is, a condition which could cause serious or life-threatening 30 injury or death at any time. Mr. Gebo also answers the wrong question. Thus, the only possible 31 conclusion faced with the right question and the two data points you have answering yes to that 32 question and the other data points you have which are not relevant to that question, is yes, the 33 silos could fail at any time during a ten year probability wind event, 85 to 90 miles per hour, and 34 therefore we ask you to conclude that the silos do pose an imminent danger and allow Woodward 35 to proceed with its alternative reuse plan. Thank you. 36 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Thank you Ms. White. Do we have any questions from the 37 Building Review Board? From what Woodward has presented here today? Bernie? No. I think 38 ultimately during the larger questioning phase, after hearing both sides, probably, but not at this 39 time. Okay, we will move on to the presentation by the Chief Building Official, please. Attachment 2 13 1 MR. GEBO: Thank you. Well, I certainly appreciate Woodward’s analysis; that certainly 2 does help. Possibly before I get into how I made this second determination, it might be helpful if 3 Mr. Bennett from Exponent would offer his presentation. And then from there, we can come 4 back and review further. 5 MR. PAUL BENNETT: Paul Bennett with Exponent; I had the opportunity to meet with 6 you guys a couple months ago. I appreciate your time today. In hindsight, I had wished I had 7 asked for time last time to present some of this for you, so if you would allow me just a few 8 moments to back up and show you how we got here; I’ll show you our current analysis and what 9 we base our opinions on. I’m briefly going to talk about myself, my colleague, our backgrounds, 10 the analysis that we previously did, the current analysis, the historical performance of the silos, 11 and then our concluding thoughts. 12 You can read my background here on the slide; my Master’s is in Civil Engineering with 13 an emphasis in structures. For the past approximately seven or eight years, my work has focused 14 exclusively on existing structures; that is the majority of the work that our firm does. I’ve had 15 the opportunity to be out after several disasters, usually tornadoes, in different parts of the United 16 States, and analyze structures for damage. I was privileged to be awarded Larimer County’s 17 Outstanding Professional of the Year award in 2008, and involved as a…in the Code 18 development process for the existing building provisions of the Building Code…was involved in 19 the 2015 Code development cycle. A safety assessment evaluator: this is a program that requires 20 some training and an exam to be certified to go out and evaluate structures after a disaster and 21 determine their safety, readiness. 22 I wanted to bring in on this case an associate of mine from California, Mr. Ojala; he was 23 mentioned earlier. He has a similar educational background. Again, Dave’s work, similar to 24 mine, focuses on existing buildings. He is the chairman of existing buildings committee for the 25 Structural Engineers Association of California, he serves there. He serves at a national level for 26 the NCSCA, National Council of Structural Engineers Association, on the existing buildings 27 committee. We are the folks that help develop this code language, help entertain changes to the 28 code language, and provide our comments. Dave is not only a SAP responder, but also a SAP 29 instructor, as well as a member of the FEMA task force for, in California. As a member of the 30 FEMA task force, he goes out after disasters and helps the FEMA search and rescue teams 31 determine how safe structures are to enter. If they’re not safe, and there’s something immediate 32 that needs to be addressed, he helps determine the shoring requirements and monitors them 33 during the search and rescue process. 34 Our initial analysis looked at both these silos more from a qualitative standpoint; we did 35 not perform calculations initially. We did not deterioration, cracks, the age of these silos, and we 36 did conclude that they are dangerous and that the area around them should be fenced off and 37 people should not congregate around them. Some opinions from our initial analysis…I’m sure 38 you’ve read our reports; I know they’re very exciting reading, kind of like a phone book. We did Attachment 2 14 1 determine that they will eventually collapse if no action is taken, and that design level, full 2 design level winds, intuitively, quantitatively…or qualitatively, we felt that they posed a 3 significant risk of collapse in a full design level wind event with a 1,700 year return interval. 4 We talked briefly at the last meeting…the types of structures that we look at and the 5 structures that we sometimes to see that, in our opinion, pose an immediate risk to life safety; 6 and getting occupants out and, if they’re even able to be shored, getting shoring done. We talked 7 about the probability of a 1,700 year return interval wind event occurring on any given day, and 8 the low probability there. 9 But let me talk about the new analysis that we’ve done, and where we vary and differ 10 from JVA. You’ve heard about JVA’s analysis, straight from them…I won’t repeat to you that, 11 and all their stresses and analyses you can see on the screen. We find that their analysis is the 12 type of analysis with factors of safety and whatnot that you would perform for a new structure. 13 That’s not the type of analysis we would perform for an existing structure if we’re really trying 14 to pinpoint at what point they are going to risk falling down. As I’m sure you would imagine, 15 and for good reason, when we design new structures there are a lot of factors of safety. When 16 we analyze existing structures and we’re trying to predict their actual behavior, things are a bit 17 different, and I’ll talk more about that. 18 The loading scenarios that we were asked to look at, either through the City Council 19 minutes, or through the meeting with Woodward, are shown on the screen here. Assuming 20 you’ve had the opportunity to read our subsequent report, I won’t dwell on all of these…wind is 21 primarily the focus. We generally don’t see hail, rain and snow events being able to develop 22 enough loading on these silos to be of any risk. When it comes to a seismic, I’ll show you a slide 23 in a minute…at the ten year level, we don’t see any threat to the silos from a seismic event. And 24 vibrations were mentioned, I believe, in the City Council meeting minutes. We find that 25 vibrations from roadways that are fairly far away…these are such small loads, they couldn’t be 26 quantified; not a typical loading event that we analyze structures for…and the vibrations from 27 nearby construction and from drilling holes in the silos themselves certainly would outweigh any 28 vibrations from nearby roadways, so we don’t see a risk there. Frost heave was mentioned; this 29 is where the ground freezes and expands and can exert some force on a structure at the 30 foundation level. If it happens unevenly, it could cause the structure to come out of level. We 31 don’t know a lot about the foundations; we doubt, given the age, that they’re deep enough to 32 resist frost heave. But, past performance of over a hundred years, this hasn’t shown to be a 33 problem. We find it to be of such low risk that it doesn’t require analysis. 34 Freeze thaw was talked about…freeze thaw is a very real deterioration mechanism in our 35 climate with concrete structures. That’s a long-term deterioration mechanism. It can be abated 36 with proper maintenance of the structures. So, wind is primarily the focus that I’ll talk about. I 37 think I’ve just talked through these issues; I’ll show you the slide. This is straight from the U.S. 38 Geological Service, their data for seismic loading…you can see for a 2,500 return period, there is Attachment 2 15 1 a certain ground acceleration expected, for a 500 year return period, for a 20 year return period, 2 the line shown on the bottom, the forces are, for all practical purposes, non-existent. So, for a 3 ten year return period, obviously the same would be true; it’s a smaller event. We just don’t 4 have enough earthquakes in Colorado to have data for that kind of return interval. 5 As was mentioned, there is the demand, the load that’s put on these silos, and then there’s 6 the capacity, what they can resist. From a demand standpoint, the loading that’s being put on 7 them during a wind event, we largely agree with JVA’s calculations. For the capacity, the ability 8 of those silos to resist that demand, this is where we differ from JVA. And I’ll explain a little 9 bit more about that. When you’re analyzing structures like this, there’s a lot of different ways to 10 analyze them. There’s a lot of second order effects; that was mentioned by JVA…good or bad. 11 The analysis that JVA did, and we’ve done something similar to respond to their analysis, is a 12 very simplified analysis. It assumes a buckling of a stave near the bottom of the silo. As was 13 mentioned by JVA, they assumed there’s no contribution from nearby staves through the tongue- 14 in-groove action…that an individual stave will act independently. We disagree with that; we 15 think that there is interaction between the staves through the tongue-in-groove action. Who’s 16 right? Well, I’ll talk a little bit more about the past performance and what we can base off of 17 that, but the reality is, nobody knows. You would have to do in-place testing to really answer the 18 question. Even with the tongue-in-groove samples that you were given, you can see that with 19 new hardwood, the tongue-in-groove is slippery between the two, and it doesn’t offer much. This 20 gets very complicated; it has to do with the friction between the staves. Over the years, with 21 deterioration, some of the section is gone, but there could be an increased rate of friction between 22 them due to the deterioration and engagement of aggregate. Nobody knows. We like to look at 23 the real world performance and what they’ve resisted. 24 If I could entertain you with a highly sophisticated model here, a paper towel tube, and 25 imagining this as the silos…I want to show you how the simplified analysis that both engineers 26 have done doesn’t necessarily consider real world behavior. And I’m not trying to muddy the 27 waters or make your decisions any more difficult than they already are, but I want to explain to 28 you, this is why there is a difference between the two experts. We…both have taken the wind 29 speed, the wind forces on the silo, and equated that to equivalent point loads, or a point load, 30 pushing on it…a load that would be equivalent to the distributed load. And as that load is 31 applied, what JVA has done, and what we have done, is analyzed a local area near the base of the 32 silo on the leeward side, opposite of the wind…on this side, near the base. Again, JVA assumes 33 there’s no contribution from nearby staves; we believe there is. So they take out a stave at the 34 bottom and show that there’s a failure there, and determine that the silo has failed at that point. 35 In reality, there is some load redistribution that happens. If you lose…if you imagine that we 36 push on this paper towel tube and cut out a little section at the bottom here, the tube is still not 37 going to fail; loads will redistribute themselves. 38 The analysis is much more complicated; when you have a uniform load pushing on the 39 silos, they start to become…especially with the thinner ones…they start to become a little bit out Attachment 2 16 1 of round. And eventually, there will be a global failure, which will be a buckling on one side. 2 This is a different analysis than what either of us have done, and this is a complex analysis. You 3 ask, why didn’t we do that? That analysis requires more information on the structure in place 4 and how it could behave. At some point, we have to ask ourselves, how deep do we want to go? 5 We could probably find a student from CSU that could turn this into a PhD topic and give us an 6 answer in five years from now. I don’t think we want to wait five years. The analysis that both 7 of us have done is simplified; they have different assumptions. We think our assumptions are 8 right; they think their assumptions are right. But, I want you to appreciate the fact that the failure 9 mechanisms are more complex. 10 The fact is, we could probably banter all day long. Nobody knows the exact point…it’s a 11 much more in-depth analysis, which is why we like to go back to real world performance and see 12 what they’ve resisted historically, and even recently. We think that in structural analysis of an 13 existing structure, trying to really pinpoint the risk of them failing, should consider recent and 14 historic performance…what have they resisted? We know they’re standing today; that tells us 15 something about their behavior. If you take loading that they’ve resisted in the last couple 16 months, 40 an hour wind speeds, take that loading and put it into JVA’s calculations, their 17 calculations predict that they should have failed during that wind event. Their calculations that 18 show that they’re unsafe under a ten year wind event show that they should fall down under their 19 own weight, but they’ve been standing quite successfully. They stood well enough for people to 20 drill holes in the side of them. They stood and resisted a 40 mile an hour wind event. So, we 21 look at the calculations and calibrate them to the real world performance if we want to get down 22 to what these structures can really resist. 23 When it comes to the cast-in-place silo, it’s a different animal. It doesn’t have the staves 24 and that interaction; it does have rebar reinforcement. The rebar reinforcement wasn’t 25 considered by JVA. We find that the cast-in-place silo is safe in ten year wind speeds, and even 26 wind speeds above that. It’s a stronger silo than the stave silo. JVA’s analysis assumes that the 27 failure mode would occur when a 6 inch wide by 2 inch thick little column of concrete at the 28 base of the silo would buckle. Again, the real world failure mechanism is much more complex 29 than that. We don’t see a 6 inch wide by 2 inch thick post at the bottom, first of all; second of 30 all, there is load redistribution in these structures. This is the cast-in-place silo; you can see 31 reinforcement. No, it’s not always in the greatest shape; there are areas where it’s exposed and 32 rusting, but there’s areas where the cores went through a rebar. The brown spot you’re seeing in 33 the image there is a rebar that was cored through during the coring process. So, there’s 34 embedded rebar in these silos. Generally, they’re much thicker than the two inches. There are 35 deteriorated areas; we pointed them out in our report. But again, just want to help you 36 understand that there’s a lot more to this than a 6 inch wide by 2 inch thick section at the base of 37 the silo. This is much more complex than that. 38 I mentioned that whenever we’re going to analyze historic structures and try to really 39 pinpoint at what point they’re going to fail, we do look at the historical performance. We find Attachment 2 17 1 that to be important; it’s how we analyze existing structures much of the time. These structures, 2 according to Martin and Martin’s data, are over 100 years old. Yes, they’re continuing to 3 deteriorate and we recognize that, compared to 17 years ago, they are more deteriorated. But, it 4 gives us some information on the silos and their ability to resist loads. Seventeen years ago, in a 5 hundred year old silo, is not that long ago. But let’s look more recent than that…what you have 6 on your screen here is 20 years of wind data from CSU. You can see, in 1999, approximately 83 7 mile an hour wind gusts, in ’08 approximately 62 mile an hour wind gusts, in 2011 8 approximately 60 mile an hour wind gusts, 2014, 40 mile an hour wind gusts, and as recent as 9 the past six weeks, the silos have resisted wind speeds at the 40 mile an hour range. 10 I think I’ve talked through these pieces…engineers can banter all day long with equations 11 and different assumptions. To us, the proof is in the pudding and the historical performance of 12 the silos, their ability to stand up under their own weight and resist certain levels of wind events. 13 If I could conclude with this…I fully appreciate where Woodward is coming from. I had the 14 opportunity to go to their campus; it’s a beautiful campus, they’re great people. They employ 15 engineers; we like engineers. We don’t have a dog in this fight. With all due respect to the 16 historical preservation folks, that’s not what we do. We’re not in the business of fighting for, 17 preserving historical buildings. As people that are involved in the code development process, 18 and involved in helping write and interpret these code provisions, and apply them, we have some 19 concern over this imminent danger piece…a lot of concern over it. We feel that, if every time a 20 structure was found to be unsafe under certain design level wind events; if it was going to be 21 allowed to be torn down and it was historic, that sets some precedent that concerns us from the 22 code development standpoint. At the end of the day, when we have these structures, we ask 23 simple questions of, can it be repaired, and we believe it can be. And if it can be repaired, should 24 it be repaired? And that’s not our decision; that’s obviously your guys’ decision. The historical 25 significance of these and if they’re important enough to be repaired; that’s far above our pay 26 grade. But, do think about the implications of taking older structures, and there’s a lot of older 27 structures, unreinforced masonry structures, in Old Town Fort Collins, that could be shown that 28 they can’t resist design level wind or seismic events. They’re all over the United States, 29 structures like this. And, when they’re important to us…and again, that’s not my decision…but 30 when they’re important to us, we made the decision to repair them, strengthen them, and get 31 them along because they have significance to us. If they don’t have significance to us, we make 32 the decision to tear them down. Thank you. 33 MR. GEBO: Okay, thank you. So, as a reminder, we are here because the historical 34 chapters in the Municipal Code…Article 4, demolition or alteration of historic structures not 35 designated as Fort Collins landmarks. And this was a recent change here within the last, oh, year 36 or two, in that prior to this change, and building, historic building with significance that was 37 classified as dangerous, I could order the owner to repair or remove at the owner’s choice…that 38 was a dangerous classification. The change was that, unless a public official determined that the 39 structure constitutes an imminent threat. So, there was a degree of hazard now, applied to this Attachment 2 18 1 landmark preservation code, in that although I could declare a property dangerous, it meant that 2 there had to be another level of understanding, another level of danger, and that was the 3 imminent clause. 4 Now, when I use building codes…the way building codes operate…the general building 5 code is the International Building Code, and that is the general code that covers all other codes. 6 As we adopt these codes, this building code, the International Building Code, has all the 7 administrative sections, all the reference sections…anything that any other code book down the 8 line would come to the Building Code and use the Building Code administrative sections to 9 satisfy questions or concerns of the other code. And IBC 104.1, the Building Official is hereby 10 authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this Code. The Building Official shall have 11 the authority to render interpretations of this Code and to adopt policies and procedures. I 12 understand that to mean that my function is to interpret definitions, to interpret Code sections and 13 to apply them properly. 14 So, when I use the Property Maintenance Code, which is what Council has directed as 15 part of the remand, to make sure that if it can be determined imminent as defined in the Property 16 Maintenance Code. There are also other definitions in this Property Maintenance Code that tend 17 to identify levels of hazard, the first one being substandard. A substandard structure is one that 18 may pose a risk to life, health, property, the safety of the occupants thereof, or the public, even 19 though it does not constitute a dangerous structure. So, here’s the lowest level, substandard; it’s 20 referencing a higher level standard, the dangerous standard, as defined 108.1.5. Substandard 21 goes on to talk about, if not corrected, may pose a risk to the health and safety of the public or 22 the occupants. So, that is the very lowest level hazard as defined in the Property Maintenance 23 Code, which is the code that Council directed me to use. There’s also a dangerous structure or 24 premise. A structure or premise is dangerous if any part, element or component thereof is no 25 longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit state as defined in the Code, or when 26 considered in totality, the structure or premises poses an imminent threat. So, even dangerous 27 now, definition, is identifying a higher level of hazard in its description of calling something 28 imminent. 29 To look further, the dangerous talks about serviceability limit or strength limit state. 30 Now, when you define limit state, which Property Maintenance does, limit state…a condition 31 beyond which a structure or member becomes unfit for service and is judged to be no longer 32 useful for its intended function, which is the serviceability limit state, or to be unsafe, which is 33 the strength limit state. The last degree of hazard as defined, is the imminent danger: a condition 34 which could cause serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time. Now, the remand…I’ll 35 read it again…is for the BRB to receive and consider evidence and analysis regarding the effects 36 of natural conditions and events of a one in ten year probability on one or both of the silos to 37 consider whether one or both poses an imminent threat or danger as that term is defined in the 38 Property Maintenance Code. Attachment 2 19 1 So, in my interpretation and use of the Codes, especially the Property Maintenance Code, 2 substandard is a building that needs some repair, dangerous building is a building that is no 3 longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit state, imminent is a condition which could 4 cause serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time; it is the highest level hazard. Most 5 discussions around this definition seemed to be focused on, it could cause, at any time…it could 6 cause a danger at any time, in the future, down the road, at any time it could cause some danger. 7 And I just don’t think that is the proper interpretation of the term imminent. As I would refer to 8 this, I would use substandard, dangerous…I think everybody is in total agreement that these are 9 dangerous structures. In fact, when I first declared them dangerous, I ordered a plan of action to 10 stabilize these structures, to repair these structures, because I did not call them imminent, 11 meaning imminent they could remove them right away…Woodward could remove them right 12 away. So, these are dangerous structures. And, it’s my understanding that my order to stabilize 13 and repair has already expired; I’m not sure what happens with that particular order, but they’re 14 dangerous structures. Are they imminent? I still don’t believe that they are imminent as I use 15 the definitions in the Property Maintenance Code, with imminent being the most dangerous, 16 most hazardous. In fact, knowing that this particular imminent danger definition in the Property 17 Maintenance Code was lacking in what I felt needed a better understanding, I presented a 18 Webster’s Dictionary…but that is more…yeah…it’s impending, it’s more immediate…that helps 19 to identify this imminent danger, which Property Maintenance Code doesn’t do. 20 But, we’ve been remanded back to using the terms in the Property Maintenance 21 Code…and my use of substandard, dangerous, which is a very high level of danger; it requires 22 action to stabilize, action to secure, and them imminent which is even a higher level. And 23 knowing that, under right conditions, under certain wind conditions they could fail, under certain 24 activities over a period of time, they could fail. But that’s not an imminent in my interpretation 25 of what imminent means, particularly using the Property Maintenance Code. They are 26 dangerous, yes…they will fail if my order to secure and stabilize and repair is not met. But, 27 that’s again, at some point in time. They could fail at any time…I just don’t think the term is 28 properly being used in light of the substandard, the dangerous definitions in the Property 29 Maintenance Code. So, because of that, I still do not believe they are an imminent danger, as 30 used in the Property Maintenance Code, and that the dangerous classification is in place. My 31 order to stabilize, provide a plan of action so that we know how they’re going to be stabilized, 32 how they’re going to be repaired, is still in place; although, my time frame probably has expired. 33 But, my order still stands, and I do not consider these an imminent danger using these 34 definitions. 35 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Is that all Mike? 36 MR. GEBO: I’m sorry, yes, thank you. 37 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, any questions from the Building Review Board to City 38 staff? Attachment 2 20 1 MR. BERNIE MARZONIE: No, not here, no. 2 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Alright, we will move now to the public comment. 3 And…again, we are limiting each person to five minutes. Do we have a way of keeping time 4 over here? Okay. If the first person would come up and announce their name, we also have a 5 sign in sheet there to please sign your name in at the podium when you come up. And one more 6 reminder that, as Brad stated earlier, we want to keep comments to the issue that we’re hearing 7 today, and that’s on the definition of imminent and what that means to this case, and any analysis 8 that’s going into the structural engineering of the silos. 9 MS. LISA ASHBACH: You’re going to be receiving a printed copy of our comments 10 today, just so you can follow along. We’ve got quite a few items we wanted to cover. My name 11 is Lisa Ashbach; I live at 1501 Red Mesa Lane out in Bellvue. I want to thank you for taking our 12 comments today. I am part of a steering committee of interested parties who’ve been researching 13 and working on this issue on behalf of preservation of the silos. These silos are incredibly 14 important to the community, and many of us volunteers have been working on this issue because 15 of that. 16 I’d like to start out with Exponent’s summary and report. To me, one of the most 17 pressing items that’s been covered here is that JVA provided no new data or evidence in their 18 analysis. They did new calculations, but they did not develop a more sophisticated model, they 19 did not develop their calculations further with additional testing on the silos, which would 20 potentially have been conclusive. Exponent used historical evidence; that the silos are still 21 standing after a hundred years is evidence of their stability. I would reiterate that JVA has taken 22 an extremely conservative approach and applied some unconventional methods in their analysis 23 in an attempt to substantiate Woodward’s claim that the silos are imminently dangerous; and 24 these are an indication of bias in JVA’s assessment of the silos. JVA is clearly acting to the best 25 of their ability to support their client’s desires rather than providing a neutral analysis. Finally, 26 on this point, Woodward has had plenty of time to conduct more conclusive tests, but they have 27 not done so. It would appear that they know that more comprehensive testing would still not 28 provide the evidence that the silos are imminently dangerous. 29 I’d like to jump ahead on my list here and point you to this item, Shoenberg Farm. 30 There’s a silo in Westminster at the Shoenberg Farm, which was restored in 2011-2012 for about 31 $100,000. This silo is substantially similar in construction to the western concrete stave silo at 32 the Coy Farm: 45 feet tall, 16 feet diameter, so on. According to the plans…and on the second 33 page of this document I’ve given you…I’ve highlighted the assessment of the condition of the 34 silo that was restored. This silo exhibited severely deteriorated panels around its base, it was 35 categorized, the deterioration, as severe at the base, poor above that for some distance, and then 36 fair or poor again at the top…in substantially worse condition than the silo at the Coy Farm. 37 Still, this silo was repaired and restored for under $100,000, and grants paid for 75% of the cost. Attachment 2 21 1 You’ll be hearing later from one of our consultants who’s developed a cost estimate of 2 their own for repairing and stabilizing the Coy Farm silos…similar numbers. And again, 3 Woodward is eligible for grants to cover this cost. So, next, I’d like to turn our presentation over 4 to Gina Janett who will come up and address a few other issues. Again, thank you for hearing 5 our comments today. 6 MR. YATABE: And, Mr. Chair, if I could interject. I just want to comment, as to the 7 ability of the silos to be repaired or the cost of that, that’s not really within the scope of this 8 hearing…just for the benefit of the coming speakers. 9 MS. GINA JANETT: Hi, I’m Gina Janett…got our numbers going here…and I’m with 10 the group Save Our Silos, and this is just a small portion; a lot of our people work, couldn’t be 11 here today. And I want to tell the Board…you received a lot of information from us, and you’re 12 receiving more. And the reason for that is, this is a very important decision because these silos 13 and the barn and the homestead are very, very important to this community. And, we are part of 14 the community that would like to see them repaired and stabilized and preserved. And so, we would ask you to uphold the Chief Building Officer’s decision of September 18 th 15 …I think you 16 have sufficient technical evidence to do so. 17 But, today, we also would like to submit…you don’t have to read this…but, we did some 18 signature gathering and we have gathered 678 of people who are asking you to uphold that 19 decision. So, I will turn that in now. Additionally, there was a letter that you probably received 20 only this morning, I don’t know when you got it, from Eric Fried…and so, just in case you 21 haven’t seen it, in your gobs of email. I think it’s very pertinent to your decision. 22 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: May I ask what the email that you’re referring to is in 23 regards…what…a summary of what that email is, please. 24 MS. JANETT: For Eric Fried? 25 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Yes. 26 MS. JANETT: Absolutely, that’s my intent. If you’ll give me just a minute, I will get to 27 that. First of all, I think that what you have before you is a technical decision based on evidence, 28 and you have received evidence from both sides; however, the evidence from the applicants is 29 limited…and they have actually presented no empirical data, actual measurements, to say that 30 they are imminently going to fail. But, most importantly, I think we go back to the definition as 31 we keep kicking around about imminent. And I will suggest that imminent, under Merriam 32 Webster Dictionary, is ‘happening very soon.’ And when you look up ‘soon,’ it says ‘in or after 33 a short time or a time that is not long from now,’ ‘in a quick way,’ ‘at any time.’ So, the issue 34 before you is one of probability, and saying ‘could it happen’ isn’t a probability 35 thing…that’s…anything could happen at any time. So I think the focus of Exponent on 36 probability is exactly the way that you should consider this. Attachment 2 22 1 Additionally, I think it’s pretty ludicrous that if these silos were in such horrible 2 condition that they could fall at any time, it is very, very unlikely that Woodward’s construction 3 engineers and construction workers that have put in all the buildings and the drainageway and 4 the sidewalk and the underground utilities in close proximity to the silos, and additionally, their 5 structural engineers from JVA and Martin Martin would have gone right up to the silos, gone 6 inside the silos, drilled holes through the silos, and hammered them, if they thought they were 7 going to fall on their head at any second. That’s just a common sense conclusion that most 8 people could make. 9 Now, the letter that came in late is from Eric Fried, and Eric Fried gave us a copy of this 10 letter. And he wrote this as a citizen of Fort Collins; however, I think you might know that he is 11 a building code official at Larimer County with 20 years of increasingly responsible professional 12 experience as a code administrator for local government. So, I think that his viewpoint is very 13 pertinent to the issue at hand. And, in his letter, he speaks to the return events of a one in 1,000 14 year event, for three hundred year recurrence interval, the odds are 0.0333. But, at the end, he 15 says, based on the 85 mile per hour standards, the silos are not likely to collapse in an 85 mile 16 wind, which itself is unlikely to happen in the next ten years. I believe you’re being given legal 17 gobbledygook because the technical data would show that you have to find these as dangerous, 18 not imminently dangerous. And I encourage you to uphold the decision and I would like to 19 know from the City Attorney, should you make that finding, when the order will be enforced on 20 them to repair and stabilize the silos. Thank you. 21 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Thank you. Go ahead. 22 MR. JON SARGENT: Good afternoon; my name is Jon Sargent and I’m a resident of 23 Fort Collins and I work for a historic preservation contractor here in town. My interest in this 24 issue is a personal interest, not a professional interest. Being passionate about preservation, and I 25 have for the past six years been working strictly with preservation projects. So, I’ll keep my 26 comments brief; I know we’re trying to keep things limited to dealing with the question in the 27 remand and also many of my thoughts have already been echoed by others in the preservation 28 community. But I did want to encourage the group again to really focus in on the hard scientific 29 data, the technical evidence that’s been presented, and we’ll obviously leave it up to you to 30 determine which sides have provided the necessary evidence. 31 My involvement with this issue and with the group has been in the interest of quantifying 32 the issue and on the construction estimate side. I’d gone and developed an estimate of $175,000 33 to do the concrete and the structural repairs on the silos. And I know that’s not relevant to the 34 remand, but I would like to encourage you to take that same approach of really trying to quantify 35 this issue. And I think many people in this room agree that, from a feasibility standpoint, there’s 36 no question that this project can be done, especially with historic…the State Historic Fund grant 37 funding. So, I encourage you to take that same approach of really looking at the numbers and Attachment 2 23 1 taking probability out of it, but really taking a more empirical approach to the definition of 2 dangerous versus imminent…and, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. 3 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Thank you. 4 MS. CAROLE HOSSAN: I’m Carole Hossan, a Fort Collins resident, and I’m also a 5 member of the Save Our Silos steering committee. And I’d like to hand this over for inclusion… 6 I’m a lay person, and you know…you know…not knowledgeable about, you know, 7 building codes and that sort of thing. But, I do know that Woodward, Incorporated is a very 8 safety-oriented company, and they’re very precise, and they do good work. And I don’t think 9 they would have left them…I don’t think they would have had building on the site, et cetera, if 10 they thought the silos were going to imminently fall. I think it’s been some time since they’ve 11 owned the site and done various things to the site, so, you know, I think they must have had 12 some faith, at least at the beginning, that they were going to stay up. Thank you. 13 MS. SHARI DUE: Shari Due, I’m a citizen of Fort Collins. So, you have two different 14 companies with two different opinions that have been hired by the different sides of this issue. 15 So, consider this about imminent danger: Woodward bought this historically-designated 16 property; therefore, they have an obligation to restore it. Several months ago they wouldn’t have 17 had an opportunity to use this imminent danger designation, so, you know, this is just coming up 18 now. Clearly, as others have said, they’ve done construction on the property. If you look at the 19 silos, if you go over there, they are so close to those new structures, and there had to be intense 20 vibrations happening, you know, while they were doing this…with all the…there was a lot of 21 noise and heavy equipment and it didn’t impact these structures at all. So, to come up with this imminent danger designation right now, in the 11 th 22 hour, just because the City codes have 23 changed, that gives them a loophole. So, I would like to say they knew they were buying this 24 property with this obligation to restore, and they did this with the City’s support. So now, 25 because they have the money to do this, they’re fighting the City using semantics and their own 26 interpretation of the Code to avoid their responsibility to the historic property…and to the 27 citizens of Fort Collins. So, I would urge you to please not set a precedent that this Code change, 28 this definition of imminent danger can be used by any developer spending unlimited funds to 29 fight historical designation, because this could lead to further gentrification of historical 30 buildings and neighborhoods. Thank you. 31 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Thank you. Is there anybody else from the public that wishes 32 to speak? 33 MR. YATABE: Mr. Chair, to the extent anyone didn’t sign in…if we could have people 34 sign in on the sheet and put their name and address down, that would be appreciated. 35 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: There was one more document that was passed on 36 there…was that something that we needed to review? Attachment 2 24 1 MR. GEBO: It’s Historical Colorado Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 2 which are in your packets probably from the first hearing, but we’ll certainly pass it around, and 3 I think you’ll recognize it. 4 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Brad, would it be acceptable if we take a minute to read this 5 here…this letter we got from Eric Fried so we can review what was passed on here. 6 MR. YATABE: That would be fine; in fact…at any time, it’s your prerogative if you 7 want to take a recess to review any of the materials, or if you just want to take it at this time. 8 MR. RICK REIDER: Brad, I have a question for you. A couple of parties today 9 mentioned the word precedence, and I wanted you to opine to that…do you…or does our Board 10 in making a decision set precedence? 11 MR. YATABE: I guess my general view on the setting of precedence is, is generally it’s 12 going to be a…on a case-by-case basis as to your determination, because you are taking specific 13 facts into account. However, I will say if you run into similar situations down the road, you want 14 to be cognizant that the decision that you do make can affect how you view those so that parties 15 are treated equally as they come before you. I think, in terms of your determination today, I 16 don’t know that you would necessarily take into account whether you’d be setting a precedent or 17 not. I think you want to focus on the specific facts and the standards in terms of making your 18 interpretation. But, to the degree that situations come before you that may have some 19 similarities; I think that would be taken into account as you go down the road. 20 MR. REIDER: Thank you. 21 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: I would like to take a couple minutes here for us to just be 22 able to read this from Eric Fried, the Building Official I think for Larimer County I believe…is 23 that correct? 24 MR. YATABE: Okay, would you like to take a five minute recess? 25 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Yeah, let’s do five minutes. 26 MR. YATABE: I think we’ll reconvene at, how about, 3:10? 27 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, we are going to continue on with our procedure here. 28 The next step is for the Woodward rebuttal presentation…what has been presented. Say that 29 again? 30 MS. WHITE: Are you finished with questions? 31 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Yes. We may have more questions after the next two rebuttal 32 presentations though. Attachment 2 25 1 MS. WHITE: Ready? 2 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Sorry, go ahead. 3 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, once again, Carolynne White, land use counsel for 4 Woodward. And we would just like to take a few minutes and respond to some of the testimony 5 that’s been presented to you both by the City staff and by the members of the public. I’m going 6 to briefly respond to some of the big picture issues and then I’m going to ask Steve Carpenter 7 from JVA to come up and respond to some of the more specific technical issues. 8 I think the overall point that we’d like to make is that it is not legal gobbledygook or 9 semantics to ask that the question that was asked be answered, and that question still has not 10 been answered. And I appreciate the summary that Mr. Bennett provided of their analysis, and 11 he did in fact address the question in his mind of whether or not these silos could withstand a ten 12 year wind event, and he also addressed what he thought may have been overly conservative 13 about JVA’s analysis; and I’ll let Mr. Carpenter tell you why it was not, in fact, overly 14 conservative. 15 But, Exponent still has not answered the question of, could they fail? Exponent 16 characterized JVA’s analysis as saying that the calculations predict that the silos should fail in a 17 ten year wind event, or even in a more frequent wind event, such as 45 miles per hour. That’s 18 not what we said. We didn’t say they should fail; we said they could fail. And that is the 19 question that was asked…and that’s not semantics, that’s not legal gobbledygook, that’s just 20 answering the question that was asked. 21 Mr. Bennett also said that, really nobody actually knows the answer to who’s right about 22 predicting with certainty exactly how these structures are going to behave under certain 23 conditions, and that’s probably true. But, if a more sophisticated analysis were warranted, it 24 doesn’t necessarily have to take five years; certainly we could have done some other analysis 25 during the two month intervening period since City Council remanded this. We did in fact do 26 additional analysis and presented that to you today. 27 And then the final point I’d like to make regarding Mr. Bennett’s testimony, is that he 28 also urged you to consider the public policy implications of your decision today, and what it 29 would actually mean for you to make a decision other than finding that no imminent danger 30 exists as it relates to the big picture of how codes should be interpreted, and how they should be 31 drafted, and how they should be used. And I’d just come back to the original point, which is, the 32 question asked of us today is, could the silos fail in a ten year wind event? That’s the question 33 we’ve been seeking to answer all this time, and that is the question that our evidence 34 demonstrates the answer to is, yes. So, with that, I’d like to ask Mr. Carpenter to come up and 35 then I’ll make a few concluding remarks after he’s finished. Attachment 2 26 1 MR. CARPENTER: Steve Carpenter with JVA…just real quick, it seemed like there 2 were, sort of, several things that were brought up. One of the big things was how the stave silo is 3 built and how the various staves work together…and I showed you the example of the tongue-in- 4 groove flooring, and how it was when it originated, and then what happens over time as it 5 deteriorates; and so, the tongue and the groove is no longer there. That’s the reason we maintain 6 that there isn’t this load sharing, there isn’t this bracing from adjacent staves. And this really 7 became clear to me…I think I’ve been out to the silo four times now. And when I went out in 8 January on a cold day…so material contracts a little bit when it’s cold…you could actually see 9 daylight through the grooves. So, that’s when it really clicked with me…we’ve looked at these 10 stave silos before in other areas and we always check the buckling, but in this case, it was very 11 clear that when you absolutely have no contact, you know, that’s a big deal. So, that’s part of the 12 reason that we went down that road. 13 We came up with our numbers that show this overstress, but please keep in mind that we 14 did not base our decision solely on that. We looked at additional factors that are hard to bring 15 into an equation. I’m 51 years old; I started doing this structural engineering as a 19 year old 16 undergrad at North Carolina State University in a coop program. I’ve been through a lot of these 17 type of things before and I really like to bring the subjective in with my calculations. And when 18 I look at the fact that those staves are actually thinner than the one inch at the base, I can crumble 19 the concrete with my fingers right where it’s thinner…meaning…and that’s right where the 20 stress is maximum. So all this stuff coming together, coupled with this overstress, tells me that 21 these things could fail. And, in my mind, my task was very narrow…the remand is very clear. 22 They gave us a recurrence interval, we went to that recurrence interval, we looked at the stresses, 23 and then based on the definition that was given to us, it was ‘could they fail?’ And there’s 24 clearly enough overstress and additional factors that I can easily reach that conclusion. 25 MS. WHITE: Just the last couple points we’d like to make here. Mr. Gebo explained 26 how he reached his conclusion that he recommended to you in his letter, and he said, if, in fact, 27 under certain conditions, they could fail, that’s not imminent in my book. That is not the 28 definition of imminent; the definition of imminent is ‘could fail’ and ‘could cause injury or death 29 at any time.’ So, it’s also clear that Mr. Gebo is not correctly interpreting the Code, and that is 30 the underlying basis of our appeal. 31 I had another quote I was going to read here…but, I think the point is that, the answer 32 you get depends on the question you ask, and there are lots of questions that have been asked and 33 answered here today. Nobody is disputing how often it is likely that there will be 80 to 90 mile 34 an hour winds; we know the answer to that, it’s one in ten years. All the information about how 35 often the wind speed is likely to exceed that number is not relevant to the question of could the 36 silos fail if that wind event occurs? But the precise question of, could they fail if that wind event 37 occurs, is the only question in front of you today, and the only evidence you have to that point 38 indicates that the answer to that question is yes. For that reason, we believe that the Exponent 39 report doesn’t answer the right question, Mr. Gebo’s analysis specifically misinterprets the Code Attachment 2 27 1 requirements and applies the data in an incorrect way and for that reason, we ask that you uphold 2 the appeal because the answer to the question is yes, the silos could fail in a ten year wind event. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Thank you Ms. White. Now we have questions from the 5 Building Review Board to Woodward. Tim, go ahead. 6 MR. TIM JOHNSON: I have a question for Ms. White…in a second here. It appears that 7 you’re kind of…when we’re talking about this ‘could fail at any time’ statement, that you’re 8 really sitting on the word ‘could,’ and it appears that you’re kind of equating that to imminent. Is 9 that an accurate statement of what you’re representing? 10 MS. WHITE: I’m not equating it; I’m using the definition. 11 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So what Mr. Gebo went through when he went through the 12 IPMC codes, is there’s the dangerous and there’s the imminent danger states. And within 13 dangerous, there’s still an imminent threat option…versus the imminent danger state is a 14 condition which could cause serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time. So, that’s 15 where that ‘at any time’ comes in. And kind of what I’m…I feel like we’re dancing around a 16 couple different words here and really focusing on them. But, the imminent piece, even in a 17 dangerous structure, does appear to be there, but the question becomes, could it happen at any 18 time? And that’s…my understanding is…you kept jumping on the word ‘could,’ and I wanted to 19 make sure I’m accurately representing how you’re going with that. Could, you’re pulling from 20 the definition of imminent, right? 21 MS. WHITE: Whether you look at imminent in either of those two contexts, yes, the 22 definition of imminent includes the question of ‘could happen at any time.’ The IPMC definition 23 of imminent includes that. 24 MR. JOHNSON: Of imminent danger? 25 MS. WHITE: Yes. 26 MR. JOHNSON: But then there’s…so then, in the dangerous structure code definition, 27 how would that be looked at? Because you pulled ‘could’…and it was early in your slides from 28 definitions, and the Merriam Webster definition, and that’s what I wasn’t sure about. 29 MS. WHITE: Could you tell me which two definitions you’re comparing? 30 MR. JOHNSON: I’m looking at, in Mike’s…in Mr. Gebo’s Woodward appeal write-up, 31 there was the definition of the IMPC [sic] terms that had substandard structures, dangerous 32 structures, or imminent danger…and that’s where I’m pulling this information from. And the 33 dangerous structure note was a structure or premise is dangerous if any part, element, or 34 component thereof is no longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit state as defined in Attachment 2 28 1 this Code, or when considered in totality, the structure or premises poses an imminent threat to 2 the health and safety or the public or the occupants of the structure or premises as referenced in 3 Exhibit A of this Code. That’s what I’m reading from. 4 MS. WHITE: You are correct that the word imminent appears both in the definition of 5 dangerous and of imminent danger, yes. 6 MR. JOHNSON: And my question, then, is the word ‘could’ you’re pulling from the 7 definition of imminent or you’re pulling from ‘at any time’…you’re relating it to ‘at any time.’ 8 MS. WHITE: I’m putting ‘could’ and ‘at any time’ to tie to imminent, because the only 9 difference between dangerous and imminently dangerous is the definition of imminent, which is 10 ‘could’ and ‘at any time.’ 11 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. 12 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Any other questions from the Board? 13 MR. MARZONIE: No. 14 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Do you have anything Rick? Go ahead Tim. 15 MR. JOHNSON: I have now a question for Mr. Carpenter. 16 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: And I have a couple questions after for Mr. Carpenter so you 17 can stay up there. 18 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Bennett kind of boiled it down into some layman’s 19 terms with his paper towel roll. My question for you…you’re describing fail, and then there’s 20 sort of this question of failure, but Mr. Bennett kind of described it as the failure point is the 21 crushing or falling apart of a single stave, is that kind of the…and then who knows what would 22 happen at that point? And we saw that video of, you know, one could fall and the whole thing 23 could fall down, but…is that the right determination the way that he laid it out, or is there some 24 clarity you want to give to that? 25 MR. CARPENTER: I think there’s sort of two separate things here. What I believe he’s 26 saying is that there’s still enough interaction between the staves that the load disperses, and so 27 you could have a global type of buckling where the whole silo is acting together, and that is, and 28 I totally agree, a very complicated analysis. And that would be the way that the silo was 29 constructed in 1912. What I contend is that it has deteriorated so much that the mechanism that 30 holds the staves together no longer allows it to act as one unit. So now, we have a series of…it 31 turns out that the perimeter of that guy makes 60 of these 10 inch staves…so we’ve got these 32 individual pieces that no longer act together. And so…it’s the same failure mechanism, buckling 33 is a common failure mechanism, but I’m looking at it as an individual piece because I’m saying 34 that it can’t share because of that deterioration. And I’m sorry, that’s sort of complicated. Attachment 2 29 1 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, I’m good for now. 2 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Mr. Carpenter, there was a couple questions I had regarding 3 your analysis as well. You mentioned the foundation not having positive attachment…was that 4 the stave silo or the cast-in-place? 5 MR. CARPENTER: Neither have positive attachment. 6 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, is that something that is alarming or was it common 7 practice, or is it something that really affects what we’re considering here? Is that a big 8 component to it? 9 MR. CARPENTER: It depends on the shape, the height, the width of the silo. It’s 10 alarming if there’s enough force on the silo to cause an overturning that there’s not enough dead 11 load to resist. In this case, that’s not the case with the stave. On the cast-in-place, what’s 12 alarming is not so much the lack of positive attachment, it’s just that all the deterioration has 13 occurred right at the base so there is no physical contact whatsoever between the silo and the 14 base. There’s…it’s very narrow, but there’s a three, four, five inch gap around quite a bit of it. 15 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: That kind of leads me into my second question. Is…we heard 16 a lot of evidence about the stave silo and how it could fail, but it seemed like we didn’t have as 17 much information on the cast-in-place, and you had talked about these other factors other than 18 just the engineering side of it, but also other factors that you witness while you’re there. And 19 you had just mentioned some of it being the base, but can you speak to that a little bit more about 20 specifically the cast-in-place and why that one is an imminent threat in your opinion? And then, 21 as well, Mr. Bennett had mentioned something about your analysis did not include the 22 reinforcement in the concrete; if you could explain that to us as well. 23 MR. CARPENTER: Sure, so that silo is a totally different construction type. It’s cast-in- 24 place instead of these individual pieces that were assembled like an erector set. It’s thicker; it 25 started out as six inches thick. It does have reinforcing. Unfortunately, right at the base, just like 26 the bottom six inches where it’s eroded away, there is no longer reinforcing, or at least it’s 27 discontinuous at those voids. So, there is…you just come up like 24 inches and there is some 28 reinforcing remaining. The higher you get the better shape it’s in. Unfortunately, for both silos, 29 where the stress is concentrated the most is where the silo has deteriorated away. The stress is 30 mostly at the base, and that’s just where the silage acid seeped down, stayed there and just ate 31 away the concrete, ate away everything in contact. And so, it’s above that zone that silo is in 32 much better shape. It can redistribute loads. But, it’s redistributing loads to a place where 33 there’s, you know, six inches of void. And so that’s the reason that…and still, you know, under 34 the definition of the remand, you know, I’m not comfortable saying that it can’t fail. So, 35 my…you know…the corollary there is that it could fail. And it’s just…it’s almost impossible to 36 get in there and measure that quantitatively. There’s so much stuff, you know, sediment, dust, Attachment 2 30 1 plants growing in there…it would be almost like an archeological type project to measure all the 2 base of that guy. 3 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Building 4 Review Board? Go ahead Tim. 5 MR. JOHNSON: Sorry, Mr. Carpenter…one other thing that Mr. Bennett hit on, and his, 6 kind of, report talked about it as well, and there appeared to be a little bit of maybe a disconnect 7 of what he said versus what was in the report…or you had commented in your presentation about 8 it. But, Mr. Bennett had commented that, with the calculations you were using on the ten year 9 event, that a recent 40 mile an hour gust situation could or would have collapsed the silos. Do 10 you agree with that analysis…obviously, it didn’t, but… 11 MR. CARPENTER: Correct. I disagree with that, and this gets back into, you know, the 12 design methodology versus the analysis methodology and, you know, these factors that the Code 13 have you use, and not using them. And I’ve run this both ways, and what happens…the factors 14 are there for a good reason. The Code has evolved over a hundred years, and the factors are 15 there for uncertainties and materials, uncertainty in loads and all that stuff. But, I do agree that, 16 you know, look at it in place without the factors, and when I look at it in place without the 17 factors, it seems like it’s about 65% stressed under its own dead load, and the cutoff area might 18 be a 65 or 70 mile per hour wind. But, you know, that was not the focus of the remand. And, 19 just…that’s without the additional factors that I listed. You know, that’s assuming the one inch 20 thickness, the 2,000 psi concrete, which I question at the key location. 21 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. 22 MR. MARZONIE: Excuse me, I have one more question…I noticed on the silos there’s 23 tension rings and bands around… 24 MR. CARPENTER: Yes sir. 25 MR. MARZONIE: Every so many feet…three feet apart or whatever. And those tension 26 bands have foundry shoes on them of some sort to tighten them down… 27 MR. CARPENTER: Yes sir. 28 MR. MARZONIE: Could you lend some light on that? 29 MR. CARPENTER: Okay, so on the stave silo, they’re at 15 inches on center. 30 MR. MARZONIE: Okay. 31 MR. CARPENTER: And the reason for that is the stave is 30 inches tall; each one is 10 32 inches wide by 30 inches tall, and so the primary reason that those are there is when the silo is 33 full, there’s obviously a big lateral force component pushing out. And so those rings resolve that Attachment 2 31 1 component. The concrete is a great material in compression, not so much in tension. So 2 that…those rings help resolve that component. On the cast-in-place silo, they’re farther apart; 3 they’re more like the two or three feet that you described because you don’t have the interlocking 4 pieces. But, they serve a secondary purpose on the stave. They are actually…they’re tightened, 5 and we call that post-tensioning. What that tension force does is it transfers to the concrete as a 6 compression force and so it locks those guys together with that tongue-in-groove mechanism that 7 was there when it was initially built; it’s not there now. 8 MR. MARZONIE: Thank you. 9 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, any further questions? Okay, we will now move on to 10 the Chief Building Official’s rebuttal presentation. 11 MR. GEBO: Thank you. So we’re back to this definition of imminent and whether or 12 not, as the Building Official, I properly interpreted what this definition means: a condition which 13 could cause serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time. I contend still that so far all 14 the evidence has pointed to dangerous structures. I think it’s pretty clear these are dangerous 15 structures. In using the Property Maintenance Code, the Code Officials have the body of the 16 Code, which is the Code written, and then they also have the commentary. The commentary is 17 additional information to help the Building Official understand what these particular Code 18 sections are talking about. The commentaries are written by the engineers and the professionals 19 of the Code-writing body, the International Code Council. So the commentaries, although not 20 Code…not the specific Code section…it helps better understand what the codes are trying to talk 21 about because the codes are not always very clear. 22 Could this definition in the Property Maintenance be rewritten? I agree, it certainly could 23 have. But in the Property Maintenance, there’s, in the admin section, section 109, there’s a 24 section called emergency measures. And, section 109.2, there are…it’s a code section talking 25 about temporary safeguards: notwithstanding other provisions of this Code, whenever, in the 26 opinion of the Code Official, there is imminent danger due to an unsafe condition, the Code 27 Official shall order the necessary work to be done, including the boarding up of openings, to 28 render such structure temporarily safe, whether or not the legal procedure herein described has 29 been instituted, and shall cause such other action to be taken as the Code Official deems 30 necessary to meet such emergency. That’s the Code. The commentary piece talks about: this 31 section recognizes the need for immediate and effective action in order to protect the public. 32 This section empowers the Code Official to cause the necessary work to be done to temporarily 33 minimize the imminent danger without regard to due process. This section has to be viewed 34 critically insofar as the danger of the structural failure must be imminent, that is readily apparent 35 and immediate. So, even the commentary throughout some of these Code sections…they’re 36 trying to provide a better understanding of what poorly worded code is talking about I’d suspect. Attachment 2 32 1 But, if we go back to…I need to find it again, sorry…the actual remand, and it is talking 2 about, to receive and consider evidence and analysis regarding the effects of natural conditions 3 and events of a one in ten year probability…I think we’ve done that. I think it’s very clear that 4 the engineers have done their analysis, they’ve looked at the natural conditions, wind seems to be 5 the one main factor, they’ve used the one in ten year probability on one or both of the silos, for 6 you to consider…for the BRB to consider whether one or both poses an imminent threat or 7 danger. Now…yes…if you want to stay with poorly worded definitions…in my mind this 8 imminent danger is poorly written because there is other information and other evidence and 9 other definitions of substandard and dangerous and imminent, that the definition alone of 10 imminent doesn’t seem to feel as dangerous…as a higher level than dangerous, but in my mind it 11 certainly is, and I think that is what I’ve been asked to do. Are these an imminent danger or are 12 these just dangerous? I believe everybody is absolutely on track; these are dangerous, they need 13 to be stabilized, they need to be secured. But for the purposes of my opinion, I do not believe 14 these are imminent danger that they need to knock down tomorrow, they’re that imminently 15 dangerous. So, I think it’s poor definitions. I think that we’re possibly taking a stronger 16 stand…we’re taking less of a stand on a term that is supposed to be the highest danger available: 17 the imminent danger. Thank you. 18 MR. YATABE: And Chair, Mr. Bennett would like to make a comment as well please. 19 MR. BENNETT: Paul Bennett with Exponent…just briefly I wanted to say…I wanted to 20 respond to Woodward’s statements that our report did not address the Council’s requests. I 21 believe it did, and I believe it speaks for itself, and I believe that the report and analysis I would 22 like to think is obvious to those of you that have read it. But, if it’s not, certainly would love to 23 give you the opportunity to ask any questions and to respond to anything you may have, if that’s 24 not clear to you what our position is in responding to the Council’s remand. 25 Additionally, and I don’t want to get argumentative with Mr. Carpenter, but I do want to 26 point out that our statements about taking their equations that show that it would be unsafe in a 27 ten year event, taking that same analysis with the factors of safety that went into that opinion, 28 and plugging in the 40 mile an hour wind speeds…that analysis would show that they’re unsafe 29 and overstressed. They did and additional analysis for the existing conditions to show that it 30 could stand up under its own weight. That analysis took out the factors of safety. That was their 31 methodology, fair enough, but I want to point that out…it’s a little bit of a double standard in my 32 opinion to put the factors of safety in in the one hand to show that it can resist it, but then not to 33 then include them in the other. I do know why they did it; I appreciate why they did it, they want 34 to put factors of safety in for that ten year event. But again, if we’re trying to look at real world 35 behavior and historic performance, we would argue that there’s not room for those factors of 36 safety and let’s calibrate the equations and these unknowns the best we can with the interaction 37 between the staves and these things based on the historic performance. So that was all I had, is 38 there any questions you guys have for me? Attachment 2 33 1 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Do we have any other presentations from the City? 2 MR. GEBO: No sir. 3 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, yes, so we can go into questions. Anybody have 4 questions? 5 MR. MARZONIE: No. 6 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Go ahead. 7 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Bennett, correct me if I’m wrong, but when you went through your 8 presentation you described…Mr. Carpenter had talked about the tongue-in-groove and how it 9 could potentially not, you know…under the example with the floor that we have up here…that 10 therefore it wouldn’t be providing any of that same structural benefit. And you commented that 11 you were assuming in your calculations that it was. If, as Mr. Carpenter described, there would 12 be a time shrinkage of materials, or whatever, where there was clearly no connection between 13 those two items, would that change your view on sort of the imminent danger of what we’re 14 looking at? 15 MR. BENNETT: Well, so, two parts to that. I think I heard you describe the difference 16 in our opinions, and I think you described it well, you understand it well. We believe there’s 17 interaction between the staves, and that’s based on, again, the past performance and seeing 18 what’s happened there. If we were to redo our analysis with no interaction between those staves, 19 then yes, that would change our opinion as to its stability in a ten year wind event, just based off 20 the calculations; the calculations would look much more like JVA’s. 21 MR. JOHNSON: No, that’s it for me. 22 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: I have a couple questions. Mr. Bennett, a lot of your report 23 talks about the historic consideration of these silos; can you speak to that some more and is that 24 common in the structural engineering world that we can rely on historical performance of a 25 building rather than calculations? 26 MR. BENNETT: Sure…certainly we can look at the historical data, and we do with 27 existing buildings; it gives us some qualitative information. But, still, we’re engineers…we’re 28 going to go to the code books and we’re going to go to the calculations and perform those 29 calculations. I’m not saying that we should only look at the historical performance, but certainly 30 any structural analysis of an existing structure we believe should include some recognition of 31 past performance, especially recent past and recent weeks and months. 32 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Does the Code allow for that in the existing structures, where 33 you may not know everything that’s inside…the reinforcing, exactly what’s happening…does 34 the Code allow for past performance to be included in the analysis or decision of, you know, not Attachment 2 34 1 particularly this project but any project? You want to add load to a roof and you don’t know 2 exactly what’s happening in that structure because it’s concrete, can you assume with some level 3 per Code that you can add weight because of past performance, or…? 4 MR. BENNETT: So there are provisions in the Code for what we call alternate means 5 and methods outside of the codes and standards, and that often is done with historic structures. 6 A real common scenario is historic masonry structures. There was such variability in the mortar 7 and the maintenance over the years, and the clay quality used for the bricks, and how the bricks 8 were fired for older structures, that…there are firms out there…there’s a firm in Boulder that, 9 primarily their work is they go around to these existing structures and they have ways to test 10 them in place. So if you could imagine this brick wall behind you, if it was a hundred years old, 11 they could go in and remove some mortar and do some load testing in place and determine its 12 sheer capacity and its compression capacity, and that’s what we often do with those older 13 structures, and then we can take that data and better calibrate our equations and predict their 14 future behavior. So, it is commonly done with existing structures and there’s means for it in the 15 Building Code. 16 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: At…I guess…the thing I’m having a tough time with, and I 17 appreciate the historic…I mean, I think from a common sense, you think about all these things 18 have been standing, but at what point, in your opinion, when you look at these type of structures, 19 can you not rely on the historical data? What does it take when you’re looking at a structure 20 when you are asking…either my calculations are so far over that even though they’re standing 21 and they have stood for a hundred years, I can’t rely on that historical data. Or, by visual, what 22 does it take for you to say the historical data…I can’t consider that? Does that make sense, what 23 I’m asking? 24 MR. BENNETT: I think so…I mean, definitely deterioration comes into play, right? Just 25 because it’s stood historically doesn’t mean it’s that strong now; structures deteriorate over time, 26 and that’s an important consideration. But, again, we can quantify the in-place strength…there 27 are ways to do that; I mentioned a firm in Boulder that does that. And so, if we’re really having 28 doubts about the capacity, we often will bring in firms like that to do some in-place testing to 29 help us better understand the in-place strength. Does that answer your question? 30 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Sort of…I guess, from what you saw out there, you didn’t see 31 anything that would alarm you and say, we’ve got to do this extra testing, we can rely on this 32 historical data. I guess what my concern is, if we are relying on historical data and…or, the 33 historical performance. That’s good until it actually fails. And so, at what point do we cut that 34 off and say, it’s not performing and we are going to have to just rely on our calculations? Is 35 there a certain overstress amount that you’re looking at in your calculations that you say, you 36 know what, this is just too far over and we can’t rely on the way its performed in the past twenty 37 years? Attachment 2 35 1 MR. BENNETT: Yeah, I think it depends on the situation and the structure. This 2 particular stave silo…it’s a complex animal; I think we both agree on that. And this phenomena 3 of interaction, or lack thereof, between the staves is complicated. So, in this case, I think to 4 answer your question, I would look at…I would focus on my observations in the field and what 5 they tell me, recent performance, and how quick it is degrading, and if it’s even safe enough to 6 get in and have a crew in there doing restoration. So, those are the types of things we consider; I 7 don’t see anything in this case that tells me that it’s not safe enough to have a crew in there to do 8 the restoration, and I don’t see deterioration happening so fast that my opinion is going to change 9 from, you know, one month or even a couple months from now. 10 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank you. And one last question…sorry to ask you so 11 many…but, another thing I’m wrestling is the difference between the stave silo and the cast-in- 12 place silo. So, in your…if you could just give me a summary of each as far as one that would be 13 more likely to fail versus the other, could you talk about that some more in your analysis? 14 MR. BENNETT: Sure. Yeah, I think we would both agree, myself and Mr. Carpenter, 15 that the stave silo is definitely more likely to fail. It’s thinner, quite a bit thinner, at the base, and 16 you do have this stave action and trying to understand the interaction between them. You don’t 17 have the reinforcement in the stave silo, so…the stave silo is in much worse condition and is 18 more likely to fail. 19 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Building 20 Review Board? Tim? 21 MR. JOHNSON: Kind of refocusing back on the remand and the overall 22 conversation…Mr. Gebo kind of reread that back to us. What I pulled from that is, kind of, in 23 this ten year period, does an event…could an event occur that poses an imminent threat or 24 danger? And, my question is, because there appears to be just some disconnect on the way 25 you’re looking at this and the way Mr. Carpenter is looking at it. Where, kind of just looking at 26 your calculations, and I am by no means an engineer, so there’s a lot of letters and numbers on 27 here that I remember from some point in high school or something…but, it appears that you’re 28 looking at what would a ten year event do to the silo, and Mr. Carpenter is looking at it from a 29 design…how would he design something with these parameters that are already there with a ten 30 year event, an 85 mile an hour wind event, occurring to them. And, therefore…and I think this is 31 where I’m understanding the difference, and I may ask Mr. Carpenter the same thing to clarify to 32 see if I’m…and I’m not going to repeat it, so I hope you are listening. But, it seems like what 33 you’re saying there is that’s where there’s this safety factor getting added by Mr. Carpenter on 34 his analysis, whereas you’re looking at it without the safety factor because you’re looking at 35 what would happen in the event of that ten year occurrence. Am I understanding that correctly 36 from sort of the two different views that you guys are taking on this? Attachment 2 36 1 MR. BENNETT: Yeah, I think that’s a good summary. There’s a difference in the 2 factors of safety, but there’s also a difference in just looking at one individual stave that would 3 fail, which is Mr. Carpenter’s analysis, and our analysis, looking at some interaction between the 4 staves, and accounting for that. 5 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. 6 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Alright, we are going to move on to any additional questions 7 for either Woodward or the Chief Building Official…so you can ask Mr. Carpenter… 8 MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, we’ll keep the theme going. If you could Mr. Carpenter… 9 MR. CARPENTER: Steve Carpenter with JVA. So, I remember your question. 10 MR. JOHNSON: Okay good. 11 MR. CARPENTER: And, yes…that’s part of the reason that when I finished my 12 calculations and I’m sitting here at 33% overstressed using ACI 313, or 54% using ACI 318, 13 Chapter 22, that alone did not lead me to my conclusion. I leaned on these other factors that are 14 adding here. The fact that at that critical section it’s even thinner than the one inch, the fact that 15 that concrete strength at that critical section is not 2,000 psi. I’m…I’ve got to be out there, I’ve 16 got to visually see it, I’ve got to touch it…I’m a feel and touch type of guy. And so I do the 17 calculations, but I put the two together. And so I feel like, that even though ACI says that you 18 use 1.2 times the dead load, and 1.6 times these certain factors, and so on and so forth, those are 19 far offset by these additional factors that are not captured in my equation. So that’s how I come 20 up with my conclusion. 21 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, thank you. 22 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Any other questions from the Board? 23 MR. YATABE: Mr. Chair, Woodward’s general counsel does have one comment they’d 24 like to make about one of Mr. Bennett’s answers to his question. 25 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay. 26 MR. FAWZY: Chris Fawzy, Woodward, thank you. The response is really in regard to 27 one of the questions to Mr. Bennett relating to the historic behavior of the silos and whether it’s 28 predictive of its current safety condition. I’m not an engineer also, but I am Woodward’s…in 29 addition to general counsel, I’m also Woodward’s Chief Compliance Officer. In my capacity, I 30 sit on the Corrective Action Board, I sit on the Corrective Review Board of our organization and 31 I ensure that, when there are potential safety issues, we handle it appropriately. And these 32 meetings involve lots of engineers. When there are design issues that could result in safety 33 issues, we do the same. I also happen to have a statistical background and I could tell you 34 with…when you have one product to look at, or two products, so, in this case, two silos…to look Attachment 2 37 1 at their historic function over a period of time…it cannot be used as a prediction of how they 2 could exist in their current state. And Mr. Bennett said it well: these things have deteriorated 3 over the 17 years since our last ten year wind event. Any product, any specific product that fails 4 for its first time, by definition…and that includes whether it’s product or whether it’s a 5 structure…any structure that fails for the first time, you could look at its history, and I can tell 6 you, it will never have failed prior to that. But, you can’t use that fact to predict that it didn’t 7 fail, because in each instance, it does fail. 8 So, Woodward urges the Board to consider the information that we have, to consider the 9 calculations that were in fact done by Mr. Carpenter. To the extent there could have been other 10 calculations that Mr. Bennett or Exponent believes could have been more effective, or more 11 sophisticated and more predictive, they weren’t done. So, this is what we have, and I can tell 12 you Woodward is not comfortable with the safety, the imminent safety, of these silos. Thank 13 you. 14 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: No more questions? Okay, so at this time we are closed on 15 taking any additional evidence. So now it’s deliberation time for the Board; we have discussion 16 and at some point have a motion and finding of fact. 17 I guess I do have one question for…just a point of clarification on the remand if I can 18 Brad? The question posed…and I don’t have it right in front of me, I’m sorry. But, looking at 19 the ten year event…we’re considering that…but I guess I have…we’re still also determining 20 whether or not we believe that’s an imminent threat. There’s two pieces to that…I heard that 21 we’re only listening to the remand as far as the ten year event, but we’re also determining if we 22 think that ten year event is an imminent threat, is that correct? 23 MR. YATABE: That is my understanding of the direction given to the Building Review 24 Board by Council. The…I think to the degree that Council wanted to define an imminent threat 25 as something, in this case, that could be overstressed in a one in ten year event…that would have 26 been stated explicitly as part of the direction given to the BRB. I think at this time, it’s still an 27 open question for you to determine what the definition…the interpretation of imminent should 28 be, whether that was correctly interpreted and applied by the Chief Building Official, and 29 whether the…in addition to the existing record that you have and the additional information that 30 was presented today and entered into the record, whether that meets the definition. So I think in 31 many ways it’s a two part analysis for you to first, or whatever order you want to look at it…you 32 need to figure out what, to the Building Review Board, that interpretation should be of imminent 33 danger, and whether the facts as entered into the record satisfy that or not in terms of whether 34 you’re going to uphold or overturn the Chief Building Official’s opinion. 35 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Thank you. Attachment 2 38 1 MR. YATABE: And, Mr. Chair, if you want to take…anyone wants to take a little bit of 2 time to review any documentation or anything like that, that’s also an available option…before 3 you enter into deliberation. 4 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Do you guys have any thoughts? 5 MR. REIDER: Well, I have a few. I think…you know if I think back to our October 29 6 decision, I thought we got it right. I thought that the facts that we looked at…and I thought that 7 the definition between imminent and dangerous, that the Board got it correct. As I read through 8 all this stuff, and all the new information, I sort of drew a conclusion that I either needed new compelling evidence to change my mind from our decision of the 29 th 9 , or maybe even some new 10 direction. And, I as I listened to everything today, I think there is some new evidence that 11 supports a higher degree of danger of these structures failing. I think we did get some direction 12 too, and I’m kind of struggling with Council’s direction. And if I look at it, and I kind of think it 13 through in my kind of simple sense of thinking about this, I think about a one in ten year event. 14 And if I were to take that one in ten year event and I were to, say, condense it into 30 15 seconds…in other words, whatever would happen in ten years is going to happen in 30 seconds. 16 Would I stand in or under or around those silos for that 30 second period of time? And I think 17 my answer would be no, I wouldn’t do it. I would think that within that ten year period, given 18 the new facts that we’ve heard, that I wouldn’t stand in or under the silos. So, for me, it seems like we made a good decision on the 29 th 19 , but Council is asking us to 20 consider this a little bit differently. They’re not saying imminent as Mr. Gebo defines imminent, 21 as something that’s going to happen, like, pretty much right now. Or the example that we saw 22 from the City’s engineer where that family was living in a building and the building really 23 looked like it could collapse on the family. If I take that ten years and I compress it into a 30 24 second period of time, I don’t think I’d want to stand around those silos. So, I’m trying to match 25 that with all the information that we’ve heard. I…you know, I heard Mr. Bennett say something 26 that sort of struck me, and I made a note of it…and he said, who’s right, nobody knows. And I 27 have heard sort of conflicting argument from engineers…from experts, I would expect that’s 28 pretty typical. But the nobody knows or who’s right sort of concludes me to say that in the…in 29 my 30 second, sort of period of time, I wouldn’t stand under the silos or in them. And that might 30 make them somewhat imminent. 31 MR. JOHNSON: So I guess where I land on that is kind of related to what I was hitting 32 on when we were talking about it in terms of the IPMC codes…is there still an imminent piece of 33 dangerous that I think is…that’s where this…nobody’s arguing these are substandard, I mean it’s 34 dangerous or more dangerous. So I think there’s an imminent piece there, without a doubt. But, 35 the event…you know one in ten year or…and that idea is the idea of an 85 mile an hour gust. I 36 mean there’s, as shown in the information, you know, there’s a probability related to when that 37 will happen. Going back in time that Mr. Bennett did, the last one was 17 years ago…that 38 doesn’t mean we won’t have one tomorrow, it doesn’t mean we won’t have one for 20 years, it Attachment 2 39 1 just means that’s when the last one was. We have factual data, we just don’t have predictive data 2 and we’re looking at probability. And, to me, it’s…that 85 mile an hour gust has to happen, and 3 then even in the instance of that 85 mile an hour gust happening, it may not cause anything to 4 happen to the silos. So…I read it as they could continue standing from an 85 mile an hour gust, 5 they also could fall. And, you know, your comment of standing in the silo I generally agree 6 with, but that’s why I would call them dangerous and why we shouldn’t be near them, so we 7 should never have that situation. I agree with what you’re saying, but it’s that imminent piece 8 where, you know, the probability of it happening in that 85 mile an hour gust, and then whether 9 it would, you know, the probability of that then causing the silo to fall. And I just feel like we’re 10 getting, you know, that…at any time statement, which is still a piece of this…that doesn’t feel 11 like that’s at any time to me; it feels like it could happen, but the ‘at any time’ which is what 12 pushes it to imminent danger is where I feel like is why it’s still in dangerous but not imminent. 13 I mean, you make some really good points, I think that’s…the idea of standing in the silo 14 is a little, you know, it’s a good point. You know, I wouldn’t want to be out there in a tornado, 15 but I wouldn’t want to be anywhere outside in a tornado either. 16 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: If I can…and it brings up a good point as well, that we 17 don’t…we don’t…I guess we don’t know for sure if that would happen even in 85, although 18 their calculations show that it may. But we also heard that it’s possible with the calculations that 19 JVA had, Mr. Bennett said, it could happen in a 40 mile an hour, and that hasn’t. So, I don’t 20 know where to put the calculations…it’s something that we have to think about, I mean it’s what 21 we have to go by. But, you know, again, I don’t know that that’s the only determination in 22 thinking if these are imminent. And then the dangerous structure does not allow for people to be 23 in it either…am I correct? Those are…that definition also acknowledges that it could be 24 dangerous to life, and so it’s not just that you wouldn’t stand for that 30 seconds, well you 25 wouldn’t want to do that probably in a dangerous structure either. Just a thought. 26 MS. ANDREA DUNLAP: Exactly…you wouldn’t go over and just get in it for any 27 reason; that’s why they have the fencing around it and signs. 28 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: The other piece I’ll throw in just as a comment for the Board 29 here, is that I still am having a hard time on both reports of determining…I heard a lot of 30 analysis, a lot of talk about the stave silo, and I really didn’t get any new evidence on that one 31 that made me think it was any different than what we had heard before, or that it was as 32 dangerous as it was before. I don’t know what your guys’ thoughts were…I just…there was so 33 much talk about these staves, and… 34 MR. REIDER: You mean the cast-in-place or the stave? 35 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Yeah, the cast-in-place and we talked about, you know, if 36 these staves are not touching each other, then the structure…being able to I guess compensate for 37 that piece happening. I didn’t hear enough about that I guess…about the cast-in-place to know Attachment 2 40 1 that it wouldn’t perform even better and that it may not be as dangerous as the stave silo. So I’d 2 have a hard time lumping those two together actually at this point, without… 3 MR. REIDER: No…I would agree. I think what I heard on the stave silo causes me to 4 believe it’s a lot more dangerous than the cast-in-place. I would concur. Are you thinking that 5 you would have two different opinions then; an opinion on the stave versus an opinion on the 6 cast-in-place? 7 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: You know, if we go to…potentially, yes, I think so. 8 MR. JOHNSON: I guess in part, Justin, kind of what you’re describing is, you’re almost 9 ready to take the cast-in-place and call that one…that’s definitely dangerous. Just talk about the 10 stave and maybe we can wipe them both out with one finding of fact, but… 11 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Yeah, just, to me, I didn’t hear enough to make me think it’s 12 as serious as the stave. And I don’t know that it means the stave is imminent either, but… 13 MS. DUNLAP: I don’t mean to move backwards on this but, how costly is it for like the 14 outfit in Boulder to do further testing, since we’re saying we don’t really hear enough statistical 15 evidence. 16 MR. REIDER: I’m not sure that more information is really going to help me; I think they 17 could analyze it to death. I think they’ve already spent a lot of time, a lot of money, trying to 18 determine, you know, the difference between dangerous and imminent. I do agree that…what 19 I’ve heard caused me to look at the silos as an individual project. I agree though with, sort of, 20 separating them argumentatively and saying the stave one most concerns me and the cast-in- 21 place probably…probably a lot less. And I think what I’m hearing from the engineers is that the 22 stave silo is much more dangerous than the cast-in-place. And if it is as thin as we’re hearing, 23 and if it does rely on that tongue-in-groove type of action to hold it together and…Bernie, you 24 asked a question about how those… 25 MR. MARZONIE: Yeah, the post tension rods… 26 MR. REIDER: Yeah, and how they’re connected. I’m sure if those things are loose, why, 27 it wouldn’t take much for that to become an imminent danger. 28 MR. MARZONIE: I look at the two scenarios between what is dangerous and imminent, 29 and there’s such a fine line, but in between there’s no grey area, and we have to decide, you 30 know, one way or the other. And, like you said, the evidence has been brought forward on both 31 sides very well. But, nothing really has changed my mind a whole lot as far as what…I was not 32 here in the October meeting, but I’ve read through the verbatim minutes and also watched the 33 video in length and got a real good feel for how all that went. So I feel like I’m on top of where 34 we were with that meeting, and I think that the information here. Attachment 2 41 1 It seems like in the original report that I read at the end, that the three engineers all 2 concluded that there was not imminent danger, but today we have two engineers and it seems we 3 have one going imminent and one not. So, I just…that concerns me a little bit on what we’re 4 looking at. 5 MR. REIDER: Yeah, and that’s why I said, if you condense ten years into ten…or 30 6 seconds…I wouldn’t really want to be under those. For me, that really sort of elevates it to an 7 imminent danger. I recognize it’s something that’s dangerous, you probably shouldn’t be in 8 there either. But if…and, you know, when I look at this thing, in my opinion, it’s a large pie. 9 There’s a lot of components, or a lot of people, that are concerned about the silos, we’ve heard a 10 lot of history about them; I appreciate all of that. Unfortunately, the slice of the pie that we get 11 to look at is razor thin, and it’s sort of this imminent versus dangerous, and we looked at that on the 29 th 12 and I think we made a good decision. 13 Today I think our tiny little slice of the pie…and somebody else is going…is making a 14 determination about the rest of the pie…but our tiny little slice of the pie has now been further 15 defined, and the two defined terms that we had, imminent and dangerous, are only defined by 16 going outside the Code and looking at Webster’s Dictionary or listening to people tell us what 17 those terms mean. They’re not really, in my mind, clearly defined within the Code…they simply 18 presume that you know what dangerous is, and they presume that you know what imminent is. 19 But when City Council expanded it to a ten year, sort of, timeframe, then to me it changed it 20 dramatically. And so I see…I see where, within a ten year timeframe, it’s a much more 21 imminent probability of something happening. 22 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: And did you hear enough evidence today that you think that 23 ten year would be an imminent? I mean…you had mentioned… 24 MR. REIDER: Yeah, I wouldn’t want to stand under them, you know, like I said. I think 25 that in a ten year time period…and again, that tiny little slice of the pie that we’re dealing 26 with…yeah, I think that I would have some concern with what I heard today. 27 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Would you stand under them today or just not on a windy 28 day? 29 MR. REIDER: Well, you know, listening to the engineers…they’ve walked through 30 them, they’ve cored them, they’ve…you know, they’ve done a number of things to them. So, I’d 31 have no problem walking in them or standing under them today. But, if you looked at the ten 32 year period, again, condensing it into 30 seconds…no I would not. 33 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: You know, I’ll offer this as, you know…it’s not by any 34 means a definition, it’s just I want to throw this out there as another thought as far as imminent. 35 We have the calculations and then we had engineers that looked at historical data. I’m also 36 struggling with the fact that, if you were standing in that or, you know, looking at that structure Attachment 2 42 1 with a 40 mile an hour wind and it was imminent at this 85, would we be visually seeing 2 something on the silo that’s starting to fail. I mean when you think about these pictures of the 3 imminent, you can visually see something that’s happening…there’s more…I don’t know if I 4 want to say swaying, or if the buckling is actually happening, or you see concrete pieces falling 5 off on lighter wind…that to me, just…I’m thinking the big picture of imminent and that’s what 6 I’m thinking of. Maybe that’s not correct, but that’s initially what I think of when I’m thinking 7 imminent; that thing is…it’s collapsing, and it seems like not just the 85 mile or 120 mile an 8 hour would affect it, you’d think you would really start seeing more than that at lower wind 9 speeds as well. I didn’t hear that piece of it…again, it’s not the definition, it’s just a thought of 10 what I think of when I’m thinking of imminent threat. 11 MR. REIDER: Sure, no, I mean, we didn’t see evidence of parts and pieces laying on the 12 ground or, you know, some of that banding laying on the ground. It does sound like a lot of the 13 base of these silos though are in pretty poor condition, and I’m not an engineer either, but I think 14 of a lever, and if the fulcrum of the lever is in really bad shape…and I heard one of the engineers 15 testify that a force sort of near the bottom of these silos was the area that they made a 16 calculation…I would think that a force at the very top of that lever would have a significant 17 impact on the fulcrum. And if quite a bit of the base has been deteriorated, then that’s why I 18 think maybe…maybe in light of Council’s direction with the ten years, today’s decision could be 19 different than the October 29 decision. 20 MR. JOHNSON: I would certainly agree with that…I think that that narrowed window of 21 time makes it a different conversation. 22 MR. REIDER: Yeah. 23 MR. JOHNSON: But, for me, it’s that…it’s all…the ten year window is that 85 mile an 24 hour gust. And that is…there’s a probability of that occurring. It comes back to that for me…we 25 could go the next ten years and not have that gust happen, it could happen tomorrow…you 26 know…it could be either one, and that’s why we’ve got to look at it in that mindset of what’s the 27 probability of that ten year gust occurring. And we didn’t get exactly what those numbers were, 28 but we saw some information that showed that, maybe it would survive that ten year gust, maybe 29 it wouldn’t. And the fact that, by calculation, right, wrong, or indifferent, using the fulcrum or 30 the lever concept or anything else like that, it could survive that ten year gust even if the ten year 31 gust happens. So, you could theoretically stand there in your…going back to your original 32 analogy of your 30 second window in there, you could stand in there during that ten year event 33 and it could not…something could not happen. Something also could happen, but, it’s that lack 34 of definitive it will or it won’t is where I struggle with calling it, at any time. It’s definitely 35 imminent, which is why I think it hits the dangerous category very, very definitively. But the ‘at 36 any time’ part is where I struggle with saying that’s what it is. And I think it’s…looking at it 37 from the remand and looking at it from what, you know…we could sit here and talk until we’re 38 blue in the face about, you know, different idiosyncrasies of the science of it, but I feel like the Attachment 2 43 1 ‘at any time’ versus is it just imminent…that’s where I’m landing on dangerous more than I’m 2 landing on the imminent side. It definitely…ten years versus 135 mile an hour gusts, much 3 harder to talk about. But, that’s where I’m landing at least. 4 MR. REIDER: What was our…what did we hear with the 40-some mile an hour winds? 5 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Well, from what I recall it was Mr. Bennett stating that the 6 equations that JVA used…and I’m sorry, I guess if we could ask for a point of clarification on 7 that…but the safety factors involved with that would actually show that it would also fail at a 40 8 mile an hour wind, not just the 80…can we ask if that’s…at this point? I don’t know if that’s 9 worthwhile. 10 MR. YATABE: Generally now that you’re in discussion…I think it’s your prerogative if 11 you want to open it up, but I would suggest that if you want clarification that you get 12 clarification from both the appellant and the appellee. 13 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Is that important? 14 MR. REIDER: Yeah, I think… 15 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: If we could have Mr. Bennett speak to that one more time, 16 and then also Mr. Carpenter, we should give him the opportunity to address that as well I think, 17 if you could. So, if you want to state that question real quick. 18 MR. REIDER: Mr. Bennett, did you testify to wind speeds in the 40 mile per hour range? 19 MR. BENNETT: Yes. 20 MR. REIDER: And can you…can you elaborate on what you opinion is as to what would 21 happen to either silo in that sort of wind range? 22 MR. BENNETT: Our calculations, and of course recent performance, would show that in 23 40 mile an hour wind speeds, both silos are stable. 24 MR. REIDER: They remain stable? 25 MR. BENNETT: Yes. 26 MR. REDIER: Okay…did you have any other recollection of comments that you made 27 about 40 mile per hour winds? 28 MR. BENNETT: I think the discussion you were having was the point I had made about 29 JVA’s calculations that determined, under a ten year wind, it was unsafe. If you take those same 30 calculations, same analyses, and plug in 40 mile per hour winds, those calculations would show 31 that it’s overstressed and would collapse. If you do the same analysis with 40. Attachment 2 44 1 MR. REIDER: Now say that again, if you…if you did the same analysis at 40 mile per 2 hour winds as what analysis? 3 MR. BENNETT: So, using JVA’s analysis that led them to the conclusion that under a 4 ten year wind, they are unsafe and overstressed…if you plug into that same analysis a 40 mile an 5 hour wind rather than the 90 for the ten year, it would also show that they’re overstressed and 6 unsafe. And so, based on that, we’re making the point that the calculations aren’t representing 7 the real world performance which we’ve seen recently. 8 MR. REIDER: So, you disagree with the calculations that JVA did? Or you disagree 9 with what? 10 MR. BENNETT: We disagree with the capacity calculations that JVA did. 11 MR. REDIER: So even at the 90 mile per hour wind, you disagree with their 12 methodology of calculation? 13 MR. BENNETT: For the capacity side, yes. 14 MR. REIDER: Okay, I’m not sure that…yeah, that might be clear as mud. Well, let 15 me…so, Mr. Carpenter, let me hear from you, if you would please. So what I’m hearing are a 16 couple of things…I’m hearing that you did a type of analysis that Mr. Bennett might disagree 17 with, and you applied that to 90 mile an hour winds, correct? 18 MR. CARPENTER: That is correct, the 90 mile an hour part. 19 MR. REIDER: And then he applied it to 40 mile per hour winds… 20 MR. CARPENTER: I don’t know exactly what he did, but we stayed focused on the 21 remand and did the 90…the ten year recurrence interval. The City of Fort Collins is in a special 22 wind region, and so just within the city limits we have 80, 85, and 90, and so, you know, I ended 23 up splitting the difference and going with 85. 24 MR. REIDER: And that 80, 85 and 90, are those design wind loads that you would 25 design a new building to today? 26 MR. CARPENTER: They would…design and analysis. 27 MR. REDIER: And so what happens at 40 mile per hour winds? 28 MR. CARPENTER: I didn’t run a 40 analysis. I have looked at this and gone back, and 29 sort of gone backwards, and I think the magic point is about 60 or 65 miles an hour. 30 MR. REIDER: So the magic point, 60 to 65… Attachment 2 45 1 MR. CARPENTER: I don’t have that calculation in my large notebook; I have all sorts of 2 calculations, but that’s my gut feeling. 3 MR. REIDER: So your recollection is, or your gut feeling is that at 60 to 65 mile per hour 4 winds, the structures would fail. 5 MR. CARPENTER: They start to get overstressed. 6 MR. REIDER: They get overstressed. 7 MR. CARPENTER: And at that point then, again, I come back to the subjective half of 8 the equation. And when I say these calculations show overstress, or might show overstress at 60 9 or 65 miles an hour, that’s making the assumption that we have a one inch effective width and 10 we have 2,000 psi concrete…I don’t think we have these, and that’s the reason I’m considering 11 both sides of this. There’s a lot of input and output here in this process, and so that’s where it 12 gets into a combination of the calculations and just leaning on some experience. 13 MR. REIDER: So let me see if I understand…that if the concrete in the base of…are we 14 talking about the stave silo right now? 15 MR. CARPENTER: Yes, sir…I’m assuming… 16 MR. REIDER: So the concrete in the base of the stave silo, if it’s of a certain psi and a 17 certain thickness, you believe it would be overstressed at 60 miles per hour. 18 MR. CARPENTER: Oh sure… 19 MR. REDIER: However, it seems like your concern is that it may not be that thick or 20 may not have that psi, and therefore it could be overstressed at even a lower wind. 21 MR. CARPENTER: That’s correct; and just fundamentally in these equations, the 22 concrete strength is a linear contributor, what’s left of the area is an exponential contributor. So, 23 as you go from just an inch to 9/10 of an inch, it makes a bit difference. You go down to 7/10 of 24 an inch, it makes an exponential difference. So that’s…that’s really the driver more…all of 25 these components go into this, but that’s the single biggest driver, is what’s left of the section. 26 MR. REIDER: And when you…when you design stuff, say a new silo, if you were to 27 design a new silo, you used the word overstressed and you used a term that seems to be, sort of, 28 stress plus right, 100% plus something… 29 MR. CARPENTER: Once it gets over 100%, I stand back and look at it and say, okay, 30 what’s happening? 31 MR. REIDER: Stressed? 32 MR. CARPENTER: Yes. Attachment 2 46 1 MR. REIDER: So, what would you design a new silo to…a hundred… 2 MR. CARPENTER: At that location, it would clearly be a risk category two because it’s 3 so close to the building, so we’d design for the 130 mile per hour wind. 4 MR. REIDER: Okay. So these being overstressed, that would be significant in 5 comparison to something that you would build new? You wouldn’t build a new silo to, say, the 6 standard of one hundred. If you’re telling me that they’re overstressed, and they’re 10% 7 overstressed, would a new structure be…do you design it to that hundred level so then design 8 winds, it wouldn’t be 101% overstressed? 9 MR. CARPENTER: For something new, we would go to the current code and use what 10 we interpret to be the right risk category. And that’s going all the way back to October when you 11 first looked at this. And, you know, not knowing the twists and turns that this was going to take, 12 we assumed a risk category two in our analysis. And we said that there’s a chance of imminent 13 failure when we did that. Now, we’ve gone through various hearings and back, and you know, 14 the threshold has come down and now we’re assigned this ten year reoccurrence interval. And I 15 believe that someone asked this question in October, or something similar to this, and they said, 16 well what wind speed would it start getting in trouble at? And I think my quote was something 17 approaching 130 because I hadn’t run all of these numbers; I knew that it was significantly 18 overstressed at 130, I suspected it was somewhere down here in the 90, 80 range, but had not run 19 the numbers. 20 MR. REIDER: And now it might be even lower? 21 MR. CARPENTER: But, again, I mean to run every one of these wind speeds is…it’s a 22 big task. 23 MR. REIDER: Have you…have you done anything between October 29 and today that 24 would cause you to say that you’ve determined the silos to be more dangerous than they were on 25 October 29? 26 MR. CARPENTER: Well, we go back through, you know, and certainly reexamine 27 things, look at, you know…just have people within our company look at it. It was nice to have 28 Martin Martin, you know, look at the calculations. And so that’s sort of reaffirming from that 29 standpoint. You know, I think getting a better handle on the buckling and looking at the various 30 ways that that occurs. I think…I don’t think…I certainly considered that when I wrote my first 31 report, but it’s evolved and I’ve considered it more since then. 32 MR. REIDER: And the cast-in-place, what wind speed concerns you with that structure? 33 MR. CARPENTER: So, I’m concerned at 90…or, I’m concerned at even less than 90, but 34 not because of the structure per se, because of the lack of contact between the structure and the 35 foundation. The structure above this four inch or six inch zone is better than the stave silo. I Attachment 2 47 1 think you guys are processing that correctly, in my opinion. But, there’s this missing link at the 2 bottom of that guy…it’s just not in contact with the foundation. And so, that’s just subjectively 3 the problem with that guy. 4 MR. REIDER: Anybody else? 5 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Thank you Mr. Carpenter. 6 MR. YATABE: Mr. Chair, I would suggest…it sounds like the questioning went a little 7 beyond the 40 mile an hour wind question, so, out of fairness, if Mr. Bennett has any response to 8 any of the additional topics, you might provide that opportunity. 9 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Sure, do you have any comments about that? Okay. 10 MR. REIDER: Well, what do you guys think? 11 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: One point that I will make here…it just was a thought about 12 the…small point. But I read the email from Ms. Lane from Martin and Martin that reviewed the 13 calculations from JVA. Although she said she agrees that the silo structures could fail at 85 to 14 90 mile per hour, I read above…she reviewed them in a brief and general manner, the report and 15 calculations, and did not perform any of their own calculations. And so, that could be anything. 16 And I have a hard time just saying that, you flip through and it’s the right procedures, but 17 without doing your own calculations, I have a hard time stating that Martin and Martin would 18 have the same valid opinion that these two engineers would have. 19 MR. REIDER: And you are an engineer. 20 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: I’m not a structural engineer. Do we have any motions that 21 anybody wants to try to craft here? And, if and when we do so, or I should say when we do so, 22 we want to try to put the finding of fact within that motion, if we can. 23 MR. REDIER: Well, I don’t have a motion yet, but I…as I stated, I do think we got it right on the 29 th 24 , and I think there’s some new information. The wind speeds are lower; I do recall thinking about 130 mile per hour winds on the 29 th 25 , and I remember thinking to myself that 26 my very office, which is a barn on my property, would probably disappear in 130 mile per hour 27 winds. So, I thought a lot of things in town would fall apart. In these lower wind speeds, and 28 given the condition of the silos, I wouldn’t have a problem walking around them today. But if I 29 think of that in terms of ten years, then it does concern me. And again, I realize…I know a lot of 30 people have some strong opinion about this. For me, we’re looking at a very tiny slice of this 31 pie, and other people have the opportunity to make a decision on this. Ours is just strictly, did 32 Mike Gebo get it right. And I think Mike Gebo interpreted the Code correctly; I take no 33 exception to Mike’s interpretation of the Code, how he explained it to us. I think he went above 34 and beyond. I think he hired an independent engineer, I think he was very diligent in trying to Attachment 2 48 1 make a good decision and I think Mike did. I think what could change it for me is the ten year 2 timeframe. 3 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: So, Rick, just to understand the…not the implications, 4 but…is that going to then be, you know, thinking about another structure, is our ten year window 5 going to be our threshold for determining imminent on future structures? Because you mention 6 your barn…would it also fail under a 90 mile an hour potentially? 7 MR. REIDER: I’m not sure I’d want to be in it…and I… 8 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: That’s what I’m saying…is that at a point where it’s so 9 imminent that you don’t want to be around it, is it dangerous…you know…I’m picking on your 10 barn, but that’s any structure in town. 11 MR. REIDER: No, no, no…I think that’s a good question, and I think I would stand 12 behind Mike Gebo’s decision on dangerous versus imminent. I think he got it right. I think we 13 got it right on October 29. I think, though, when you put ten years into it, that’s where I really 14 struggle with it. So…and I don’t think that we are setting any kind of precedent, and I don’t 15 think that a future discussion about dangerous or imminent would necessarily apply unless City 16 Council said to us, consider it as a ten year event and not, as Mr. Gebo determined, the definition 17 between dangerous and imminent. So I think if we heard these cases all the time, I’d say Mr. 18 Gebo got it right. If this unique case came up where City Council remanded it and said look at it 19 over a ten year timeframe, then I think it could be different…a different decision by us. 20 MR. JOHNSON: Well, and to be clear, you’re…because Mike also ruled on the ten year 21 window, which is what…part of why we’re back here. And you’re saying that he got it right for 22 the previous ruling, and your question is now, we’re just looking at this ten year window, and is 23 Mike still falling in that same category. Just to be clear for the record. 24 MR. REIDER: Yeah, thank you. No, I didn’t consider that when I made my statement. I 25 was thinking he got it right with his definition of imminent versus dangerous, and I think if you 26 look at a ten year window, I would say then maybe he got it wrong. 27 MR. JOHNSON: Right, that’s where you’re dancing on… 28 MR. REIDER: Yep, thank you for that clarification. 29 MS. DUNLAP: I’m back on Justin’s thought about, has there been significant 30 deterioration on the building and since some of these folks have been back out there, is there 31 something really actively going on? 32 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: You know, to be honest with you, from my perspective…I’m 33 considering what you’re saying, Rick, and I think that if we were to have a motion to overturn, I 34 would certainly be only willing to do that on the stave silo because I just didn’t hear the evidence Attachment 2 49 1 otherwise. But I’m struggling with both, to be honest with you. To overturn that…the imminent 2 part…I didn’t hear…I guess I’m having a hard time thinking of the ten year window versus the 3 imminent. I don’t think that the ten year says that that is imminent, even though it was directed 4 to look at that ten year event, I don’t draw the correlation that that means that that is imminent, if 5 the calculations show that that is…so I think we have to determine ourselves what that imminent 6 still is, even with the information of the ten year event. 7 MR. REIDER: And I agree with the struggle between the stave and the cast-in-place. I 8 think they are somewhat different. Are you saying you might agree that one is imminent and the 9 other one is dangerous? 10 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Honestly, for me, I’m struggling on both. But, the one…the 11 only one I would consider at this point would be the stave, if we determine that through further 12 discussion I guess. Any other thoughts for you guys on that? I mean, is there… 13 MR. MARZONIE: I agree the stave is a little shakier ground than the cast-in-place. But I 14 don’t know, with the evidence that we have, if that’s enough to delay a decision or if it’s 15 something that we’d want to look at today. It goes back to the imminent and dangerous issue, 16 and with the evidence today…both sides gave great evidence of what they think is there and 17 what we have to look at. But I think that the condition they’re in…just the fact they’re 18 dangerous means they’re being, you know, fenced off and having to be protected. What is the 19 next step if they are decided to be not imminent, then what happens from there I guess would be 20 a concern. You know, do they fence off and never get used again? Do they get fenced off and 21 repaired? I know that there was a directive…that was the option for them to do, to do some 22 corrections to them. 23 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: As I understand it, that is the directive…it’s not an option, 24 that they must shore it up and make it safe. 25 MR. YATABE: Mr. Chair, if I could just chime in on that topic. I think the particular 26 consequences of your decision are not really necessarily relevant in making your decision…in 27 making your decision as to whether you find them dangerous or imminent and what may or may 28 not happen to the silos. So, I do agree, I think that slice of the pie is pretty narrow in terms of the 29 relevance for your consideration. 30 MR. JOHNSON: I guess for me, a lot of it…I mean, it really comes down to a probability 31 piece for me. And I think wind was determined by both Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Bennett as that’s, 32 of all the potential outcomes, that’s the most likely thing that would occur that would cause a 33 failure event. And I think, you know, it speaks to the fact that you could look at hail, snow, rain, 34 all these other things, seismic, and an event could occur that would cause a problem, but the 35 probability is so low that everybody just looks at that and says, alright those are off the table 36 because they’re not feasible. You know…it could happen…that still is something that could 37 happen tomorrow, but it’s so improbable that we’re not looking at it. So, we then start to talk Attachment 2 50 1 with wind, at what…what’s the threshold of probability at which point we’re calling it 2 imminent? And, you know, yes the structures have their dangers, yes they have their, you 3 know…it would have been interesting to see a video of the 40 mile an hour wind gusts a few 4 weeks ago of what’s happening, is something occurring? But, it still comes down to, in my 5 mind, a probability question of…even if there is that probability, and even if it does happen, it 6 still may not cause failure. And that’s just…that’s why, for me at least, where I’m really able to 7 look at a black and white imminent versus dangerous mindset…it’s…we’re still talking about 8 chance, we’re not talking about, it’s going to happen. You know, eventually, if they stand as 9 they are right now for another hundred years, they will eventually fall down in some way, shape 10 or form, whether it’s from deterioration, wind, whatever else. But, it’s…it’s always a chance 11 piece and a probability piece, and that’s why I…to call it ‘at any time’ or to call it imminent, for 12 me, is not…I can’t do that because it’s, you know, because arguably there could be a, you know, 13 seventeen foot snowstorm and knock them down too. 14 MR. REIDER: Well, so, what I’m somewhat hearing you say is that the…I want to call 15 them the claimant…but Woodward in this case, really has not proven their appeal to you. The 16 evidence that they’ve presented, the new evidence, hasn’t really proven the case. And then, I 17 guess I’m also hearing from you that within that ten year timeframe that I’ve sort of condensed 18 into my 30 seconds and said, would I stand there. You’re looking at that as a probability and 19 your sense of that probability is that it’s less likely than likely. 20 MR. JOHNSON: It’s less likely than imminent I think is what I would…or ‘at any time’ 21 is what I would refer to it as. Because it could happen…but it’s just not…to go to that definition 22 of imminent feels too far on that probability piece for me. There is an imminent danger as noted 23 in the dangerous definition in the IPMC, but it’s not an ‘at any time’ in my mind. 24 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Do you want to draft a motion? 25 MR. JOHNSON: I want to know where Rick lands. 26 MR. REIDER: I’m thinking about all your comments and I…my sense is that Woodward 27 did a fine job, but they maybe didn’t push it over the line. But I could find in their favor given 28 the ten year period of time that, you know, Council suggested in the remand. And I’ve listened 29 to many experts over time, and they never agree if they’re on opposing sides. And frankly, you 30 often find experts that agree with you before you really engage them, or you make sure that they 31 do agree with you before you engage them. So I’m not surprised that the experts somewhat 32 disagree. They’re very cordial and they’ve been very helpful to each other and most respectful, 33 so listening to them has, you know, been easy and pleasurable frankly. 34 Yeah, I struggle with the ten years, but I get your argument that…well, let me back up. I 35 understand what Justin is saying; I think there is a difference between these structures. And I get 36 your argument that the probability…you’re looking at it a little bit different than me with that 37 imminent component of…within the ten year probability. So, I’m not…I don’t think any of us is Attachment 2 51 1 too far afield of the other. I think we’re very close to the middle on this darn thing with the two 2 of us being a percentage point off, at the most. So… 3 And again, I think we’re looking at just a tiny little piece of the…we get one piece of a 4 500 piece puzzle to consider. I’m a little stuck on the ten years though. I don’t think I would…if 5 I condense that into 30 seconds, I wouldn’t stand under them. 6 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Do we want to draft a motion to that and see where we land 7 on our vote? 8 MS. DUNLAP: Okay, I’ll try it. After considering the remand to look at the event in a 9 one in ten year probability, we the Board still uphold the Chief Building 10 Superintendent’s…Officer’s position that the buildings are dangerous, but not proven to be 11 imminently dangerous. 12 MR. MARZONIE: I’ll second. 13 MR. YATABE: And just for that motion, we’ll just note that as the Chief Building 14 Official. 15 MR. REIDER: So, discussion, right? Andrea, do you…are you… 16 MR. YATABE: And if there were any findings of fact that you wanted to add, now 17 would be the time, before discussion. And if not, that’s fine…you can move forward on it. 18 MR. REIDER: Yeah, do you want to do that first or do you want to answer my question? 19 MS. DUNLAP: I don’t know what your question is. 20 MR. REIDER: Are you looking at both silos as the same in your decision? 21 MS. DUNLAP: Yes. 22 MR. REIDER: So you don’t split the hair between the stave silo and the… 23 MS. DUNLAP: No, I agree that the stave is in worse condition, but, no I’m not spitting 24 them. 25 MR. REIDER: And so I think…I think Brad was asking if you have a finding of fact to 26 add to your… 27 MR. YATABE: If you do have any particular findings of fact, you can add them now. If 28 you don’t have any particular findings of fact, the motion has been made. 29 MS. DUNLAP: Okay, it’s made. 30 MR. YATABE: Okay, it’s made a seconded. Attachment 2 52 1 MR. MARZONIE: I will second the motion. 2 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Call for a vote or do we have more discussion? 3 MR. JOHNSON: The only question I have is do we want to add the IMPC Code piece to 4 it as a finding of fact to that to help clear it up a little bit? And if that’s the case, I think it could 5 be added as…sorry I’ve got to find the right paperwork here. 6 MR. REIDER: Are you looking for the 14-71(b)…are you talking about that? 7 MR. JOHNSON: I’m talking about the definitions that were in the Section 108.1.5, 8 dangerous structure or premises. 9 MS. DUNLAP: Okay. 10 MR. JOHNSON: From Mike’s… 11 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Do you have that Andrea? 12 MS. DUNLAP: So, I’m not sure where to go with that, honestly. Under… 13 MR. JOHNSON: More I think it’s that the information presented today would…would 14 define the structures as dangerous per that Code, as opposed to imminently dangerous. 15 MS. DUNLAP: So, under the Section 108.1.5, dangerous structure or premises, we find 16 the two silos dangerous, but not imminently dangerous as under the Chapter 2 definition. 17 MR. JOHNSON: I second that. 18 MR. YATABE: No, that’s fine…unless somebody has disagreement to that finding being 19 added to it, and the second. If you have an issue with it, we can discuss it; otherwise, I would 20 just consider…that to be the motion with that finding and with the second. But, again, if anyone 21 has concern over that, they can voice it now. Okay, motion is made, seconded, discussion or a 22 vote? 23 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Any other discussion? 24 MR. MARZONIE: I second. 25 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Alright, I guess we’ll call for a vote. 26 MS. LISA OLSON: Marzonie? 27 MR. MARZONIE: Yes. 28 MS. OLSON: Johnson? Attachment 2 53 1 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 2 MS. OLSON: Montgomery? 3 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Yes. 4 MS. OLSON: Reider? 5 MR. REDIER: Yes. 6 MS. OLSON: Dunlap? 7 MS. DUNLAP: Yes. 8 CHAIR MONTGOMERY: Okay, the motion passes. And that is all we have for today so 9 we’ll call the end of the Building Review Board meeting at 4:49. Thank you. Attachment 2 Attachment 3 - 1 - Sec. 5-27. Amendments and deletions to code. The 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE adopted herein is hereby amended in the following respects: (1) Section 101. Title is hereby amended to read as follows: “101.1. Title. “These regulations shall be known as the General Building Code of the City of Fort Collins, hereinafter referred to as ‘this code’.” (2) Section 101.4.1 through 101.4.10 Referenced codes, is amended to read as follows: [A] 101.4.1 Gas. The provisions of the International Fuel Gas Code shall apply to the installation of gas piping from the point of delivery, gas appliances and related accessories as covered in this code. These requirements apply to gas piping systems extending from the point of delivery to the inlet connections of appliances and the installation and operation of residential and commercial gas appliances and related accessories. [A] 101.4.2 Mechanical. The provisions of the International Mechanical Code shall apply to the installation, alterations, repairs and replacement of mechanical systems, including equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and/or appurtenances, including ventilating, heating, cooling, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems, incinerators and other energy- related systems. [A] 101.4.3 Plumbing. The provisions of the International Plumbing Code shall apply to the installation, alteration, repair and replacement of plumbing systems, including equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances, and where connected to a water or sewage system and all aspects of a medical gas system. The provisions of the International Private Sewage Disposal Code shall apply to private sewage disposal systems. [A] 101.4.4 Property maintenance. The provisions of the International Property Maintenance Code shall apply to existing structures and premises; equipment and facilities; light, ventilation, space heating, sanitation, life and fire safety hazards; responsibilities of owners, operators and occupants; and occupancy of existing premises and structures. [A] 101.4.5 Fire prevention. The provisions of the International Fire Code shall apply to matters affecting or relating to structures, processes and premises from the hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices; from conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises; and from the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of fire suppression, automatic sprinkler systems and alarm systems or fire hazards in the structure or on the premises from occupancy or operation. [A] 101.4.6 Energy. The provisions of the International Energy Conservation Code shall apply to all matters governing the design and construction of buildings for energy efficiency. Attachment 3 - 2 - [A] 101.4.7 Existing buildings. The provisions of the International Existing Building Code shall apply to matters governing the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and relocation of existing buildings. “101.4.1 Electrical. All references to the Electrical Code shall mean the electrical code currently in effect as enacted by the State of Colorado. 101.4.2 Gas. All references to the International Fuel Gas Code shall mean the fuel gas code currently in effect as enacted by the City. 101.4.3 Mechanical. All references to the International Mechanical Code shall mean the mechanical code currently in effect as enacted by the City. 101.4.4 Plumbing. All references to the International Plumbing Code shall mean the plumbing code currently in effect as enacted by the State of Colorado. 101.4.5 Property Maintenance. All references to the International Property Maintenance Code shall mean the property maintenance code currently in effect as enacted by the City. 101.4.6 Fire Prevention. All references to the International Fire Code shall mean the fire code currently in effect as enacted by the City. 101.4.7 Energy. All references to the International Energy Conservation Code shall mean the energy code currently in effect as enacted by the City. 101.4.8 Residential. All references to the International Residential Code shall mean the residential code currently in effect as enacted by the City. 101.4.9 Areas prone to flooding. All references to ‘flood hazard’ and ‘areas prone to flooding’ in this code and appendices adopted therewith shall be as specified in the City Code, “Chapter 10, Flood Prevention and Protection.” 101.4.10 Existing buildings. All references to existing buildings may be regulated pursuant to the 2012 IBC Chapter 34 titled “Existing Buildings and Structures” previously adopted by the City of Fort Collins and no longer a chapter in this code. Note: may want to reference other codes such as swimming pool which are not specifically adopted? (3) Section 103 Department of Building Safety is amended in its entirety to read as follows: SECTION 103 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SAFETY [A] 103.1 Creation of enforcement agency. The Department of Building Safety is hereby created and the official in charge thereof shall be known as the building official. Attachment 3 - 3 - [A] 103.2 Appointment. The building official shall be appointed by the chief appointing authority of the jurisdiction. [A] 103.3 Deputies. In accordance with the prescribed procedures of this jurisdiction and with the concurrence of the appointing authority, the building official shall have the authority to appoint a deputy building official, the related technical officers, inspectors, plan examiners and other employees. Such employees shall have powers as delegated by the building official. For the maintenance of existing properties, see the International Property Maintenance Code. “SECTION 103 CODE ADMINISTRATION 103.1 Entity charged with code administration. The Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department (CDNS), as established by the City Code, is hereby charged with the administration and enforcement of this code. The building official, appointed by the City Manager, is charged with the direct overall administration and enforcement of this code; and, in the performance of said duties, may delegate the necessary authority to the appropriate technical, administrative, and compliance staff under the supervision the building official.” (4) Section 105.2 Work exempt from permit, under the heading of “Building” is amended or added to read as follows: “Building: 1 One-story, detached, accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, for lawn and garden equipment storage, tool storage and similar uses, including arbors, pergolas, and similar structures, provided the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11.15 m 2 ) or 8 feet (2.438 m) in height measured from grade, do not house flammable liquids in quantities exceeding 10 gallons (38 l) per building and are located at least 3 feet (0.914 m) from an adjoining property line or are constructed entirely of non- combustible materials if located less than 3 feet to the adjoining property line. 2. Fences not over 7 feet (2134 mm) 6 feet (1829 mm) high. 3. Oil derricks 4. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing low side grade to the top of the wall, provided the horizontal distance to the next uphill retaining wall is at least equal to the total height of the lower retaining wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IIIA liquids. 5. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18,927 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1. Attachment 3 - 4 - 6. Platforms intended for human occupancy or walking, sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade, and not over any basement window or story below and are not part of an accessible route. 7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work. 8. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 9. Prefabricated and portable swimming pools accessory to a Group R-3 occupancy that are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep, are not greater than 5,000 gallons (18 925 L) and are installed entirely above ground. or wading pools, hot tubs or spas if such structures are supported directly upon grade when the walls of such structure are entirely above grade and if such structures cannot contain water more than 24 inches (610 mm) deep. 10. Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes, not including service systems. Hoop houses constructed with a flexible frame such as PVC tubing used for starting plants 11. Swings and other playground equipment or play structures accessory to detached one- and two-family dwellings provided the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11.15 m 2 ) or 8 feet (2.438 m) in height measured from grade, including one elevated playhouse per lot designed, and used exclusively for play. Elevated play houses or play structures shall not exceed 64 square feet (5.9 m2) of floor area or 6 feet (1.82 m) in height as measured from the floor to the highest point of such structure. 12. Window awnings in Group R-3 and U occupancies, supported by an exterior wall which do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall, do not require additional support, and do not extend over the public right of way. Window replacement requiring no structural alteration. Window replacement requiring no change in the window configuration which reduces the size of the window clear opening. Window replacement when such work is determined not to be historically significant. Storm window, storm door and rain gutter installation. 13. Non-fixed and movable fixtures, cases, racks, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches (1753 mm) in height. 14. Decks not exceeding 200 square feet (18.58 m2) in area that are not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade at any point, are not attached to a building, and do not serve an exit door required by Chapter 10. 15. Roofing repair or replacement work not exceeding one square (100 square feet) of covering per building. 16. Replacement of nonstructural siding when the removal of siding is performed in accordance with State laws regarding asbestos and lead paint. Attachment 3 - 5 - 17. Minor work valued at less than $500 when such minor work does not involve alteration of structural components, fire-rated assemblies, plumbing, electrical, mechanical or fire- extinguishing systems. 18. Decorative ponds, fountains and pools which cannot contain water more than 24 inches (610 mm) deep. (5) Section 105.2 Work exempt from permit, is further amended by deleting all headings and references under Electrical, Gas, Mechanical, and Plumbing. Electrical: Repairs and maintenance: Minor repair work, including the replacement of lamps or the connection of approved portable electrical equipment to approved permanently installed receptacles. Radio and television transmitting stations: The provisions of this code shall not apply to electrical equipment used for radio and television transmissions, but do apply to equipment and wiring for a power supply and the installations of towers and antennas. Temporary testing systems: A permit shall not be required for the installation of any temporary system required for the testing or servicing of electrical equipment or apparatus. Gas: 1. Portable heating appliance. 2. Replacement of any minor part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such equipment unsafe. Mechanical: 1. Portable heating appliance. 2. Portable ventilation equipment. 3. Portable cooling unit. 4. Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by this code. 5. Replacement of any part that does not alter its approval or make it unsafe. 6. Portable evaporative cooler. Attachment 3 - 6 - 7. Self-contained refrigeration system containing 10 pounds (4.54 kg) or less of refrigerant and actuated by motors of 1 horsepower (0.75 kW) or less. Plumbing: 1. The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided, however, that if any concealed trap, drain pipe, water, soil, waste or vent pipe becomes defective and it becomes necessary to remove and replace the same with new material, such work shall be considered as new work and a permit shall be obtained and inspection made as provided in this code. 2. The clearing of stoppages or the repairing of leaks in pipes, valves or fixtures and the removal and reinstallation of water closets, provided such repairs do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves, pipes or fixtures. (6) Section 105.3.2 Time limitation of application is hereby amended to read as follows: 105.3.2 Time limitation of application An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except that the building official is authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 180 days each provided the application has not expired and is considered an active application. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Applications which have expired for 30 days or more will be considered as null and void and all plans discarded. (7) Section 105.5 Expiration is hereby amended by adding a second paragraph to read as follows: Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each, provided the permit has not expired for more than 30 days. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. “Both prior to and subsequent to the effective date of this code, any work authorized by a permit regulated by this code or any other building construction code administered by the building official that involves the construction or alteration of an exterior building component, assembly or finish material, such as the foundation, wall and roof framing, sheathing, siding, fenestration, and roof covering, shall be fully finished for permanent outdoor exposure within 24 months of the date of the issuance of such permit. regardless of when the permit was issued. ” (7) Section 105.8 Transfer of permits, is added to read as follows: Attachment 3 - 7 - “105.8 Transfer of permits. A current valid building permit may be transferred from one party to another upon written application to the building official. When any changes are made to the original plans and specifications that substantially differ from the plans submitted with the permit, as determined by the building official, a new plan review fee shall be paid as calculated in accordance with Section 109. A fee of $50 shall be paid to cover administrative costs for all building permit transfers. No change shall be made in the expiration date of the original permit.” (6) Section 106 Floor and Roof Design Loads is amended by deleting sections 106.1, 106.2 and 106.3 SECTION 106 FLOOR AND ROOF DESIGN LOADS [A] 106.1 Live loads posted. In commercial or industrial buildings, for each floor or portion thereof designed for live loads exceeding 50 psf (2.40 kN/m2), such design live loads shall be conspicuously posted by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent in that part of each story in which they apply, using durable signs. It shall be unlawful to remove or deface such notices. [A] 106.2 Issuance of certificate of occupancy. A certificate of occupancy required by Section 111 shall not be issued until the floor load signs, required by Section 106.1, have been installed. [A] 106.3 Restrictions on loading. It shall be unlawful to place, or cause or permit to be placed, on any floor or roof of a building, structure or portion thereof, a load greater than is permitted by this code. (8) Section 107.3.1 Approval of construction documents, is hereby amended to read as; “107.3.1 Approval of construction documents. When the building official issues a permit, the construction documents shall be approved in writing or by a stamp which states “REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE”. One set of construction documents so reviewed shall be retained by the building official. The other set shall be returned to the applicant, shall be kept at the site of work and shall be open to inspection by the building official or his or her authorized representative.” (9) Section 108 Temporary Structures and Uses is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 108 TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES [A] 108.1 General. The building official is authorized to issue a permit for temporary structures and temporary uses. Such permits shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than 180 days. The building official is authorized to grant extensions for demonstrated cause. Attachment 3 - 8 - [A] 108.2 Conformance. Temporary structures and uses shall conform to the structural strength, fire safety, means of egress, accessibility, light, ventilation and sanitary requirements of this code as necessary to ensure public health, safety and general welfare. [A] 108.3 Temporary power. The building official is authorized to give permission to temporarily supply and use power in part of an electric installation before such installation has been fully completed and the final certificate of completion has been issued. The part covered by the temporary certificate shall comply with the requirements specified for temporary lighting, heat or power in NFPA 70. [A] 108.4 Termination of approval. The building official is authorized to terminate such permit for a temporary structure or use and to order the temporary structure or use to be discontinued. (10) Section 109, FEES, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: [A] 109.1 Payment of fees. A permit shall not be valid until the fees prescribed by law have been paid, nor shall an amendment to a permit be released until the additional fee, if any, has been paid. [A] 109.2 Schedule of permit fees. On buildings, structures, electrical, gas, mechanical, and plumbing systems or alterations requiring a permit, a fee for each permit shall be paid as required, in accordance with the schedule as established by the applicable governing authority. [A] 109.3 Building permit valuations. The applicant for a permit shall provide an estimated permit value at time of application. Permit valuations shall include total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems. If, in the opinion of the building official, the valuation is underestimated on the application, the permit shall be denied, unless the applicant can show detailed estimates to meet the approval of the building official. Final building permit valuation shall be set by the building official. [A] 109.4 Work commencing before permit issuance. Any person who commences any work on a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a fee established by the building official that shall be in addition to the required permit fees. [A] 109.5 Related fees. The payment of the fee for the construction, alteration, removal or demolition for work done in connection to or concurrently with the work authorized by a building permit shall not relieve the applicant or holder of the permit from the payment of other fees that are prescribed by law. [A] 109.6 Refunds. The building official is authorized to establish a refund policy. SECTION 109 FEES “109.1 Payment of fees. No permit shall be valid until the fees prescribed by the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 7.5, Article I of the City Code, entitled, ‘Administrative Fees’, have been paid. Attachment 3 - 9 - 109.2 Related fees. The payment of the fee for the construction, alteration, removal or demolition for work done in connection with or concurrently with the work authorized by a building permit shall not relieve the applicant or holder of the permit from the payment of other fees that are prescribed by law. 109.3 Fee refunds. Any fee paid hereunder that is erroneously paid or collected shall be refunded. The building official may authorize the refunding of 100 percent of a plan review fee or building permit fee to the applicant who paid such fee provided the plan review is withdrawn or cancelled and the plan review and/or work authorized under a permit issued in accordance with this code has not commenced; and further provided that such plan review or permit is valid and not expired as set forth in Section 105.5. Prior to authorizing the refunding of any fee paid to the original applicant or permitee, a written request from such party must be submitted to the City within 180 days of the date of the fee payment.” Section 110.3 Required inspections is hereby amended to read as follows: 110.3 Required inspections The building official, upon notification, shall make or shall cause to be made the inspections set forth in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.10. Section 111.2 Certificate issued is hereby amended by deleting items numbered 10, 12 After the building official inspects the building or structure and does not find violations of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following: 1. The building permit number. 2. The address of the structure. 3. The name and address of the owner or the owner’s authorized agent. 4. A description of that portion of the structure for which the certificate is issued. 5. A statement that the described portion of the structure has been inspected for compliance with the requirements of this code for the occupancy and division of occupancy and the use for which the proposed occupancy is classified. 6. The name of the building official. 7. The edition of the code under which the permit was issued. 8. The use and occupancy, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3. 9. The type of construction as defined in Chapter 6. 10. The design occupant load. 11. If an automatic sprinkler system is provided, whether the sprinkler system is required. 12. Any special stipulations and conditions of the building permit. (11) Section 113, Board of Appeals, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: SECTION 113 BOARD OF APPEALS [A] 113.1 General. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall Attachment 3 - 10 - be appointed by the applicable governing governing authority and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business. [A] 113.2 Limitations on authority. An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code. [A] 113.3 Qualifications. The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and are not employees of the jurisdiction. “SECTION 113 BOARD OF APPEALS 113.1 General. The Building Review Board (hereafter "Board") established in Section 2- 117 of the City Code is hereby empowered in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section and as authorized under Section 2-119 of the City Code to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code; to determine the suitability of alternative materials or alternative methods of construction; and to grant permit extensions and reinstatements as prescribed by Section 105.5. The building official shall serve as the Secretary of the Board. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing. 113.2 Applications/Hearings. When a building permit applicant or a holder of a building permit desires relief from any decision of the building official related to the enforcement of this code, except as is otherwise limited in Section 113.4, such building permit applicant, building permit holder, or representative thereof may appeal the decision of the building official to the Board, stating that such decision by the building official was based on an erroneous interpretation of the building regulations or that an alternative design, alternative materials and/or the alternative methods of construction proposed by the appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code, considering structural strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and any other pertinent factors. The Board shall hear and decide all appeals made to it and shall have the authority to rule in favor of the appellant when the Board determines that the interpretation of the building regulations of the City by the building official was erroneous, or when the Board determines an alternative design, alternative materials and/or the alternative methods proposed by the appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code, considering structural strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and any other pertinent factors. The Board shall require that sufficient evidence be submitted to substantiate any claims made regarding the proposed alternative design, alternative materials and/or alternative methods of construction. A quorum of 4 members shall be necessary for any meeting of the Board. 113.3 Fees and Notification. Persons desiring to appeal to the Board any decision of the building official as provided in this section shall, at the time of filing such appeal, pay to Attachment 3 - 11 - the City a filing fee in the amount of $50. Written notice of hearings shall be given to the Appellant and, with respect to requests for exceptions or variances to Section 1101.1 of this code, to the secretary to the Commission on Disability, at least 4 days prior to the hearing by mailing the same to such party's last known address by regular U.S. mail. 113.4 Limitations. The Building Review Board shall have no authority with respect to any of the following functions: 1. The administration of this code except as expressly provided otherwise; 2. Waiving requirements of this code, except as provided in this section; 3. Modifying the applicable provisions of, or granting variances to, this code, or approving the use of alternative designs, alternative materials and/or alternative methods of construction except as provided for in this section and based upon a specific appeal from a determination or decision of the building official on an individual case basis; and 4. Modifying, interpreting, or ruling on the applicability or intent of the zoning and land use regulations or other laws of the City except as expressly empowered otherwise.” (12) Section 114.4, Violation penalties is amended to read as follows: “114.4 Violation penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the building official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by law. shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the penalties and fines specified in Section 1-15 of the City Code.” (13) Section 114.5 Work commencing before permit issuance, is added to read as follows: “114.5 Work commencing before permit issuance. In addition to the penalties set forth in 114.4, any person or firm who, before obtaining the necessary permit(s), commences any construction of, or work on, a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system that is not otherwise exempted from obtaining a permit, shall be subject to a fine in addition to the standard prescribed permit fee. Said fine shall be equal in amount to the permit fee, except that it shall not be less than $50 nor more than $1,000 for the first such violation. A person or firm committing the same such violation repeatedly shall be subject to a fine equal to double the amount of the permit fee or double the amount of the fee imposed for the preceding violation, whichever is greater, for every such subsequent violation committed within 180 days of a previous violation. Said fines may be appealed to the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code.” (14) Section 202, DEFINITIONS, terms are hereby amended or added in alphabetical sequence in the following respects: “COMMISSIONING. A process to verify and document that the selected building and systems have been designed, installed, and function in accordance with the construction documents, manufacturers’ specifications, and minimum code requirements. Attachment 3 - 12 - DWELLING. Shall mean a building used exclusively for residential occupancy and for permitted accessory uses, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings. , and which contains: (a) a minimum of 800 square feet of floor area, or (b) in the case of a dwelling to be constructed on the rear portion of a lot in the L- M-N, M-M-N, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C-B, C-C-N, C-C-R, H-C or E zone districts, a minimum of 400 square feet of floor area, so long as a dwelling already exists on the front portion of such lot. The term dwelling shall not include hotels, motels, homeless shelters, seasonal overflow shelters tents or other structures designed or used primarily for temporary occupancy. Any dwelling shall be deemed to be a principal building. DWELLING UNIT. Shall mean one or more rooms and a single kitchen and at least 1 bathroom, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate quarters for the exclusive use of a single family for living, cooking and sanitary purposes, located in a single-family, two-family or multi-family dwelling or mixed-use building. FAMILY. Shall mean any number of persons who are all related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, and who live together as a single housekeeping unit and share common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. FIRE CONTAINMENT AREA. A portion of a story or basement which is totally enclosed by not less than one-hour fire-resistive construction and, as prescribed in Section 709 entitled Fire Partitions and in Section 710 entitled Smoke Barriers. Openings other than doors and ducts shall be protected as specified in Section 715.5 and shall be limited to a maximum of 25 percent of any one wall. Self-closing devices may be used in place of automatic closing devices on doors unlikely to be fixed open during normal conditions. Examples are doors at toilet rooms, closets and small storage rooms and similar areas. GRADE (ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATION). The lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk between the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than 5 feet (1.524 m) from the building, between the building and a line 5 feet (1.524 m) from the building. ROOM, SLEEPING (BEDROOM). A habitable room within a dwelling or other housing unit designed primarily for the purpose of sleeping. The presence of a bed, cot, mattress, convertible sofa or other similar furnishing used for sleeping purposes shall be prima facie evidence that such space or room is a sleeping room. The presence of closets or similar storage facilities shall not be considered relevant factors in determining whether or not a room is a sleeping room. TOWNHOUSE. A single-family dwelling unit constructed as part of a group of three two or more attached individual dwelling units, in which each unit extends from the foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides. each of which is separated from the other from the foundation to the roof and is located entirely on a separately recorded and platted Attachment 3 - 13 - parcel of land (site) bounded by property lines, which parcel is deeded exclusively for such single-family dwelling. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC): Any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. VOCs include a variety of chemicals, some of which may have short-and long-term adverse health effects emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids.” (15) Section 419.1General is amended to read as follows: 419.1 General. A live/work unit shall comply with Sections 419.1 through 419.9. Exception: Dwelling or sleeping units that include an office that is less than 10 percent 20 percent of the area of the dwelling unit are permitted to be classified as dwelling units with accessory occupancies in accordance with Section 508.2. (16) Section 501.3 Premises Identification is hereby added to read as follows: “501.3 Premises Identification During Construction. The approved permit number and street address number shall be displayed and be plainly visible and legible from the public street or road fronting the property on which any building is being constructed or remodeled.” (17) Section 505.2.1 Area Limitation is amended by adding a new exception number 3 to read as follows: “3. Within individual dwelling units of Group R occupancies, the maximum aggregate area of a mezzanine may be equal to one-half of the area of the room in which it is located, without being considered an additional story. The mezzanine may be closed to the room in which it is located as long as exits from the mezzanine are in conformance with Section 505.2.2.” (18) Section 705.3 Buildings on the same lot is amended by adding a third paragraph to read as follows: “Lines or walls which are established solely to delineate individual portions of a building or of a planned unit development (PUD) need not be considered as property lines for the purposes of this code, provided that such building is entirely located on property which is under common ownership and further provided that required distances, set forth in Section 503.1.2 for assumed property lines between buildings located on the same property, are maintained.” (19) Table 903.1 Maximum Allowable Fire-Containment Area is added as follows: Attachment 3 - 14 - “TABLE 903.1 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIRE-CONTAINMENT AREA (IN SQUARE FEET) Types of Construction Occupancy I A I B II A II B III A III B IV-HT VA VB A1 10,000 10,000 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP A2, 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 A3, 4 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 B, F1, S1, S2 M, U 10,000 10,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 7,000 5,000 F2 20,000 20,000 10,000 7,000 10,000 7,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 E 10,000 10,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 7,000 5,000 NP = Not Permitted Exception: S2 Open parking garages in accordance with Section 406.5” (20) Section 903.2 Where required, is amended by adding an exception number 2 to read as follows: “2. Except for Group R Occupancies, an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all buildings which are not divided into fire containment areas as specified in Table 903.1.” Section 903.2.1.1 Group A-1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.2.1.1 Group A-1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for fire areas containing Group A-1 occupancies and intervening floors of the building where one of the following conditions exists: 1. The fire area exceeds 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5 m2). 2. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more. 3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies. 4. The fire area contains a multitheater complex. Section 903.2.1.3 Group A-3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Attachment 3 - 15 - 903.2.1.3 Group A-3. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for fire areas containing Group A-3 occupancies and intervening floors of the building where one of the following conditions exists: 1. The fire area exceeds 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5 m 2 ). 2. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more. 3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge s such occupancies. Section 903.2.1.4 Group A-4 is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.2.1.4 Group A-4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for fire areas containing Group A-4 occupancies and intervening floors of the building where one of the following conditions exists: 1. The fire area exceeds 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5 m 2 ). 2. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more. 3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies. Section 903.2.1.8 Group B is hereby added to read as follows: 903.2.1.8 Group B. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for fire areas containing Group B occupancies when the fire area exceeds 5000 square feet (464.5 m 2 ). Section 903.2.3 Group E is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.2.3 Group E. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group E occupancies as follows: 1. Throughout all Group E fire areas greater than 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5m 2 ) in area. 2. Throughout every portion of educational buildings below the lowest level of exit discharge serving that portion of the building. Exception: An automatic sprinkler system is not required in any area below the lowest level of exit discharge serving that area where every classroom throughout the building has not fewer than one exterior exit door at ground level. Section 903.2.4 Group F-1 is hereby amended to read as follows: Attachment 3 - 16 - 903.2.4 Group F-1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings containing a Group F-1 occupancy where one of the following conditions exists: 1. A Group F-1 fire area exceeds 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5 m 2 ). 2. A Group F-1 fire area is located more than three stories above grade plane. 3. The combined area of all Group F-1 fire areas on all floors, including any mezzanines, exceeds 24,000 square feet (2230 m 2 ). 4. 3. A Group F-1 occupancy used for the manufacture of upholstered furniture or mattresses exceeds 2500 square feet (232 m 2 ). Section 903.2.6 Group I is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.2.6 Group I. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings with a Group I fire area. Exceptions: 1. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2 shall be permitted in Group I-1 Condition 1 facilities. 2 1. An automatic sprinkler system is not required where group I-4 day care facilities are at the level of exit discharge and where every room where care is provided has not fewer than one exterior exit door and the fire area does not exceed 5000 square feet (464.5 m 2 ). 3 2. In buildings where Group I-4 day care is provided on levels other than the level of exit discharge, an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 shall be installed on the entire floor where care is provided, all floors between the level of care and the level of exit discharge, and all floors below the level of exit discharge other than areas classified as an open parking garage. Section 903.2.7 Group M is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.2.7 Group M. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings containing a Group M occupancy where one of the following conditions exists: 1. A Group M fire area exceeds 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5 m 2 ). 2. A Group M fire area is located more than three stories above grade plane. 3. The combined area of all Group M fire areas on all floors, including any mezzanines, exceeds 24,000 square feet (2230 m 2 ). 4 3. A Group M occupancy used for the display and sale of upholstered furniture or mattresses exceeds 5000 square feet (464 m 2 ). Attachment 3 - 17 - Section 903.2.9 Group S-1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.2.9 Group S-1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings containing a Group S-1 occupancy where one of the following conditions exists: 1. A Group S-1 fire area exceeds 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5 m 2 ). 2. A Group S-1 fire area is located more than three stories above grade plane. 3. The combined area of all Group S-1 fire areas on all floors, including any mezzanines, exceeds 24,000 square feet (2230 m 2 ). 4 3. A Group S-1 fire area used for the storage of commercial motor vehicle where the fire area exceeds 5000 square feet (464 m 2 ). 5 4. A Group S-1 occupancy used for the storage of upholstered furniture or mattresses exceeds 2500 square (232m 2 ). Section 903.2.9.1 Repair Garages is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.2.9.1 Repair garages. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings used as repair garages in accordance with Section 406, as shown: 1. Buildings having two or more stories above grade plane, including basements, with a fire area containing a repair garage exceeding 10,000 5000 square feet (929 464.5 m 2 ). 2. Buildings not more than one story above grade plane, with a fire area containing a repair garage exceeding 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5 m 2 ). 3. Buildings with repair garages servicing vehicles parked in basements. 4. A Group S-1 fire area used for the repair of commercial motor vehicles where the fire area exceeds 5000 square feet (464 m 2 ). Section 903.2.10 Group S-2 enclosed parking garages is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.2.10 Group S-2 enclosed parking garages. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages in accordance with Section 406.6 where either of the following conditions exists: 1. Where the fire area of the enclosed parking garage exceeds 12,000 5000 square feet (1115 464.5 m 2 ). 2. Where the enclosed parking is located beneath other groups. Attachment 3 - 18 - Exception: Enclosed parking garages located beneath Group R-3 occupancies. Section 903.2.11.1.3 Basements is amended by deleting potions of the sentence to read as follows: “903.2.11.1.3 Basements. Where any portion of a basement is located more than 75 feet (22 860 mm) from openings required by Section 903.2.11.1, or where walls, partitions or other obstructions are installed that restrict the application of water from hose streams, the basement shall be equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system.” (22) Section 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems is amended to read as follows 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Automatic Sprinkler systems in Group R occupancies up to and including four stories in height in buildings not exceeding 60 feet (18 288mm) in height above grade plane shall be permitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R Section 903.3.1.1 Exception: NFPA 13R and Section 903.3.1.2 allowed when the following conditions exist: 1. The building does not contain more than 6 individual dwelling units and all units are separated with a minimum 1 hour fire separation on all sides or, 2. The building does not contain more than 12 individual dwelling units and is divided into no more than 6 individual dwellings units (complying with number 1 above) by a minimum 2 hour fire separation. The number of stories of Group R occupancies constructed in accordance with Sections 510.2 and 510.4 shall be measured from the horizontal assembly creating separate buildings. (23) Section 907.2.11 Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms is amended by adding a second paragraph thereto to read as follows: “When one or more sleeping rooms are added or created in existing Group R Occupancies, the entire building shall be provided with smoke detectors located and installed as required for new Group R Occupancies as described herein.” (24) Section 908.7 Carbon monoxide alarms is amended by deleting the exception: Exception: Sleeping units or dwelling units which do not themselves contain a fuel- burning appliance or have an attached garage, but which are located in a building with a fuel-burning appliance or an attached garage, need not be equipped with single-station carbon monoxide alarms provided that: 1. The sleeping unit or dwelling unit is located more than one story above or below any story which contains a fuel-burning appliance or an attached garage; 2. The sleeping unit or dwelling unit is not connected by duct work or ventilation shafts to any room containing a fuel-burning appliance or to an attached garage; and 3. The building is equipped with a common area carbon monoxide alarm system. Attachment 3 - 19 - (25) Section 1007.3 1009.3 Stairways, Exceptions 1, 2, 5 are amended to read as follows: “Exceptions: 2 The clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) between handrails is not required in buildings not more than 4 stories above grade plane equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2. 5 Areas of refuge are not required at stairways in buildings not more than 4 stories above grade plane equipped throughout by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.” (26) Section 1007.4 1009.4 Elevators is amended by adding a new exception #6 to read as: “6. Elevators in buildings not more than 4 stories above grade plane are not required to be considered an accessible means of egress when the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.” (27) Section 1007.8 Two-way communication exception #1 is amended to read as follows: Exception: “1. Two-way communication systems are not required at the elevator landing where the two-way communication system is provided within of buildings not required to provide areas of refuge in accordance with Section 1007.4.” (28) Section 1008.1.5 1010.1.5 Floor elevation is amended by adding a new, Exception 6 (7), to read as follows: “6. 7 Exterior doors serving individual dwelling units, other than the main entrance door to a dwelling unit, may open at one intervening exterior step that is equally spaced between the interior floor level above and exterior landing below, provided that the step has a minimum tread depth of 12 inches, a maximum riser height of 7 ¾ inches (7.75”), and a minimum width equal to the door width, and further provided that the door does not swing over the step.” (29) Section 1008.1.5 1010.1.5 Floor elevation is amended by adding a second paragraph after the exceptions, to read as follows: “All exterior steps, slabs, walks, decks and patios serving as exterior door landings or exterior stairs shall be adequately and permanently secured in place by approved methods to prevent such landings or stairs from being undermined or subject to significant displacement due to improper placement of supporting backfill or due to inadequate anchoring methods.” Attachment 3 - 20 - (30) Section 1009.15 1011.11 Handrails is amended to read as follows: “1009.15 1011.11 Handrails. Stairways of more than 1 riser shall have handrails on each side and shall comply with Section 1012 1014. Where glass is used to provide the handrail, the handrail shall also comply with Section 2407.” (31) Section 1013.8 Window Sills 1015.8 Window openings is amended to read as follows: “1013.8 Window sills. 1015.8 Window openings In Occupancy Groups R-2 and R-3, one- and two-family and multiple-family dwellings, where the opening of the sill portion of an operable window is located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be at a height not less than 36 inches (915 mm) 24 inches (304.8 mm) above the finished floor surface of the room in which the window is located. Operable sections of windows shall not permit openings that allow passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere where such openings are located within 36 inches (915 mm) 24 inches (304.8 mm) of the finished floor. Exceptions: 1. Operable windows where the sill portion of the opening is located more than 75 feet (22 860 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below and that are provided with window fall prevention devices that comply with ASTM F 2006. 2. Windows whose openings will not allow a 4 inch diameter (102 mm) sphere to pass through the opening when the window is in its largest opened position. 3. Openings that are provided with non-removable window fall prevention devices that comply with ASTM F 2090. 4. Windows that are provided with non-removable window opening control devices that comply with Section 1013.8.1. 5. Emergency escape and rescue windows shall be installed per Section 1029.” (32) Section 1013.9 1015.9 Below grade openings is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: “1013.9 1015.9 Below grade openings. All area wells, stair wells and light wells attached to any building that are located less than 36 inches from the nearest intended walking surface and deeper than 36 inches below the surrounding ground level, creating an opening with a horizontal dimension greater than 24 inches measured perpendicularly from the building, with the side walls of such well having a slope steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, shall be protected with guardrails conforming to this Section around the entire opening, or be provided with an equivalent barrier. Attachment 3 - 21 - Exceptions: 1. The access side of stairways need not be barricaded. 2. Area wells provided for emergency escape and rescue windows may be protected with approved grates or covers that comply with Section 1029.4 of this code. 3. Covers and grates may be used over stairways and other openings used exclusively for service access or for admitting light or ventilation.” (33) Section 1029.1 1030.1 General Exceptions 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: Exceptions: “1. Basements with a ceiling height of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) 72 inches (1828.8 mm) shall not be required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.” (34) Section 1029.3.1 1030.3.1 Minimum height from floor is added to read as follows: “1029.3.1 1030.3.1 Minimum height from floor. Emergency escape and rescue openings where the opening of the sill portion of an emergency escape and rescue openings is located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be at a height not less than 36 inches (915 mm) above the finished floor surface of the room in which the window is located. (35) Section 1029.5 1030.5 Window Wells is amended by adding a new exception to read as follows: “Exception: With the window in the full open position, the bottom window well step may encroach a maximum of 12 inches (304 mm) into the minimum horizontal projection, provided the well meets the criteria of 1 and 2 below: 1. The bottom of the well is not less than 36 inches wide (914 mm), centered horizontally on the openable portion of the emergency escape and rescue door or window, and 2. An unobstructed clear horizontal projection of 36 inches (914 mm) is maintained at the centerline of the openable portion of the emergency escape and rescue door or window.” (36) Section 1029.5.3 1030.5.3 Drainage is hereby added to read as: Attachment 3 - 22 - “1029.5.3 1030.5.3 Drainage. Window wells shall be designed for proper drainage by connecting to the building’s foundation drainage system required by Section 1805.4.2 or by an approved alternative method. The inlet to the drainage system shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101 mm) below the window sill. Where no drains are required, the window well surface shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101 mm) below the window sill. Exceptions: 1. A drainage system for window wells is not required when the foundation is on well- drained soil or sand-gravel mixture soils as determined by the foundation engineer of record. 2. A drainage system is not required for new window wells on additions to existing dwellings.” (37) Section 1101.2 Design is amended to read as follows: “1101.2 Design. Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code and the most recently published edition of ANSI ICC A117.1 as referenced by the building official.” (38) Section 1103.1 Where required is amended by adding a second and third paragraphs to read as follows: “When the Building Review Board considers granting exceptions or variances either to this chapter pursuant to Section 113 of this code or to Colorado Statutes pursuant to Section 9- 5-102, C.R.S., it shall require the applicant requesting the exception or variance to demonstrate that the application of a particular standard or specification relating to access for persons with disabilities would impose an extraordinary hardship on the subject property. For the purposes of this Section, an extraordinary hardship shall mean a substantial and unusual hardship which is the direct result of unique physical site conditions such as terrain, topography or geology, or which is the direct result of other unique or special conditions encountered on the subject property, but which are not typically encountered elsewhere in the City. Constraints, complications or difficulties that may arise by complying with this chapter and/or with the statutory standards for accessibility but that do not constitute an extraordinary hardship shall not serve to justify the granting of an exception or variance.” (39) Section 1107.2 Design is amended by adding a second and third paragraph to read as follows: “When any building or buildings, classified as Group R, Division 1 or Group R, Division 2 Occupancy, are constructed as a single building project (or any phase thereof) on any one site, and such building project (or phase) contains one or more accessible dwelling units as required by this chapter or Colorado law, said building project (or phase) shall be constructed such that all such required accessible dwelling units in such building project (or Attachment 3 - 23 - phase) provide the same functional features as are provided in the nonaccessible units in such building project (or phase). Furthermore, all such functional features except dwelling unit bedroom-types shall be provided in the same proportion as in the nonaccessible units. Not less than 50 percent of the required accessible dwelling units shall be constructed with the distribution of accessible dwelling unit bedroom-types being proportionally the same as the distribution of nonaccessible dwelling unit bedroom-types, provided that at least one of each dwelling unit bedroom-type constructed in the building project (or phase) shall be an accessible dwelling unit. For purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply. Dwelling unit bedroom- type shall mean the number of bedrooms within the dwelling unit. Functional feature shall mean a closet, garage, carport, patio, deck, additional room (such as a bedroom, bathroom, den, storeroom, laundry or similar room) or any other significant feature built at the time of original construction that offers occupants improved convenience or comfort. Aesthetic or decorative features such as colors, architectural design elements, trim and finish materials, decorative heating appliances not providing the primary comfort heat source, lighting fixture style, cabinet and hardware style, plumbing fixture style, the type and location of windows and glazed lights, or any similar miscellaneous features shall not be construed as functional features.” Table 1107.6.1.1 Accessible Dwelling Units and Sleeping Units is hereby amended to read as follows: TABLE 1107.6.1.1 ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS Total number of units provided Minimum required number of accessible units without roll-in showers Minimum required number of accessible units with roll-in showers Total number of required accessible units 1 - 25 1 0 1 26 - 50 2 1 0 1 2 51 - 75 3 2 1 2 4 76 - 100 4 3 1 2 5 101 - 150 5 2 7 151 - 200 6 2 8 201 - 300 7 3 10 301 - 400 8 4 12 401 - 500 9 4 13 501 - 1000 2% of total 1% of total 3% of total Over 1000 20, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000 10, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000 30, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000 (40) Section 1203.3 1203.4 Under-floor ventilation is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 1203.3 Under-floor ventilation. The space between the bottom of the floor joists and the earth under any building except spaces occupied by basements or cellars shall be provided Attachment 3 - 24 - with ventilation openings through foundation walls or exterior walls. Such openings shall be placed so as to provide cross ventilation of the under-floor space. 1203.3.1 Openings for under-floor ventilation. The net area of ventilation openings shall not be less than 1 square foot for each 150 square feet (0.67 m2 for each 100 m2) of crawl- space area. Ventilation openings shall be covered for their height and width with any of the following materials, provided that the least dimension of the covering shall be not greater than 1/4 inch (6 mm): 1. Perforated sheet metal plates not less than 0.070 inch (1.8 mm) thick. 2. Expanded sheet metal plates not less than 0.047 inch (1.2 mm) thick. 3. Cast-iron grilles or gratings. 4. Extruded load-bearing vents. 5. Hardware cloth of 0.035 inch (0.89 mm) wire or heavier. 6. Corrosion-resistant wire mesh, with the least dimension not greater than 1/8 inch (3.2 mm). 1203.3.2 Exceptions. The following are exceptions to Sections 1203.3 and 1203.3.1: 1. Where warranted by climatic conditions, ventilation openings to the outdoors are not required if ventilation openings to the interior are provided. 2. The total area of ventilation openings is permitted to be reduced to 1/1,500 of the under-floor area where the ground surface is covered with a Class I vapor retarder material and the required openings are placed so as to provide cross ventilation of the space. The installation of operable louvers shall not be prohibited. 3. Ventilation openings are not required where continuously operated mechanical ventilation is provided at a rate of 1.0 cubic foot per minute (cfm) for each 50 square feet (1.02 L/s for each 10 m2) of crawl space floor area and the ground surface is covered with a Class I vapor retarder. 4. Ventilation openings are not required where the ground surface is covered with a Class I vapor retarder, the perimeter walls are insulated and the space is conditioned in accordance with the International Energy Conservation Code. 5. For buildings in flood hazard areas as established in Section 1612.3, the openings for under-floor ventilation shall be deemed as meeting the flood opening requirements of ASCE 24 provided that the ventilation openings are designed and installed in accordance with ASCE 24. “1203.3 1203.4 Under-floor ventilation All exposed earth in a crawl space shall be covered with a continuous Class I vapor retarder. Joints of the vapor retarder shall overlap by 6 inches (152 mm) and shall be sealed or taped. The edges of the vapor retarder shall extend at least 6 inches (152 mm) up the perimeter stem wall and any footing pads on grade, and be permanently attached and sealed to the stem wall or footing pads. 1203.3.1 1203.4.1 Crawl space. Crawl spaces shall be designed and constructed to be inside the building thermal envelope, in accordance with the insulation and air sealing requirements for crawl space walls and rim joists of Section N1102 of the International Residential Code as amended or the International Energy Conservation Code as amended. Crawl spaces shall not be vented to the exterior. They shall be conditioned using one of the following approaches: Attachment 3 - 25 - 1. Continuously operated mechanical exhaust ventilation at a rate equal to 1 cubic foot per minute (0.47 L/s) for each 50 square feet (4.7m2) of crawl space floor area, including an air pathway to the common area (such as a duct or transfer grille); 2. Conditioned air supply sized to deliver at a rate equal to 1 cubic foot per minute (0.47 L/s) for each 50 square feet (4.7 m2) of under-floor area, including a return air pathway to the common area (such as a duct or transfer grille); 3. Plenum in existing structures complying with Section M1601.5, if under-floor space is used as a plenum. Exception: Crawl spaces shall be permitted to be designed and constructed as unconditioned spaces, outside the building thermal envelope, provided the following requirements are met: 1. The floor above the crawl space is part of the building thermal envelope. It shall meet the insulation requirements of Table N1102.1.1 of this code and shall be air-sealed in accordance with Section N1102.4.1 of this code. 2. Ventilation openings shall be placed through foundation walls or exterior walls. The minimum net area of ventilation openings shall not be less than 1 square foot (0.0929 m2) for each 1,500 square feet (140 m2) of under-floor space area. One such ventilating opening shall be within 3 feet (914 mm) of each corner of the building. 3. Ventilation openings shall be covered for their height and width with any of the following materials provided that the least dimension of the covering shall not exceed 1/4 inch (6.4 mm): a. Perforated sheet metal plates not less than 0.070 inch (1.8 mm) thick. b. Expanded sheet metal plates not less than 0.047 inch (1.2 mm) thick. c. Cast-iron grill or grating. d. Extruded load-bearing brick vents. e. Hardware cloth of 0.035 inch (0.89 mm) wire or heavier. f. Corrosion-resistant wire mesh, with the least dimension being one-eighth (1/8) inch (3.2 mm) thick. 4. The installation of operable louvers is allowed.” Mechanical ventilation systems for spaces under below grade floors shall be designed by a professional engineer, addressing moisture controls and by approved methods considering the impact of negative pressures created by exhaust fans, clothes dryers and similar appliances. 1203.3.2 1203.4.2 Ventilated under-floor spaces. Floor systems above ventilated under- floor spaces, or floors open to the exterior with no enclosed space below shall be insulated to R-30 in accordance with the adopted International Energy Conservation Code Table 402.1.1. The floor system shall be sealed to prevent heat loss and air infiltration.” Attachment 3 - 26 - (41) Section 1211 Radon-Resistant Construction is hereby added to read as follows: 1211 – Radon-resistant construction 1211.1 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to new R-2 Occupancies, new I-1 occupancies, and new I-2 nursing homes. 1211.1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this code is to provide minimum requirements to enhance the public safety, health and general welfare, through construction methods designed and installed to resist entry of radon gas into the occupied spaces of buildings regulated by this code. 1211.2 - Definitions 1211.2.1 General. For the purpose of these requirements, the terms used shall be defined as follows: FOUNDATION DRAIN SYSTEM. A continuous length of drain tile, perforated pipe, or filter mat extending around all or part of the internal or external perimeter of a basement or crawl space footing designed to collect and drain away excess subsurface water. RADON. A naturally occurring, chemically inert, radioactive gas that is not detectable by human senses, that can move readily through particles of soil and rock, and that can accumulate under the slabs and foundations of homes where it can easily enter the living space through construction cracks and openings. SOIL-GAS-RETARDER. A continuous membrane of 3-mil (0.075 mm) cross-linked polyethylene or other equivalent material used to retard the flow of soil gases into a building. SUBFLOOR. A concrete slab or other approved permanent floor system that directly contacts the ground and is within the walls of the living spaces of the building. SUB-MEMBRANE DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM. A system designed to achieve lower sub-membrane air pressure relative to crawl space air pressure by use of a vent drawing air from beneath the soil-gas-retarder membrane. SUB-SLAB DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM (Passive). A system designed to achieve lower sub-slab air pressure relative to indoor air pressure by use of a vent pipe routed through the conditioned space of a building and connecting the sub-slab area with outdoor air, thereby relying on the convective flow of air upward in the vent to draw air from beneath the slab. 1211.3 - Requirements Attachment 3 - 27 - 1211.3.1 General. The following required construction methods are intended to resist radon entry and prepare the building for post-construction radon mitigation. 1211.3.2 Subfloor preparation. A layer of gas-permeable material shall be placed under all subfloors. The gas-permeable layer shall consist of one of the following methods except that where fills of aggregate size less than that described in Method 1 are used beneath a slab, Method 2,3, 4, or 5 must be used. 1. A uniform layer of clean aggregate, a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) thick. The aggregate shall consist of material that will pass through a 2 inch (51 mm) sieve and be retained by a 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) sieve. In buildings where interior footings or other barriers separate sub-grade areas, penetrations through the interior footing or barrier equal to a minimum of 12 square inches (0.094 m 2 ) per 10 feet (3.048 m) of barrier length shall be provided. A minimum of 2 penetrations shall be provided per separation and be evenly spaced along the separation. Exception: In buildings where interior footings or other barriers separate the sub-grade area, separate radon vent pipes may be installed for each sub-grade area as specified in Section 1211.5.2 in place of penetrations through the barrier. 2. A foundation drain pipe system installed under concrete floor slab areas less than 2,000 square feet (186 m 2 ), consisting of a continuous loop of minimum 3 inch (76 mm) diameter perforated pipe shall be laid in the sub-grade with the top of the pipe located 1-inch (25.4 mm) below the concrete slab. The pipe may be rigid or flexible but shall have perforations fully around the circumference with a free air space equal to 1.83 square inches per square foot (127 cm 2 /m 2 ) of exterior pipe surface area. Such pipe shall be wrapped with approved filter material to prevent blocking of pipe perforations. The pipe loop shall be located inside of the exterior perimeter foundation walls not more than 12 inches (305 mm) from the perimeter foundation walls. In buildings where interior footings or other barriers separate the sub-grade area, the loop of pipe shall penetrate or pass beneath such interior footings or barriers. For slab areas greater than 2,000 square feet (186 m 2 ) but less than 4,000 square feet (372 m 2 ), the preceding configuration may be used, provided a minimum of 4 inch diameter (102 mm) pipe is installed. Slabs in excess of 4,000 square feet (372 m 2 ) shall have under them separate loops for every additional 2,000 square feet (186 m 2 ) of slab area when 3 inch (76 mm) diameter pipe is used, or slabs may have separate loops provided for each additional increment in area between 2,000 square feet (186 m 2 ) and 4,000 square feet (372 m 2 ) when 4-inch (102 mm) diameter pipe is used. 3. A foundation drain soil gas collection mat system installed under concrete floor slab areas of 2,000 square feet (186 m 2 Attachment 3 - 28 - grade. The mat shall be constructed of a matrix that allows for the movement of air through it and be capable of supporting the concrete placed upon it. The matrix shall be covered by approved filter material on all four sides to prevent dirt or concrete from entering the matrix. All breaches and joints in the filter material shall be repaired prior to the placement of the slab. The loop shall be located inside the exterior perimeter foundation walls and within 12 inches (305 mm) from the perimeter foundation walls. In buildings where interior footings or other barriers separate the sub-grade area, the mat shall penetrate these interior footings or barriers to form a continuous loop around the exterior perimeter. Slabs larger than 2,000 square feet (186 m 2 ) but less than 4,000 square feet (372 m 2 ) shall have under them an additional strip of mat that bisects the loop forming two areas approximately equally divided by the two halves of the rectilinear loop. Slabs larger than 4,000 square feet (372 m 2 ) shall have separate loops for each 2,000 (186 m 2 ) square feet, or for each 4,000 square feet (372 m2) if a loop is bisected as specified in the preceding configuration. 4. A uniform layer of sand (native or fill), a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) thick, overlain by a layer or strips of geo-textile drainage matting designed to allow the lateral flow of soil gases. 5. Other materials, systems or floor designs with demonstrated capability to permit depressurization across the entire sub-floor area. 1211.3.3 Entry routes. Potential radon entry routes shall be closed in accordance with Sections 1211.3.4.1 through 1211.3.4.8 1211.3.3.1 Floor openings. Openings around bathtubs, showers, water closets, pipes, wires or other objects that penetrate concrete slabs or other floor assemblies shall be filled with a polyurethane caulk or equivalent sealant applied in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. 1211.3.3.2 Concrete joints. All control joints, isolation joints, construction joints and any other joints in concrete slabs or between slabs and foundation walls shall be sealed with a caulk or sealant. Gaps and joints shall be cleared of loose material and filled with polyurethane caulk or other elastomeric sealant applied in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. 1211.3.3.3 Condensate drains. Condensate drains shall be trapped or routed through non-perforated pipe to daylight. 1211.3.3.4 Sumps. Sump pits open to soil or serving as the termination point for sub- slab or exterior drain tile loops shall be covered with a gasketed or otherwise sealed lid. Sumps used as the suction point in a sub-slab depressurization system shall have a lid designed to accommodate the vent pipe. Sumps used as a floor drain shall have a lid equipped with a trapped inlet and view port. Attachment 3 - 29 - 1211.3.3.5 Foundation walls. Hollow block masonry foundation walls shall be constructed with either a continuous course of solid masonry, one course of masonry grouted solid, or a solid concrete beam at or above finished ground surface to prevent passage of air from the interior of the wall into the living space. Where a brick veneer or other masonry ledge is installed, the course immediately below that ledge shall be sealed. Joints, cracks or other openings around all penetrations of both exterior and interior surfaces of masonry block or wood foundation walls below the ground surface shall be filled with polyurethane caulk or equivalent sealant. Penetrations of concrete walls shall be filled. 1211.3.3.6 Dampproofing. The exterior surfaces of portions of concrete and masonry block walls below the ground surface shall be damp-proofed in accordance with Section 1805. 1211.3.3.7 Air-handling units. Air-handling units in crawl spaces shall be sealed to prevent air from being drawn into the unit. Exception: Units with gasketed seams or units that are otherwise sealed by the manufacturer to prevent leakage. 1211.3.3.8 Ducts. Ductwork passing through or beneath a slab shall be of seamless material unless the air-handling system is designed to maintain continuous positive pressure within such ducting. Joints in such ductwork shall be sealed to prevent air leakage. Ductwork located in crawl spaces shall have all seams and joints sealed by closure systems in accordance with the International Mechanical Code. 1211.3.4 Sub-membrane depressurization system. In buildings with interior structural floors directly above under-floor spaces containing exposed soil surfaces that are not protected by a sub-slab depressurization system, the following components of sub- membrane depressurization system shall be installed during construction. Exception: Buildings in which an approved mechanical ventilation system complying with Section 1203 or such other equivalent system that provides equivalent depressurization across the entire sub-membrane area as determined by the building official is installed in the under-floor spaces. 1211.3.4.1 Ventilation. Crawl spaces and similar under-floor spaces shall be provided with ventilation complying with Section 1203. 1211.3.4.2 Soil-gas-retarder. The exposed soil in under-floor spaces shall be covered with a continuous layer of soil-gas-retarder. Such groundcover joints shall overlap 6 inches (152 mm) and be sealed or taped. The edges of the groundcover shall extend a Attachment 3 - 30 - minimum of 6 inches (152 mm) up onto all foundation walls enclosing the under-floor space and shall be attached and sealed to foundation walls in an approved manner. 1211.3.4.3 Vent pipe riser. A plumbing tee or other approved connection shall be inserted horizontally beneath the sheeting and connected to a 3- or 4-inch-diameter (76 mm or 102 mm) fitting with a vertical vent pipe installed through the sheeting. The vent pipe shall be extended up through the building floors, and shall terminate at least 12 inches (305 mm) above the roof in a location at least 10 feet (3.048 m) away from any window or other opening into the conditioned spaces of the building at a point that is less than 2 feet (0.610 m) below the exhaust point and 10 feet (3.048 m) from any window or other opening in adjoining or adjacent buildings. 1211.3.5 Sub-slab depressurization system. The following components of a sub-slab depressurization system shall be installed during construction under basement or slab-on- grade floors. 1211.3.5.1 Vent pipe riser. A minimum 3-inch-diameter (76 mm) ABS, PVC or equivalent gas-tight pipe shall be embedded vertically into the sub-slab aggregate or other permeable material before the slab is cast. A 'T' fitting or equivalent method shall be used to ensure that the pipe opening remains within the sub-slab permeable material. Alternatively, the 3-inch (76 mm) pipe shall be inserted directly into an interior perimeter drain tile loop or through a sealed sump cover where the sump is exposed to the sub-slab aggregate or connected to it through a drainage system. All vent pipes shall be extended up through the building floors and shall terminate at least 12 inches (305 mm) above the surface of the roof in a location at least 10 feet (3.048 m) away from any window, air intake, or other opening into the conditioned spaces of the building at a point that is less than 2 feet (0.610 m) below the exhaust point, and 10 feet (3.048 m) from any window or other opening in adjoining or adjacent buildings. The discharge end of vent pipe terminations shall be unobstructed and protected from small animal entry with a corrosion-resistant screen having openings between ¼ inch (6.4 mm) and ½ inch (12.7 mm). 1211.3.5.2 Multiple vent pipes. In buildings where interior footings or other barriers separate the sub-slab aggregate or other gas-permeable material, each area shall be fitted with an individual vent pipe. Vent pipes shall connect to a single vent that terminates above the roof or, in the alterantive, each individual vent pipe shall terminate separately above the roof. 1211.3.6 Vent pipe drainage. All components of the radon vent pipe system shall be installed to provide positive drainage to the ground beneath the slab or soil-gas retarder. 1211.3.7 Vent pipe accessibility. Radon vent pipes shall be accessible for fan installation through an attic or other area outside the habitable space. Exception: Attachment 3 - 31 - The radon vent pipe need not be accessible in an attic space where an approved roof-top electrical supply is provided. 1211.3.8 Vent pipe identification and notification. All exposed and visible interior radon vent pipes shall be conspicuously identified with at least one label on each floor and in attics provided with access openings. The label shall read substantially as follows: Radon Reduction System. In addition to the preceding label, a notice shall be placed in a conspicuous area near the vent pipe that includes the following statement: “This radon reduction system is not required to be tested and is a 'passive' system, relying entirely on natural ventilation. Occupants are advised to test for radon and take remedial action as necessary by installing a continuously operating fan located in the vent pipe (access typically provided in the attic) and connected to the nearby provided electrical outlet. Call 1-800-767-radon for more information.” 1211.3.9 Combination foundations. Combination basement/crawl space or slab-on- grade/crawl space foundations shall have separate radon vent pipes installed in each type of foundation area. Each radon vent pipe shall terminate above the roof or shall be connected to a single vent that terminates above the roof. 1211.3.10 Building depressurization. Joints in air ducts and plenums in unconditioned spaces shall be substantially air tight and permanently sealed with an approved sealant, mastic, or other approved methods. Thermal envelope air infiltration requirements shall comply with the energy conservation provisions in the energy conservation code currently enacted by the City. Firestopping shall be in conformance with the most recent general building code enacted by the City. 1211.3.11 Provisions for future depressurization fan installation. Permanent provisions shall be made for the future installation of an in-line fan to be connected to every radon vent pipe. Such designated fan locations shall be outside of the conditioned envelope of the building, such as in the attic, garage and similar locations, excluding crawl spaces and other interior under-floor spaces. Designated locations shall accommodate an unobstructed permanent cylindrical space with the following minimum dimensions: 12 inches (305 mm) measured radially around the radon vent pipe along a vertical distance of 30 inches (760 mm). Designated fan locations shall be permanently accessible for servicing and maintenance. An electrical circuit shall be provided within 4 feet (1.219 m) of and within sight from designated fan locations. Such circuit shall have a means of positive disconnection and be terminated in an approved electrical outlet in accordance with the applicable current electric code. 1211.3.11.1 Depressurization fan system activation. When a passive system constructed in accordance with this code is to be converted to an active system, an approved in-line fan shall be installed in a designated fan location as specified in Section 1211.11.1. Additionally, an approved permanent electric light fixture and in- line pipe couplings that facilitate fan replacement shall be provided. The in-line fan shall be designed to operate continuously for a period of not less than 5 years and have Attachment 3 - 32 - a minimum air-flow rating as established by the building official. A readily accessible manometer or other approved warning device that notifies occupants of a fan malfunction by a visible or audible signal shall be installed within the dwelling unit.” (42) Section 1404.9 Vinyl siding is hereby amended in its entirety to read as: 1404.9 Vinyl siding. Vinyl siding shall be certified and labeled as conforming to the requirements of ASTM D 3679 by an approved quality control agency. “Section 1404.9 Vinyl siding shall not be installed on new buildings within the limits of the City of Fort Collins.” (43) Section 1404.12 Polypropylene siding is hereby amended in its entirety to read as: 1404.12 Polypropylene siding. Polypropylene siding shall be certified and labeled as conforming to the requirements of ASTM D 7254 and those of Section 1404.12.1 or 1404.12.2 by an approved quality control agency. Polypropylene siding shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 1405.18 and in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions. Polypropylene siding shall be secured to the building so as to provide weather protection for the exterior walls of the building. 1404.12.1 Flame spread index. The certification of the flame spread index shall be accompanied by a test report stating that all portions of the test specimen ahead of the flame front remained in position during the test in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723. 1404.12.2 Fire separation distance. The fire separation distance between a building with polypropylene siding and the adjacent building shall be no less than 10 feet (3048 mm). “Section 1404.12 Polypropylene siding shall not be installed on new buildings within the limits of the City of Fort Collins limits.” (44) Section 1405.13.2 Fenestration installation is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: “1405.13.2 Fenestration installation. For all new construction and additions, all new fenestration installations shall be in accordance with American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) Standards/Specifications for Windows, Doors and Skylights and shall be supervised and inspected by an individual certified as an Installation Master by Architectural Testing, Inc. (ATI), or other nationally recognized agency.” (45) Section 1503.4 Roof drainage is hereby amended to read as follows: “1503.4 Roof drainage. All buildings shall have a controlled method of water disposal from roofs that will collect and discharge roof drainage to the ground surface at least 5 feet (1524 mm) from foundation walls or to an approved drainage system. Design and installation of roof drainage systems shall comply with Section 1503 of this code and Sections 1106 and 1108, as applicable, of and the International Plumbing Code.” Attachment 3 - 33 - (46) Section 1503.6 Crickets and saddles is amended by adding a new exception number two to read as follows: “1503.6 Crickets and saddles. A cricket or saddle shall be installed on the ridge side of any chimney or penetration greater than 30 inches (762 mm) wide as measured perpendicular to the slope. Cricket or saddle coverings shall be sheet metal or of the same material as the roof covering. Exceptions: 1. Unit skylights installed in accordance with Section 2405.5 and flashed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions shall be permitted to be installed without a cricket or saddle. 2. Re-roofing per section 1510.” (47) Section 1505.1 General is amended to read as follows. 1505.1 General. Roof assemblies shall be divided into the classes defined below. Class A, B and C roof assemblies and roof coverings required to be listed by this section shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E 108 or UL 790. In addition, fire-retardant-treated wood roof coverings shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D 2898. The minimum roof coverings installed on buildings shall comply with Table 1505.1 based on the type of construction of the building. “1505.1 New Construction. The roof-covering classification on any new structure regulated by this code shall be Class A. Exceptions: 1. Noncombustible roof coverings as defined in Section 1507.3, 1507.4, 1507.5 may be applied in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications in place of a fire-retardant roofing assembly. 2. Any Class B or Class C roof covering may be applied on any new construction that is added to an existing building classified as a Group R, Division 3 Occupancy, provided the roof extremities of such existing building and new construction are located a minimum distance of 5 feet from the nearest adjacent property line and are a minimum distance of 10 feet from any other building. 3. Skylights and sloped glazing that comply with Chapter 24 or Section 2610.” (48) Table 1505.1, Minimum Roof Covering Classifications for Types of Construction, is hereby deleted. Section 1507.2.1 Deck requirements is hereby amended to read as follows; Attachment 3 - 34 - 1507.2.1 Deck Requirements. Asphalt shingles shall be fastened to solidly sheathed decks. Gaps in the solid decking shall not exceed ¼ inch. (49) Section 1507.2.9.4 Sidewall flashing is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: “1507.2.9.4 Sidewall flashing. Flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be by the step- flashing method. The flashing shall be a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) high and 4 inches (102 mm) wide. At the end of the vertical sidewall the step flashing shall be turned out in a manner that directs water away from the wall and onto the roof and/or gutter. Exception: Re-roofing where step flashing would require removal of siding material, provided adequate flashing is installed.” (50) Section 1507.2.9.5 Other flashing is amended by adding a new section read as follows: “1507.2.9.5 Other flashing. Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as soil stack, vent pipe and chimney flashing shall be applied according to the asphalt shingle manufacturer’s printed instructions.” (51) Section 1510.1 General is amended by adding two paragraphs at the end to read as follows: “No portion of an existing nonrated roof covering may be permanently replaced or covered with more than one square of nonrated roof covering.” Any existing roof covering system may be replaced with a roof covering of the same materials and classification, provided the replacement roof covering has a minimum rating of Class C.” (52) Section 1608.2 Ground snow load, the first sentence is hereby amended to read as follows: “1608.2 Ground Snow Loads. The ground snow loads to be used in determining the design snow loads for roofs shall be shall be determined in accordance with ASCE 7 or Figure 1608.2 for the contiguous United States and Table 1608.2 for Alaska. 30 psf.” (53) Section 1609.3 Basic wind speed, the first sentence is hereby amended to read as follows: “1609.3 Basic wind speed. The ultimate design wind speed, Vult, in mph, The basic wind speed, in mph, for the determination of the wind loads shall be 100 miles per hour (161 kph) nominal or 129 miles per hour (208 kph) ultimate. as determined by Figures 1609A, 1609B, and 1609C.” Attachment 3 - 35 - (54) Section 1804.3.1 Final Grading is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: “1804.3.1 Final Grading. Final grading adjacent to the foundation shall be compacted sufficiently and in such a manner that it is not undermined or subject to significant settlement or displacement due to improper placement of backfill.” (55) Section 2406.4.7 Glazing adjacent to the bottom stair landing is hereby amended to read as follows: “2406.4.7 Glazing adjacent to the bottom stair landings. Glazing adjacent to the stair landings at the bottom of a stairway where the glazing is less than 36 inches (914 mm) above the landing and within 60 inches (1524 mm) horizontally of the top or bottom tread shall be considered a hazardous location. Exception: The glazing is protected by a guard complying with Section 1013 and 1607.8 where the plane of the glass is more than 18 inches (457 mm) from the guard.” (56) Section 2902.1.3 Touch-free toilet facilities is amended by adding a new section read as follows: “2902.1.3 Touch-free toilet facilities. Toilet facilities installed for occupancies associated with food preparation or food service to the public shall be provided with: 1. Automatic touch-free water control valves on lavatories. 2. Automatic touch-free paper towel dispensers. 3. Toilet facilities exit doors that allow exiting without requiring touching by hand of any door hardware such as knobs, levers, sliding bolts, latches and similar devices. Exception: Toilet facilities designed as a single occupant use may be provided with exit door locking hardware to afford privacy, doors may swing inward or outward.” (57) 2902.2 Separate facilities is amended to read as follows: “2902.2 Separate facilities. Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate facilities shall be provided for each sex. Exceptions: 1. Separate facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and sleeping units. 2. Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a total occupant load, including both employees and customers, of 15 30 or less. 3. Separate facilities shall not be required in mercantile occupancies in which the maximum occupant load is 100 or less. Attachment 3 - 36 - 4. Multiple single-user Unisex facilities may be used provided total fixture count as calculated per 2902.1 is satisfied.” (58) Section 3109.6 Barriers around decorative pools, fountains, and ponds is hereby added to read as follows: “3109.6 Barriers around decorative pools, fountains, and ponds. Decorative pools, fountains, and ponds which can contain water deeper than 24 inches (610 mm), shall be protected by barriers installed in accordance with section 3109.4”. Section 3109 Swimming pool enclosures and safety devises is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended to read as follows: SECTION 3109 BARRIER REQUIREMENTS 3109.1 General. The provisions of this section shall apply to the design of barriers for pools and spas. These design controls are intended to provide protection against the potential drowning and near drowning by restricting access to such pools or spas. These requirements provide an integrated level of protection against potential drowning through the use of physical barriers and warning devices. Exceptions: 1. Spas and hot tubs with a lockable safety cover that complies with ASTM F 1346. 2. Swimming pools with a powered safety cover that complies with ASTM F 1346. 3109.2 Outdoor swimming pools and spas. Outdoor pools and spas and indoor swimming pools shall be surrounded by a barrier that complies with Sections 3109.2.1 through 3109.7. 3109.2.1 Barrier height and clearances. Barrier heights and clearances shall be in accordance with all of the following: 1. The top of the barrier shall be not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above grade where measured on the side of the barrier that faces away from the pool or spa. Such height shall exist around the entire perimeter of the barrier and for a distance of 3 feet (914 mm) measured horizontally from the outside of the required barrier. 2. The vertical clearance between grade and the bottom of the barrier shall not exceed 2 inches (51 mm) for grade surfaces that are not solid, such as grass or gravel, where measured on the side of the barrier that faces away from the pool or spa. Attachment 3 - 37 - 3. The vertical clearance between a surface below the barrier to a solid surface, such as concrete, and the bottom of the required barrier shall not exceed 4 inches (102 mm) where measured on the side of the required barrier that faces away from the pool or spa. 4. Where the top of the pool or spa structure is above grade, the barrier shall be installed on grade or shall be mounted on top of the pool or spa structure. Where the barrier is mounted on the top of the pool or spa, the vertical clearance between the top of the pool or spa and the bottom of the barrier shall not exceed 4 inches (102 mm). 3109.2.2 Openings. Openings in the barrier shall not allow passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere. 3109.2.3 Solid barrier surfaces. Solid barriers that do not have openings shall not contain indentations or protrusions that form handholds and footholds, except for normal construction tolerances and tooled masonry joints. 3109.2.4 Mesh fence as a barrier. Mesh fences, other than chain link fences in accordance with Section 3109.2.7, shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and shall comply with the following: 1. The bottom of the mesh fence shall be not more than 1 inch (25 mm) above the deck or installed surface or grade. 2. The maximum vertical clearance from the bottom of the mesh fence and the solid surface shall not permit the fence to be lifted more than 4 inches (102 mm) from grade or decking. 3. The fence shall be designed and constructed so that it does not allow passage of a 4-inch (102 mm) sphere under any mesh panel. The maximum vertical clearance from the bottom of the mesh fence and the solid surface shall not be more than 4 inches (102 mm) from grade or decking. 4. An attachment device shall attach each barrier section at a height not lower than 45 inches (1143 mm) above grade. Common attachment devices include, but are not limited to, devices that provide the security equal to or greater than that of a hook-and-eye type latch incorporating a spring-actuated retaining lever such as a safety gate hook. 5. Where a hinged gate is used with a mesh fence, the gate shall comply with Section 3109.3. 6. Patio deck sleeves such as vertical post receptacles that are placed inside the patio surface shall be of a nonconductive material. 7. Mesh fences shall not be installed on top of on ground residential pools. 3109.2.5 Closely spaced horizontal members. Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance between the Attachment 3 - 38 - tops of the horizontal members is less than 45 inches (1143 mm), the horizontal members shall be located on the pool or spa side of the fence. Spacing between vertical members shall not exceed 13/4 inches (44 mm) in width. Where there are decorative cutouts within vertical members, spacing within the cutouts shall not exceed 13/4 inches (44 mm) in width. 3109.2.6 Widely spaced horizontal members. Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance between the tops of the horizontal members is 45 inches (1143 mm) or more, spacing between vertical members shall not exceed 4 inches (102 mm). Where there are decorative cutouts within vertical members, the interior width of the cutouts shall not exceed 13/4 inches (44 mm). 3109.2.7 Chain link dimensions. The maximum opening formed by a chain link fence shall be not more than 1 3/4 inches (44 mm). Where the fence is provided with slats fastened at the top and bottom which reduce the openings, such openings shall be not more than 1 3/4 inches (44 mm). 3109.2.8 Diagonal members. Where the barrier is composed of diagonal members, the maximum opening formed by the diagonal members shall be not more than1 3/4 inches (44 mm). The angle of diagonal members shall be not greater than 45 degrees (0.79 rad) from vertical. 3109.2.9 Clear zone. There shall be a clear zone of not less than 36 inches (914 mm) between the exterior of the barrier and any permanent structures or equipment such as pumps, filters and heaters that can be used to climb the barrier. 3109.2.10 Poolside barrier setbacks. The pool or spa side of the required barrier shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm) from the water’s edge. 3109.3 Gates. Access gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections 3109.3.1 through 3109.3.3 and shall be equipped to accommodate a locking device. Pedestrian access gates shall open outward away from the pool or spa, shall be self-closing and shall have a self-latching device. 3109.3.1 Utility or service gates. Gates not intended for pedestrian use, such as utility or service gates, shall remain locked when not in use. 3109.3.2 Double or multiple gates. Double gates or multiple gates shall have at least one leaf secured in place and the adjacent leaf shall be secured with a self-latching device. The gate and barrier shall not have openings larger than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) within 18 inches (457 mm) of the latch release mechanism. The self- latching device shall comply with the requirements of Section 305.3.3. 3109.3.3 Latches. Attachment 3 - 39 - Where the release mechanism of the self-latching device is located less than 54 inches (1372 mm) from grade, the release mechanism shall be located on the pool or spa side of the gate not less than 3 inches (76 mm) below the top of the gate, and the gate and barrier shall not have openings greater than 1/2inch (12.7 mm) within 18 inches (457 mm) of the release mechanism. 3109.4 Structure wall as a barrier. Where a wall of a dwelling or structure serves as part of the barrier and where doors or windows provide direct access to the pool or spa through that wall, one of the following shall be required: 1. Operable windows having a sill height of less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the indoor finished floor and doors shall have an alarm that produces an audible warning when the window, door or their screens are opened. The alarm shall be listed and labeled as a water hazard entrance alarm in accordance with UL 2017. In dwellings or structures not required to be Accessible units, Type A units or Type B units, the operable parts of the alarm deactivation switches shall be located 54 inches (1372 mm) or more above the finished floor. In dwellings or structures required to be Accessible units, Type A units or Type B units, the operable parts of the alarm deactivation switches shall be located not greater than 54 inches (1372 mm) and not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the finished floor. 2. A safety cover that is listed and labeled in accordance with ASTM F 1346 is installed for the pools and spas. 3. An approved means of protection, such as self-closing doors with self-latching devices, is provided. Such means of protection shall provide a degree of protection that is not less than the protection afforded by Item 1 or 2. 3109.5 On ground residential pool structure as a barrier. An on ground residential pool wall structure or a barrier mounted on top of an on ground residential pool wall structure shall serve as a barrier where all of the following conditions are present: 1. Where only the pool wall serves as the barrier, the bottom of the wall is on grade, the top of the wall is not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above grade for the entire perimeter of the pool, the wall complies with the requirements of Section 3109.2 and the pool manufacturer allows the wall to serve as a barrier. 2. Where a barrier is mounted on top of the pool wall, the top of the barrier is not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above grade for the entire perimeter of the pool, and the wall and the barrier on top of the wall comply with the requirements of Section 3109.2. 3. Ladders or steps used as means of access to the pool are capable of being secured, locked or removed to prevent access except where the ladder or steps are surrounded by a barrier that meets the requirements of Section 3109.5. 4. Openings created by the securing, locking or removal of ladders and steps do not allow the passage of a 4inch (102 mm) diameter sphere. Attachment 3 - 40 - 5. Barriers that are mounted on top of on ground residential pool walls are installed in accordance with the pool manufacturer’s instructions. 3109.6 Natural barriers. In the case where the pool or spa area abuts the edge of a lake or other natural body of water, public access is not permitted or allowed along the shoreline, and required barriers extend to and beyond the water’s edge not less than 18 inches (457 mm), a barrier is not required between the natural body of water shoreline and the pool or spa. 3109.7 Natural topography. Natural topography that prevents direct access to the pool or spa area shall include but not be limited to mountains and natural rock formations. A natural barrier approved by the governing body shall be acceptable provided that the degree of protection is not less than the protection afforded by the requirements of Sections 3109.2 through 3109.5. 3109.8 Entrapment avoidance. Suction outlets shall be designed and installed in accordance with ANSI/APSP-7. 3109.9 Barriers around decorative pools, fountains, and ponds. Decorative pools, fountains, and ponds which can contain water deeper than 24 inches (610 mm), shall be protected by barriers installed in accordance with section AG105.2.” (60) Chapter 36 Sustainable Building Construction Practices is amended by adding a new chapter read as follows: “Chapter 36 Sustainable Building Construction Practices 3601 General 3601.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall govern sustainable building construction practices for new construction and additions and remodels over 5,000 square feet that require a building permit, unless otherwise noted. 3602 Resource Efficiency 3602.1 Construction waste management. For new buildings and additions over 2,500 square feet or remodels over 2,500 square feet, a construction waste management plan acceptable to the building official that includes recycling of concrete and masonry, wood, metals and cardboard, is required at the time of application for a building permit. The construction waste management plan shall be implemented and conspicuously posted on the construction site. Compliance shall be certified by the hauler through receipts and signed affidavits. Substantive changes to the plan shall be subject to prior approval by the building official. Attachment 3 - 41 - 3602.1.1 Building demolitions. Buildings or portions of buildings which are removed shall be processed in such a way as to safely remove all asbestos and lead paint contaminants. Where possible, all remaining materials, such as doors, windows, cabinets, and fixtures, concrete and masonry, wood, metals, and cardboard, shall be recycled. Compliance shall be certified by the hauler through receipts and signed affidavits. 3602.2 Certified tropical hardwood. All tropical hardwoods used in new construction, additions and alterations requiring a building permit, shall be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or other approved agency. Certification demonstrating compliance shall be required with delivery of such materials and shall be available for inspection. 3603 Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) 3603.1 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) 3603.1.1 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Design. Prior to and during construction, reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize the release of particulates and accumulation of debris, and the specific requirements of this section shall apply. 3603.1.1.1 Air handling system access. The arrangement and location of air handling system components including, but not limited to, air handler units, fans, coils and condensate pans, shall allow access for cleaning and repair of the air handling surfaces of such components. Piping, conduits, and other building components shall not be located so as to obstruct the required access. 3603.1.1.2 Durability of air handling surfaces. Surfaces exposed to airflow within air handling systems shall be constructed of materials that are resistant to deterioration and will not break away, crack, peel, flake off, or show evidence of delamination or continued erosion when tested in accordance with the erosion test in UL 181. 3603.1.1.3 Airstream surfaces. Materials exposed to airflow within ducts, within air plenums, or on top of suspended ceilings, shall not break away, crack, peel, flake off, or show evidence of delamination or continued erosion when tested in accordance with the erosion test in UL 181. 3603.1.2 New Building pollutant flush-out. After all interior finishes are installed, the building shall be flushed out by ventilating at a minimum rate of 0.30 cfm per ft 2 of outside air or the design outdoor airflow rate determined from Chapter 4 of the IMC, whichever is greater, for at least 14 days while maintaining an internal temperature of at least 60°F, and relative humidity not higher than 60 percent. Occupancy shall be permitted to start 1 day after start of the flush-out, provided that flush-out continues for the full 14 days. The building shall not be “baked out” by increasing the temperature of the space above the occupied set point. Where continuous ventilation is not possible, the aggregate of flush-out periods shall be equivalent to 14 days of continuous ventilation. Flush-out reports shall be provided to the building official prior to approval. (needs further discussion, not sure this is being done and how to relate this to strip malls or core and shells only.) Attachment 3 - 42 - Exception: All residential buildings. 3603.2 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC) materials. All construction materials, including but not limited to floor coverings and site-applied finishes, including sealants and adhesives, resilient flooring, carpeting and pad, site-applied paints, stains and varnishes, structural wood panels, hardwood veneer plywood, particle board and fiber board building products, and insulation shall meet specified volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions limits in accordance with relevant standards California Department of Public Health (CDPH) 01350; GREENGUARD Environmental Institute GGPS.001 standard for building materials and finishes, and Green Seal® standards. Documentation demonstrating compliance shall be required with delivery of such materials and shall be available for inspection. Exception: For alterations to existing buildings, carpeting and pad, structural wood panels, hardwood, veneer plywood, particle board and fiber board building products and insulation are not subject to this requirement. 3603.3 Acoustical control. Minimum requirements for exterior-to-interior sound transmission, interior sound transmission, and background sound levels in new construction and additions thereto, except as noted hereunder, shall be provided as specified herein. 3603.3.1 Sound transmission. Buildings and tenant spaces shall comply with the following sound transmission requirements: Exceptions: 1. Portions of buildings or structures that have the interior environment open to the exterior environment. 2. Concession stands and toilet facilities in Group A-4 and A-5 occupancies. 3603.3.1.1 Exterior sound transmission. Where a Group A1, A3, E and I occupancy building, a Group B occupancy building used for educational purposes, or a Group R occupancy building is constructed at a location listed herein, the wall assemblies making up the building thermal envelope shall have a composite sound transmission class (STCc) rating of 39 or greater in the following locations: 1. within 500 feet (152 m) of a multi-lane highway designed for high-speed travel by large numbers of vehicles, and having no traffic lights, stop signs, or other regulations requiring vehicles to stop; fire stations; heavy industrial or manufacturing areas or facilities; commercial storage facilities with back-up alarms; outdoor music amphitheaters; or sports arena or stadium; 2. within 250 feet (76 m) of a roadway containing 4 or more traffic lanes; or Attachment 3 - 43 - 3. within 1,000 feet (305 m) of an active railway. (satisfied at plan review how inspected.) 3603.3.1.2 Interior sound transmission. Interior wall and floor/ceiling assemblies, separating interior rooms and spaces shall be designed in accordance with the following requirements: 1 Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating adjacent tenant spaces, tenant spaces and public places, hotel rooms, motel rooms, patient rooms in nursing homes and hospitals, and adjoining classrooms shall have a composite STC rating of 50 or greater. 2 Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating classrooms from rest rooms and showers shall have a composite STC rating of 53 or greater. 3 Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating classrooms from music rooms, mechanical rooms, cafeterias, gymnasiums, and indoor swimming pools shall have a composite STC rating of 60 or greater. Exception: Residential Group R occupancies addressed in Section 1207 of this code. (satisfied at plan review how inspected.) 3603.3.1.3 Background Sound. The average background sound levels within unoccupied rooms (from heating, ventilating and air conditioning and other building systems) shall be below the maximum A-weighted sound level for specific occupancies from Table 3603 below. This shall be confirmed by spot checks during the commissioning process. (not all buildings are commissioned, what are we doing in smaller buildings) Table 3603 Maximum Allowable Background Sound in Rooms Occupancy Maximum A-weighted sound level (dBa) Small auditoriums (≤500 seats) 39 Large auditoriums, large live indoor theaters, and large churches (for very good speech articulation) (>500 seats) 35 TV and broadcast studios (close microphone pickup only) 35 Small live indoor theaters (≤ 500 seats) 35 Private residences: Bedrooms Apartments Family rooms and living rooms 39 48 48 Schools: Lecture and classrooms Core learning space with enclosed volume ≤ 20,000 cu ft (<566 cu m) Core learning space with enclosed volume > 20,000 cu ft (>566 cu m) Open-plan classrooms 35 40 35 Attachment 3 - 44 - Hotels/motels: Individual rooms or suites Meeting/banquet rooms Service support areas 44 44 57 Office buildings: Offices executive small, private large, with conference tables Conference rooms Large Small Open-plan areas Business machines, computers Public circulation 44 48 44 39 44 48 53 57 Hospitals and clinics Private rooms Wards Operating rooms Laboratories Corridors Public areas 39 44 44 53 53 52 Movie theaters ≤ 500 seats 48 Churches, small (≤500 seats) 44 Courtrooms 44 Libraries 48 Restaurants 52 Light maintenance shops, industrial plant control rooms, kitchens, and laundries 62 Shops and garages 67 3603.3.1.4 Outdoor Environmental Quality (OEQ) 3603.3.1.4 Exterior lighting. All building mounted exterior lighting fixtures associated with new buildings shall have the “Fixture Seal of Approval” from the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) or, meet equivalent criteria approved by the Building Official. Lighting placement shall conform to IDA Model Lighting Ordinance for Lighting Zone LZ-1. Light shall be shielded such that the lamp itself or the lamp image is not directly visible outside the property perimeter. Exterior lighting associated with existing buildings shall comply with the Land Use Code as adopted by the City.” 3604 Commissioning, Operations & Maintenance 3604.1 Building commissioning. For new buildings with a gross floor of greater than 15,000 ft 2 Attachment 3 - 45 - building. This material shall be assembled and organized into a systems manual that provides necessary information to the building operating staff to operate and maintain all commissioned systems identified with the building project. The owner shall retain the system manual and final commissioning report described below. An electronic formatted copy of the final commissioning report shall be provided to the building official. The following commissioning activities shall be completed prior to approval: 1. The owner shall designate an approved project commissioning authority (CxA) to lead, review, and oversee completion of the commissioning process activities. 2. The owner, in conjunction with the design team as necessary, shall develop the owner’s project requirements (OPR) to guide the CxA. The OPR shall be distributed to all parties participating in the project programming, design, construction, and operations, and the commissioning team members. 3. The design team shall develop the basis of design (BOD). 4. The CxA shall: a. review the both the OPR and BOD for clarity and completeness, b. incorporate construction phase commissioning requirements into project specifications and other construction documents developed by the design team, c. develop and implement a commissioning plan containing all required forms and procedures for the complete testing of all equipment, systems, and controls included in Section 3604.1.1, d. verify the installation and performance of the systems to be commissioned, e. complete a final commissioning report satisfactory to the building official, f. verify the owner requirements for training operating personnel and building occupants are completed, and g. verify that a system manual in a form satisfactory to the building official has been prepared. At a minimum, the system manual shall include operations and maintenance documentation and full warranty information, and shall provide operating staff the information needed to understand and operate the commissioned systems as designed. 3604.1.1 Systems. The following systems, if included in the building project, shall be commissioned: 1. heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, indoor-air-quality, and refrigeration systems and associated controls; 2. building thermal envelope systems, components, and assemblies to verify thermal, air, and moisture integrity; 3. all lighting controls and shading controls; 4. service water heating systems; 5. renewable energy systems; 6. background sound levels; 7. cooling towers water use.” Attachment 3 - 46 - (61) Chapter 35 Referenced Standards is hereby amended by adding the following additional referenced standard in alphabetical sequence: CDPH California Department of Public Health 1615 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 95814 CDPH 01350 Standard Method for Testing VOC emissions from indoor sources Referenced in Amended 12 IBC Section 3603.2 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC) materials FSC Forest Stewardship Council U.S. (FSC-US) 212 Third Avenue North, Suite 504 Minneapolis, MN 55401 GEI GREENGUARD Environmental Institute 2211 Newmarket Parkway, Suite 110 Marietta, GA 30067 GGPS.001.GREENGUARD IAQ Standard for Building Materials, Finishes and Furnishings Referenced in Amended 12 IBC Section 3603.2 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC) materials Green Seal® 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 827 Washington, DC 20036-5525 GS-11 Paintings and Coatings GS-43 Recycled Content Latex Paints Referenced in Amended 12 IBC Section 3603.2 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC) materials (62) Appendix C GROUP U AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS is adopted in its entirety. (63) Appendix E SUPPLEMENTARY ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, is adopted in its entirety. (64) Appendix I PATIO COVERS is adopted in its entirety. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor Attachment 3 - 47 - ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Attachment 4 4/29/16 7/5/16 7/28/16 Proposed changes to the adopted Structures and Premises Condition Code of the City of Fort Collins (2006 International Property Maintenance Code) 102.7 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be those that are listed in the International Building Code as adopted by the City and considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and the referenced standards, the provisions of this code shall apply. 104.1 General. The Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director or Chief Building Official as may be appointed by the City Manager shall serve as the executive code official responsible for supervising the administration, compliance, and enforcement of this Article. In the performance of said duties, such code official may delegate authority to the appropriate technical, administrative, and compliance staff under the supervision of said code official as he or she deems necessary. The code official is hereby authorized to, and shall, enforce the provisions of this code. 104.3 Inspections. The code official shall make or shall cause to be made all of the required inspections, or shall accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. All reports of such inspections shall be in writing and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agency or by the responsible individual. The code official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise. 108.1 General. When any building, structure, or equipment or portion thereof is found to be substandard, unfit for human occupancy, unlawful or dangerous, imminently dangerous, or when any equipment or fixture installed or used therein is found to be substandard, such condition shall be abated or otherwise corrected, repaired, or removed pursuant to the provisions of this code. Classifications addressed in sections 108.1.1 through 108.1.5 are arraigned in order from least concern, (substandard), to highest concern, (imminent danger). 108.1.1 Substandard buildings, structures, or equipment. A substandard building or structure is one that may pose a risk to the life, health, property or safety of the occupants thereof or the public, even though it does not constitute a dangerous building or structure as defined in Section 108.1.5, either because the building or structure lacks the equipment necessary to protect or warn occupants in the event of fire, or because it contains substandard or missing equipment, systems or fixtures, or is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, or structurally unsound. 108.1.1.1 Substandard equipment. Substandard equipment or fixtures may include any boiler, heating equipment, elevator, moving stairway, electrical wiring or device, flammable liquid containers, potable water, plumbing, sanitation systems or fixtures, or other equipment on the premises or within the building or structure which is in such disrepair or unsound condition that the equipment or fixtures may pose a potential risk to life, health, property or safety of the public or occupants of the premises. Attachment 4 108.1.2 Building or Structure unfit for human occupancy. A building or structure is unfit for human occupancy whenever the code official finds that such building or structure is unlawful or, because of the degree to which the building or structure is in disrepair or lacks maintenance, is unsanitary, vermin or rat infested, contains filth and contamination, or lacks ventilation, illumination, sanitary or heating facilities or other essential equipment required by this code, or because the location of the building or structure constitutes a hazard to the occupants of the structure or the public. 108.1.3 Unlawful building or structure. An unlawful building or structure is one found in whole or in part to be occupied by more persons than permitted under this code, the City Code or any other code adopted by the City, or which building or structure was erected, altered or occupied contrary to law. 108.1.4 Dangerous building, structure, or equipment. A building, structure, or equipment is dangerous if any part, element or component thereof is no longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit state as defined in this code. 108.1.5 Imminently Dangerous building, structure, or equipment. An imminently dangerous building or structure is one that poses an immediate risk, as determined by the code official, to the life, health, property or safety of the occupants thereof or the public, 108.3 Notice. Whenever the code official has classified a building, structure, or equipment as dangerous or imminently dangerous under the provisions of this section 108 and 109, notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place in or about the building or structure or equipment affected by such notice and served on the owner or the person or persons responsible for the building or structure or equipment in accordance with the adopted building code section 114 or 116 as deemed applicable by the code official. 108.4 Placarding. Buildings or structures classified as dangerous or imminently dangerous by the code official shall be placarded on a form deemed appropriate by the City. 109.1 Dangerous or Imminently dangerous. When, in the opinion of the code official, there is a danger or imminent danger of failure or collapse of a building or structure which endangers life, or when any building or structure or part of a building or structure has fallen and life is endangered by the occupation of the building or structure, or when there is actual or potential danger to the building occupants or those in the proximity of any building or structure because of explosives, explosive fumes or vapors or the presence of toxic fumes, gases or materials, or operation of defective or dangerous equipment, the code official is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require the occupants to vacate the premises forthwith. The code official shall cause to be posted at each entrance to such building or structure a notice reading as follows: “Dangerous Structure. By Order of the Chief Building Official, This Structure Has Been Inspected and Found to be Unsafe to Occupy” or “Imminently Dangerous Structure, By Order of the Chief Building Official, This Structure Has Been Inspected and Found to be Imminently Dangerous and is Hereby Unsafe to Enter or Occupy” It shall be unlawful for any person to enter such Dangerous or Imminently Dangerous building or structure except for the purpose of securing the building or structure, making the required repairs, removing the hazardous condition or of demolishing the same. 109.2 Temporary safeguards. Notwithstanding other provisions of this code, whenever, in the opinion of the code official, there is either a dangerous or an imminently dangerous condition, the code official Attachment 4 shall order the necessary work to be done, including the boarding up of openings, to render such building or structure temporarily safe whether or not the legal procedure herein described has been instituted; and shall cause such other action to be taken as the code official deems necessary to meet such emergency. 109.3 Closing streets. When necessary for public safety, the code official shall temporarily close buildings or structures and close, or order the authority having jurisdiction to close, sidewalks, streets, public ways and places adjacent to dangerous or imminently dangerous buildings or structures, and prohibit the same from being utilized. 109.5 Costs of emergency repairs. For the purposes of this section, the code official shall employ, or cause to be employed, the necessary labor and materials to perform the work required as expeditiously as possible. Costs incurred in the performance of emergency work shall be paid by the jurisdiction. The legal counsel of the jurisdiction shall institute appropriate action against the owner of the building, structure, or equipment including a lien upon the property pursuant to Section 107.2 where the dangerous or imminently dangerous building, structure, or equipment is or was located for the recovery of such costs. 109.5.1 Disconnection of service utilities. The code official shall have the authority to authorize disconnection of utility service to the building, structure, or equipment regulated by this Code and the other codes referenced in case of emergency where necessary to eliminate a dangerous or imminently dangerous hazard to life or property. The code official shall notify the serving utility and, wherever possible, the owner and occupant of the building, structure, or equipment of the decision to disconnect prior to taking such action. If not notified prior to disconnecting, the owner or occupant of the building, structure, or equipment shall be notified in writing as soon as feasible thereafter. SECTION 110 REPAIR or DEMOLITION 110.1 Repair. The code official shall order the owner of any premises upon which is located any building. structure, or equipment which in the code official’s judgment is so old, dilapidated or has become so out of repair as to be classified as dangerous, unsanitary or otherwise unfit for human habitation or occupancy to repair and make safe such building, structure, or equipment. Exception: Buildings or structures declared to be dangerous may be removed subject to the limitations of Chapter 14 of the City Code titled Landmark Preservation. 110.2 Demolition. Buildings or structures which have been declared to be imminently dangerous by the code official shall be repaired or demolished, as determined by the owner, within the time frame specified by the code official. 110.3 Failure to comply. If the owner of a premises fails to comply with a demolition order within the time prescribed, the code official shall cause the building, structure, or equipment to be demolished and removed, either through an available public agency or by contract or arrangement with private persons, and the cost of such demolition and removal shall be charged against the real estate upon which the the building, structure, or equipment is located and shall be a lien upon such real estate. Attachment 4 110.4 Salvage materials. When any building, structure, or equipment has been ordered demolished and removed, the governing body or other designated officer under said contract or arrangement aforesaid shall have the right to sell the salvage and valuable materials at the highest price obtainable. The net proceeds of such sale, after deducting the expenses of such demolition and removal, shall be promptly remitted with a report of such sale or transaction, including the items of expense and the amounts deducted, for the person who is entitled thereto, subject to any order of a court. If such a surplus does not remain to be turned over, the report shall so state. Definitions IMMINENT DANGER or IMMINENT THREAT. A condition which could cause serious or life- threatening injury or death at any moment. Appearing as if about to happen without delay, impending. BUILDING shall mean any permanent structure built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind, which is governed by the following characteristics: (1) is permanently affixed to the land; (2) has one (1) or more floors and a roof; and (3) is bounded by either open space or the lot lines of a lot. STRUCTURE shall mean a combination of materials to form a construction for use, occupancy or ornamentation whether installed on, above or below the surface of land or water. (Note: Building and Structure are defined in the City’s Land Use Code which is why I placed these here as well) Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax 2017 Annual Work Plan Building Review Board The Building Review Board will continue to meet on the last Thursday of each month when there are public discussion or hearing items placed on the regular monthly agenda. The Board may also meet as needed in order to convene special hearings. Staff anticipates that the Building Review Board will hear several appeals by contractor license applicants who do not strictly meet the qualification criteria specified in the City Code. Under its quasi-judicial review authority, the Board is empowered to grant variances from such criteria when it determines there are practical difficulties or that an undue hardship would be imposed on the applicant; or, when the Board determines the applicant has sufficient specialized training, education, or additional relevant experience. The Board is also empowered to render disciplinary action, including suspension or revocation of regulated contractor licenses, under which any specified infractions listed in the regulations are committed. Additionally, in its code appellate function, the Board may hear appeals from strict application of the building codes or from an interpretation of the codes by the Building Official. The Board will continue to hear cases involving challenges to the Building Official’s interpretation of the adopted building codes, as well as the adopter International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). In its advisory capacity, the Board is expected to participate, as a member of the Code Review Committee, in the review of the 2015 International Building Codes including updates addressing sustainable building-construction standards and make recommendations to Council regarding any suggested revisions based on local conditions and community standards. The Board will continue to work on its operational procedures and other matters of interest. _____________________________________ ___________________________ Alan Cram, Building Review Board Chair Date of Approval (1,395 m 2 ) and additions with a gross floor of greater than 15,000 ft 2 (1,395 m 2 ), commissioning shall be performed in accordance with this section. A commissioning process shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the building project that verifies that the delivered building and its components, assemblies, and systems comply with the documented owner project requirements (OPR). Procedures, documentation, tools and training shall be provided to the building operating staff to sustain features of the building assemblies and systems for the service life of the ) or less, consisting of a continuous rectilinear loop of soil gas collection mat or drainage mat having minimum dimensions of 1 inch in height by 12 inches in width (25.4 mm in height x 305 mm in width) and a nominal cross- sectional air flow area of 12 square inches (0.0078 m 2 ) may be laid on top of the sub-