Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

EVERYONE, I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED HERE.

AGAIN, THANKS FOR BEARING WITH ME.

WOO.

I THINK MY, MY ADRENALINE IS DOWN FROM, I TH THAT I 35 RUSH .

SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE BUILDING AND SENATORS COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR OCTOBER 26, 26, 20 22, AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE TIME IS 6 48.

UM, MY NAME IS EDGAR FERRERA.

I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.

AND, UM, AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO CALL, ROLL AND ASK FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, THAT ARE, UH, MEMBERS THAT ARE PRESENT TONIGHT TO PLEASE SIGNIFY THAT YOU ARE HERE.

UM, A QUICK REMINDER, IF YOU ARE PROMOTING IN, UM, AND WE HAVE, UH, UH, SOME OF OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE, ARE CALLING IN.

PLEASE KEEP YOUR CAMERAS ON SO AS, UH, SO WE CAN MAINTAIN QUORUM.

BUT, UH, IF YOU ARE PROMOTING IN, YOU CAN MUTE YOURSELF IF YOU WISH.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, UM, SO I KNOW, UH, SIDE'S NOT HERE, SO SHE'S ABSENT.

UH, I'M PRESENT AT FERRERA WARDY THOMPSON.

HERE.

JOHN GREEN HERE.

OKAY.

ELIZABETH MUELLER HERE.

OKAY.

REMOTELY.

THANK YOU.

JOSEPH BENIGNO.

HERE.

TIMOTHY STU? YES.

OKAY.

ANDREA FRYBERGER.

PRESENT.

THANK YOU.

EDWARD SELIG.

PRESENT.

MICHAEL FRANCIS HERE.

AND CHIEF TOM VOLK.

HERE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

BEFORE THE CASES ARE CALLED TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION WILL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES OR SIX MINUTES FOR ANYONE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION SERVICES.

DO WE AND, AND DO WE HAVE, WHO DO WE HAVE? NO, WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE MOVING THROUGH THIS.

OKAY.

TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A HEARING FOR FOUR OF THE SIX CASES ON THE POSTED AGENDA.

THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER FOUR CASES FROM FOUR SEPARATE PROPERTIES.

THE CASES WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.

HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE A CASE OUT OF ORDER IF IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

ALL ATTENDEES AT THIS HEARING ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE APPROPRIATE DEC, QUORUM AND CIVILITY, SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.

THE COMMISSION'S COORDINATOR, MELANIE ALLEY, WILL CALL EACH CASE ON THE AGENDA, FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY.

MELANIE, WILL YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF? THANK YOU.

I'M HERE.

AUSTIN CODE STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.

THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY MUST COME FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM.

IF YOU ARE, OR IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, UNMUTE YOUR PHONE.

THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESS THIS.

FIRST, YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MAY ASK THE WITNESSES QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY.

AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

YOU WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.

WHEN THE TIMER INDICATES THAT YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, YOU MUST FINISH YOUR SENTENCE AND CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION.

WILL OUR DESIGNATED TIMEKEEPER THIS EVENING, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

JAMES GOS FOR AUSTIN CODE.

THANK YOU, JAMES.

AFTER YOU AND THE CITY HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE.

AFTER THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS, I WILL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENT TO OFFER RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE.

BOTH SIDES AND THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.

AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED, THE COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THE CASE AND VOTE ON A DECISION.

THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WILL BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT, AND A COPY OF THE DECISION WILL BE MAILED TO YOU.

A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IS FINAL AND BINDING, UNLESS APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED WITNESSES TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

ANY

[00:05:01]

PERSON THAT WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE REMOTE DIGGING IN, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN IN.

YES, ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO PRESENT TESTIMONY.

OKAY.

AND INCLUDING THOSE REMOTE IN.

OKAY.

DO YOU, DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

IF THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.

MELANIE, BEFORE, DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER THE, THE MINUTES, APPROVE

[1. Approve the minutes of the Building and Standards Commission regular meeting on September 28, 2022.]

THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 REGULAR MEETING.

COPIES OF THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE IN THE GOOGLE DRAFT FOLDER.

AND READERS SHOULD YOU NEED TO REVIEW THEM, I, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE 'EM.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

THANK YOU.

I'LL CALL A VOTE.

UH, PLEASE.

DOES THIS HAVE TO BE AN ORAL VOTE OR CAN WE JUST RAISE OUR HANDS? ORAL WOULD BE BETTER SINCE WE HAVE PEOPLE OFF.

OKAY.

SO I'LL CALL YOUR NAME AND PLEASE SAY I IF YOU APPROVE THE MINUTES, UM, I APPROVE THEM.

ED FERRERA, I WORDY THOMPSON.

I APPROVE JOHN GREEN ABSTAIN.

ELIZABETH MUELLER.

I APPROVE JOSEPH BEMA.

NO ABSTAIN.

TIMOTHY STAT.

DAD, I, CAN YOU MUTE YOURSELF AND I OKAY.

I, UH, ANDREA RAY BERGER.

HI, EDWARD SEIG.

UH, MICHAEL FRANCIS.

I, DID I MISS ANYBODY? OKAY.

I BELIEVE THAT THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

THAT SHOULD BE A 7 0 2 VOTE.

I BELIEVE SO.

OKAY.

WITH THE MINUTES APPROVED, UM, MELANIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN CALLING OUR CASES? YES.

AND CHAIR, BEFORE WE BEGIN CALLING THE STA THE CASES, I WANTED TO STATE ON THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE TWO CASES THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED, 4 0 3 AND 4 0 5 HACKBERRY LANE, HAVE BOTH BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA AND WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT.

OKAY.

AND, OKAY,

[2. Case Number: CL 2022-152966]

SO I'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.

IS ITEM NUMBER TWO.

IN THE FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA IS AN APPEAL REGARDING FIVE 18 SUNNY LANE.

THE CASE NUMBER IS CL 20 22 1 5 2 9 66.

THE CASE CAN BE FOUND IN ONE OF THE BLUE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

THIS CASE IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WHICH WAS CITED BY THE AUSTIN CODE DEPARTMENT FOR AN UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALL ON THE PROPERTY IN THE READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

YOU'LL FIND STAFF EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO.

EXHIBIT ONE CONTAINS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S APPEAL LETTER, THE COMPLAINANT CASE HISTORY, COPIES OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, THE REQUIRED NOTICES OF HEARING AND POSTINGS, AND AN EMAIL BETWEEN DSD AND AUSTIN.

CODE REGARDING PERMITTING EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOS AND A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G.

AND LASTLY, AUSTIN CODE'S RECOMMENDATION.

AUSTIN CODE INSPECTOR EDMUND SUE IS HERE TO PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO THE SPECIFICS THAT LED UP TO THE APPEAL.

INSPECTOR SUE, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS EDON SUE AUSTIN, CO DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN DISTRICT INVESTIGATORS ON AUGUST 22ND, 2022, CITY OF AUSTIN RECEIVE A COMPLAINT REGARDING WORK WITHOUT PERMIT IN THE REAR RETAINING WALL.

AND, UH, FIVE ONE A SUNNY LANE IS A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED NEXT BY THE EAST RIVERSIDE STREET.

UM, AND THE CASE INVOLVED MULTI MUL MULTIPLE CITY ENTITIES IN THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENTS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENTS, AND AUSTIN CO DEPARTMENTS.

WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEWER, UH, INSPECTOR

[00:10:01]

WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THE REAR RETAINING WALL, UH, NEEDING A BUILDING PERMIT.

DUE TO MULTI-LAYERED TERRANCE, UH, THE SURCHARGE OF THE FLOW WILL OCCUR IN THE REAR, UH, LANDSCAPE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE AND DISHES.

AND ANOTHER REASON FOR THE OWNER TO RE, UH, TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT IS THE REAR RETAINING WALL WAS, UH, ENCROACHING TO A CITY EASEMENTS.

UH, ACCORDING TO THE WATERSHED PROTECTION SYSTEM, UH, DEPARTMENT, THERE IS A STONE WATER DRAINAGE PIPE THAT RUNS ACROSS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.

UH, THE LATEST NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT OUT TO THE OWNER AND AGENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2022.

AS, UH, UH, OCTOBER 19TH, 2022, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE CO VIOLATION STILL EXISTS ON THE PROPERTIES, AND WE WILL BE, UH, PRESENTING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE IN EXHIBIT, UH, TWO A THROUGH TWO GS.

UH, LET ME GET TO THE PICTURE.

OKAY.

SO FROM THE PICTURE OF TWO A'S, UH, IT SHOWS THE, THE FRONT, THE PROPERTY WITH THE ADDRESS BY ONE AND THE PICTURE TWO, IT WAS A MEASUREMENTS OF THE RETAINING WALL ON SITE, UH, WHICH IS, UH, MEASURE LISTENING FOUR FEET, UH, OF THE INITIAL RETAINING WALL.

AND THE PICTURE TWO C IT SHOWS, UH, FROM THE, UH, OVERVIEW LANDSCAPING LOOKING DOWN OF THE, UH, REAR, REAR YARD LANDSCAPE.

AND PICTURE TWO D IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE, THE REAR YARD LANDSCAPE, BUT FROM SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN PICTURE TWO E IS THE FINAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION EDITIONS OF THE RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTIES.

MISS MR. SUE? YES.

YES, SIR.

I CAN STOP YOU.

CAN WE GET THE, THE PHOTOS TO KIND OF SYNC UP WITH THE TESTIMONY, I THINK? SURE.

THE LAST ONE WAS TWO E THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING.

YES.

THANK YOU.

SO, UH, OKAY.

SO THIS PICTURE TWO B IS THE, THE MEASUREMENT OF THE RETAINING WALL, WHICH SHOWS, UH, LET'S SEE, LESS THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.

AND IN CITY ORDINANCE, UH, THERE, THERE'S A PHRASE SAYING THAT IF IT'S LESS THAN FOUR FEET, UH, RETAINING WALL DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT.

BUT THIS CASE IS ACTUALLY, UM, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

UM, WHICH BECAUSE THE OWNER HAVE, UH, ADD MULTIPLE ADDITION TO THE PROPERTIES, YOU ACTUALLY CHANGE THE, THE WHOLE SURCHARGE OF THE RARE YARD LANDSCAPING.

UM, ON TOP OF THAT, UM, THROUGH THE EXPLANATION, I, I SHOWED THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A STONE DRAINAGE PIPE EASEMENT GOING THROUGH THE PROPERTIES, AND ANY KIND OF STRUCTURE THAT'S BUILT IN THE EASEMENT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A, A BUILDING PERMIT.

UM, AND IN THE PROCESS, THEY'LL OBTAIN, UH, A EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, UH, BEFORE THEY CAN BUILD ANY CONSTRUCTION IN THE PROCESS.

AND IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET, UH, AGREEMENT, THEY HAVE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT, UM, IN THE CITY.

AND THIS PICTURE IN TWO C IS, UH, FROM THE OVERVIEW, UH, FROM THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING DOWNWARDS, UM, TO THE EAST, UH, RIVERSIDE, UH, SHOWING THE, THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTIES.

AND THEN PICTURE TWO D IS ON THE SIDE OF PROPERTY ALSO LOOKING DOWNWARDS TO SHOW HOW STEEP OF THE LANDSCAPE.

AND THEN, UM, ORIGINALLY ACCORDING TO THE OWNER, UM, THERE'S, UH, VEGETATION TREES ON THERE, AND THEN HE REMOVE THOSE TREES AND HE'S AFRAID OF, UH, CAUSING MUD SLIDE TO THE RIVERSIDE STREET.

AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT HE'S TRYING TO BUILD RETAINING WALLS.

AND THEN NOW WE'RE GOING TO THE PICTURE AT TO E UM, TWO E IS THE FINAL PRODUCT OF THE, THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW.

UM, THERE'S MULTI LAYERS OF RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK.

IT'S, UH, MUCH BIGGER THAN, UH, WHAT ORIGINALLY, UH, WE WERE WHEN WE WERE ON SITE.

AND THE PICTURE OF TWO

[00:15:01]

F IS, UH, JUST SHOWING THAT, UH, IN OCTOBER 19 RECENTLY, THAT THE STRUCTURE IS STILL IN VIOLATION, IS STILL EXISTING ON THE PROPERTIES.

AND, UH, IN PICTURE TWO G IS THE CITY ORDINANCE, UM, THAT GIVE US, UM, THAT WE GOT FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT, UM, SHOWING THAT EVEN THOUGH, UH, INITIALLY THE RETAINING WALL IS LISTING FOUR FEET, HE ORIGINALLY MAY NOT REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.

BUT, UH, DUE TO THE CHANGE OF SURCHARGE, UM, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY DO REQUIRE HAVE THE BUILDING PERMIT.

AND DUE TO ALL THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED, UM, CITY OF AUSTIN COKE DEPARTMENT, WE RECOMMEND THE OWNER TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT.

AND THIS CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, MR. SUE.

UM, LET'S SEE.

STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO G, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, AS WELL AS CODES.

RECOMMENDATION STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE AND DENY THE OWNER'S APPEAL.

THANK YOU, MELANIE.

AND, UM, THIS IS WHERE WE MOVE TO ACCEPT THIS IN THE RECORD, CORRECT? YES.

GO AHEAD AND ADMIT THE STAFF EXHIBITS.

YES.

SO I'D LIKE TO ADMIT STAFF EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO G, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, UM, UH, INTO THE RECORD.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANNA SPEAK NOW, BUT WE ALSO HAVE SOME, UH, REPRESENTATIVES FROM DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ONLINE.

OH, GO.

UH, YEAH, WE CAN HEAR THE CITY SIDE FIRST, AND THEN I KNOW WE HAVE, UH, UM, WE HAVE AN APPELLANT OWNER REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK AFTERWARDS.

SO, UM, WHOEVER'S ON FROM THE CITY, PLEASE, UH, I GUESS IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND UNMUTE YOURSELF.

YES.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

YES.

GREAT.

UH, YEAH, SCOTT COCHRAN, UH, RESIDENTIAL DIVISION MANAGER, UH, FOR DSD.

UH, I DON'T REALLY HAVE TOO MUCH MORE TO ADD OTHER THAN, UM, UH, WHAT, UH, I'M SORRY, I MISSED THE CODE OFFICER'S NAME BEFORE THAT, THAT WAS, THAT HAD ALL THOSE EXHIBITS.

UM, BUT YEAH, JUST TO KIND OF REITERATE, UM, IN A, IN A 2021 IRC UNDER, UH, CODE SECTION, UH, R 1 0 5 0.2, WHICH IS, UH, COVERS WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT.

AND NOT TO REPEAT WHAT HE WAS SAYING, BUT HE DID SHOW, UH, I THINK UNDER TWO E, UM, OH, NO, I'M SORRY, THAT WAS THE PICTURES OF THE SHELVING.

BUT, UM, UNDER, UH, IN REGARDS TO THE RETAINING WALL, RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE NOT OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTING, UH, IN THE TOP OF THE WALL, UNLESS SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE.

SO THERE AGAIN, IT'S, IT REFERENCES SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE.

UM, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE IN ONE SECOND TO PULL UP, SORRY, I GOT THROWN INTO THIS LAST SECOND, SO I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SLIDES AND WHATNOT TO SHOW YOU.

BUT, UM, IN OUR AMENDMENTS TO THE, UH, 2021 IRC AND INTERNATIONAL, UH, INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, UM, YOU CAN FIND UNDER NUMBER THREE, UNLESS SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE.

SO UNLESS SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE OR LOCATED WITHIN A FLOOD AREA, UH, RETAINING WALL THAT IS NOT OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, MEASURE FROM BOTTOM OF THE FOOTING TO THE TOP OF THE WALL, AND NOT ARGUING THAT THE WALL IS SHORTER THAN FOUR FEET BASED OFF THE MEASUREMENTS, BUT IT IS SUPPORTING A SUBSTANTIAL SURCHARGE ON THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS.

UM, THAT IS WHY, UH, OUR FINDINGS AS WELL SUPPORT, UH, THE, THE FACT THAT THEY, THEY DO NEED TO, UH, PULL A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THESE RETAINING WALLS.

DO, DO, UM, THE, THE QUOTE YOU READ FROM THE CITY ORDINANCES, DO WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING TO ACCEPT IN THE RECORD? YES.

OBJECT.

IT'S TWO G IN THE SECOND EXHIBIT TWO.

OKAY.

SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

MM-HMM.

, DID WE HAVE ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY ONLINE? I DON'T THINK ANYBODY OTHER THAN ME, NO.

YEAH.

YES.

TODD WIL,

[00:20:01]

DEPUTY WHEELING OFFICIAL.

I'M ALSO LOGGED IN.

SORRY, I'M GETTING FEEDBACK.

OH, SORRY.

THAT'S ME.

UM, AND I, I AGREE WITH OFFICER SUE AND, AND SCOTT'S, UH, EVALUATION, UH, I SAW THAT THE MEASUREMENT WAS AT 41 INCHES.

THE MEASUREMENT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE FOOTER, UH, WHICH IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING TO SOIL GRADE ON THE BOTTOM LEVEL.

SO I, I'D HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE FOOTER WAS, UH, WHICH MAY PUT IT CLOSE TO FOUR FEET, WHICH WOULD CROWD THE BUILDING PERMIT IN ADDITION TO THE SURCHARGES THAT WAS ADDED BY THE ADDITIONAL SOIL.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. WILCOX.

SO I KNOW WE HAVE, UM, AN APPELLATE TO, UM, WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

AND, UH, IT SAYS HERE, THEY, THEY MAY BE HERE IN PERSON, MR. MURRA.

YES.

ROBBIE, DID I SAY THAT? CORRECT? YES.

YOU CAN SIT AT THE TABLE, UNDER THE SCREEN, PLEASE, SIR.

AND, UM, AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, UM, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.

TYPICALLY, AS THE COURTESY, WE'LL GIVE YOU THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE CITY JUST TOOK.

SO I THINK THAT'S, I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR, WHERE OUR TIMEKEEPER IS.

THAT'S PROBABLY APPROXIMATELY, I DON'T KNOW, EIGHT MINUTES.

MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN FIVE.

I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG THAT TOOK, BUT, UM, NO.

YEAH, THERE'S A BUTTON.

IT SAYS PUSH.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

JUST PULL THE, PULL THE MIC CLOSER TO YOUR, TO YOURSELF.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WOULD YOU PLEASE, UH, MELANIE, WOULD YOU PLEASE PUT UP MY PRESENTATION WHILE, UH, WHILE SHE'S PUTTING THIS UP? I CAN START.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, UH, GOOD EVENING.

UH, I'M MERABI.

I OWNED THE PROPERTY AT FIVE 18 SUNNY LANE WITH MY WIFE, WHO DOESN'T KNOW I'M HERE.

UH, UH, AND, UH, I'VE APPEALED, UH, THIS COMPLAINT, UH, AND I HAVE, UH, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITY IS NOW CONCERNED ABOUT THE SURCHARGE, AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.

UH, NUMBER ONE IS, UM, I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.

INDEED, I WAS THE PERSON WHO CALLED THE CITY OF AUSTIN, COULD YOU PLEASE BE TO CHART NUMBER TWO? THIS IS A HISTORY.

AND I WAS THE ONE WHO CALLED THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WOULD NEVER GET A CALL BACK, WAITED WEEKS.

AND, UH, THE DETAILS ARE THERE AND, UH, WE'RE JUST NEVER HEAR BACK.

FINALLY, UH, INSPECTORS CARBO, UH, YARBOROUGH, SORRY, SHOWED UP.

UH, INSPECTOR SUE SHOWED UP ON THE 19TH AND INSPECTOR YARBOROUGH ON THE 22ND.

INSPECTOR YARBOROUGH.

HAVING SEEN THAT THE CITY HAS NOT RE BEEN RESPONDING AND EVEN TOLD ME TO JUST WAIT 20 MINUTES, I'LL BE THERE AND NEVER SHOWING UP AND CALLING BACK.

HE RECOGNIZED THAT I'VE BEEN DOING MY BEST TO GET CITI TO RESPOND, AND THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.

SO HE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO STAY ON THE PROPERTY AND CALL AROUND TO GET SOMEBODY TO RESPOND.

SO NOBODY COMPLAINED ABOUT MY WORK.

I CALLED THE CITY, AND I HAVE THE SERVICE REQUEST NUMBER HERE ON THE CHART.

AND, UM, IT IS, UH, MY DESIRE TO BE 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY, UH, EVERYTHING THAT IS DONE.

THAT'S WHY I CONTACTED THE CITY.

MOSTLY.

PEOPLE DO NOT, THEY TRY TO HIDE THEIR STUFF.

UM, AFTER, UH, MR. SUE AND I EXCHANGED EMAILS, AND HE INDICATED THAT I NEED A PERMIT FOR WALLS OVER FOUR FEET.

AND I INDICATED TO MR. SUE AND, UH, UH, ALSO TO MR. YARBOROUGH THAT THE WALLS ARE UNDER FOUR FEET AND I WALLS S AND THEN, UH, CAN YOU PLEASE GO TO CHART NUMBER THREE? THIS IS A COPY OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE EXEMPTION REGULATION VERBATIM, THAT I HAVE COPIED.

UH, AND, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN HERE, IT SPECIFIES THAT IT MUST NOT SUPPORT THE SURCHARGE, AND THE HEIGHT MUST BE IN UNDER FOUR FEET.

SO, UH, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

BASED ON THIS, UH, I, UH, PROCEEDED BUILDING THE WALL.

NOW, IF YOU COULD GO, PLEASE TO

[00:25:01]

CHART 12.

12.

IS THAT 12? THAT'S, UH, 12 IS A BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURE, NO.

PAGE 12.

YES.

SO THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT SHOWS WHAT THE, UH, BAG BACK OF THE PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE BEFORE I STARTED THE SECOND AND THE THIRD WALLS, UH, THE DE UH, AND IT WAS THE CITY, THE, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT I FINISHED WITH.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE GO TO PAGE 14.

OKAY.

LET ME MAKE SURE I CAN SYNC UP WITH YOU.

OKAY.

OKAY.

PAGE 14 SHOWS WHERE, UH, WHEN I CALLED THE CITY, THE REASON, UH, THE REASON I CALLED THE CITY WAS THAT I, I IDENTIFIED A STORM PIPE THAT HAD A 90 DEGREE TURN AS I SHOW IN THE BURIED STORM DRAINAGE PIPE.

WHEN WE WERE DIGGING THE GROUND, I HAD THE CONTRACTORS FULLY STOP.

I CALLED THE CITY NUMEROUS TIMES TO COME AND EXAMINE IT TO SEE WHETHER IT'S THEIRS OR NOT.

THIS IS A STORM PIPE, SO IT'S NOT VISIBLE ON TOP.

THERE WAS NO WAY FOR ME TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE IS AN EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY.

BUT I CALLED, EVEN HAVING STOOD ME UP SAYING, I'LL BE THERE IN 20 MINUTES, AND NEVER SHOWING UP AND CALLING BACK MY TAX MONEY AT WORK.

UH, EVENTUALLY THEY SHOWED UP ON AUGUST.

ON 22ND, LOOK AT IT, YOU, UH, UH, TOLD ME, THEY SAID, IT IS AN EASEMENT.

I DID.

IT IS THEIR PIPE, AND IT TAKES A 90 DEGREE TURN DEEP INTO THE GROUND.

AND CONSEQUENTLY, UH, THE PATCH THAT THEY HAD APPLIED YEARS AGO HASN'T HELD, AND IT'S A SMALL TRACK.

SO I STOPPED THE PROJECT UNTIL THEY FINISHED BUILDING IT, AND I REMOVED THE WALLS.

I HAVE NOTICED TWO ARROWS.

I HAVE REMOVED THOSE TWO WALLS THAT WERE ON TOP OF THE EASEMENT.

THE THIRD WALL AT THE BOTTOM, I HAVE KEPT TO PROTECT THE, UH, RIVERSIDE DRIVE FROM FLOODING.

AND, UH, THE GRAVEL, THE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE, THE THIRD WALL IS PAST WHERE THE PIPE TAKES A NINE 80 DEGREE TURN INTO THE GROUND.

AND IT IS CLOSE TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE WHERE THERE IS A FIVE FOOT WALL.

THEREFORE, IT IS NOT EXERTING ANY PRESSURE.

IF YOU COULD GO PLEASE TO PAGE 15, THESE ARE MY MEASUREMENTS WITH PICTURES AND, UH, UH, OF THE WIDTHS OF THE WALLS.

UH, WAS SECOND AND THIRD.

THE TOP ONE DOESN'T HAVE ANY, UH, IT'S, UH, 15 FEET.

I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE.

COULD YOU GO TO PAGE SIX, PLEASE? SIX OR, OR SIX? SIX.

OKAY.

UH, ALRIGHT.

SO, UH, I, UH, I'M A SIMPLE GUY, AND WHEN I HEAR WORDS THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, I LOOK HIM UP.

AND I'M ALSO AN ENGINEER.

SO WHEN THEY SAY SURCHARGE, I SAY, OKAY, LET ME UNDERSTAND WHAT SURCHARGE IS.

I DIG SCIENTIFIC RECORDS, AND I SHOW IN HERE THAT EVEN CALIFORNIA, AN EARTHQUAKE PRONE STATE SUBJECT TO FLOODING, ABIDES BY A 40, 45 DEGREE ANGLE FOR THE SUR SURCHARGE AREA OF INFLUENCE, THAT IS THE MAXIMUM.

IF YOU SEE ON TOP, THE YELLOW AREA IS THE MAXIMUM AREA THAT IS CONSIDERED A SURFACE, UH, SURCHARGE, SURFACE INFLUENCE.

NOTHING BEYOND THAT.

NEXT PAGE, PLEASE.

THIS IS A SET OF CALIFORNIA, NOT, UH, AND THIS IS THEIR CODE, NOT MINE.

GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PLEASE.

ARE YOU ON THE, ARE YOU ON PAGE? UH, SEVEN.

OKAY.

SO, UH, THIS IS ABOUT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE.

ACCORDING TO, UH, UH, THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS, UH, MEANS FOR CITY OF AUSTIN, FOUR FEET ON TOP.

IF YOU GO TO PAGE FIVE, SIX, PLEASE, I'M SORRY, 5, 7, 7.

I'VE NEVER BEEN HERE.

I'M SCARED.

SEVEN.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, UH, BEING AN ENGINEER, I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AS OPPOSED TO HEARSAY.

THIS

[00:30:01]

IS THE DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE DEFINED INTERNATIONALLY BY NUMEROUS COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, THAT DEFINES WHAT A SURCHARGE IS.

AND BASED ON THAT, THEY DEFINE A 45 DEGREE ANGLE FOR THE SURCHARGE AREA OF INFLUENCE.

NOTHING BEYOND THIS.

OKAY.

NOW, IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ON PAGE EIGHT, I'LL SHOW YOU, THAT MEANS FOUR FEET FROM THE TOP OF THE WALL TO THE BACK.

NOW, BEING A SIMPLE GUY, BUT WANTING TO BE LOUD, BARRING AND BEING AN ENGINEER, I DESIGNED THIS AS FOLLOWERS.

GO TO PAGE NINE, PLEASE.

THIS IS THE THREE WALLS.

THESE ARE THE THREE WALLS.

THE AREA THAT IS HASHED WITH VERTICAL GREEN LINES INDICATE THE MARGIN, IN ADDITION TO THE LEGAL, LEGALLY BINDING, INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED SURCHARGE AREA OF INFLUENCE.

SO WHEN I BUILT THIS, I ALLOWED NOT ONLY NO SURCHARGE ON TOP OF IT, I ADDED AN AREA BEYOND THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVEN MINIMAL CONSTRUCTION, UH, DEVIATION AND MARGINS OF ERROR ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.

THERE IS, SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING, BASED ON THE WORLD'S RECOGNIZED CIVIL ENGINEERING RULES AND VALIDATED INTERNATIONALLY, INCLUDING CITY OF CAL, CITY OF CALIFORNIA, THIS INDICATES AND PROVES THERE IS NO SURCHARGE ON THE WALLS.

NOW, I, UH, I HAVE SAID, AND I ALWAYS WANT TO BE, UH, COMPLIANT FOR ME, JUST TO INTERRUPT YOU FOR A MINUTE.

UH, JAMES, HOW ARE WE ON TIME? OKAY, SO MAY I CONTINUE? YES.

YOU'VE GOT ABOUT TWO AND A HALF, THREE MINUTES.

SO JUST TO THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE IT.

MY, MY WATCH IS NOT, UH, WORKING.

UH, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS WHEN THEY SAY SURCHARGE, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ENGLISH AND IN AN ENGINEERING GUIDELINE, NOT BASED ON HEARSAY.

IF THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS RECOGNIZED BY NUMEROUS COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE, THEN WE CAN HAVE A MEETING ABOUT IT.

HOWEVER, I HAVE PROVEN IN HERE THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE.

THE AREAS THAT ARE IN THE YELLOW WILL INDICATE WHAT IS SURCHARGE WOULD PR, UH, WOULD, UH, BE PLACED THERE.

AND A SURCHARGE AS DEFINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.

AS STATED ON PAGE SEVEN, IT SHOWS THAT THIS IS LIKE A, UM, PAGE, UM, UH, UH, UH, PAGE FIVE.

IT REFERS TO IT.

IT COULD BE A DRIVEWAY, IT COULD BE A STRUCTURE, IT COULD BE A FENCE ABOVE THE GRADE LEVEL.

THAT IS THE AREA IN THE YELLOW.

THERE IS NO SUCH STRUCTURE ABOVE THE GRADE LEVEL ANYWHERE ON THAT PROPERTY.

IN FACT, THE AREAS OF VERTICAL LINES INDICATE THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF MARGIN TO PREVENT AN ADDITIONAL WALL THAT IS FAR AWAY FROM IT TO EVEN HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE SURCHARGE UNDER, UH, UNDER, UH, UH, LAW, UH, WALLS BELOW IT.

CONSEQUENTLY, AND I'M WILLING TO ANSWER ALL THESE ENGINEERING QUESTIONS.

I, UH, I NO PROBLEMS WITH IT.

CONSEQUENTLY, IF YOU COULD PUT, UH, PLEASE PAGE, I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.

PAGE NINE.

OR DID WE COVER PAGE? NO.

ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

AT THAT PAGE NINE, I CAN SEE I HAVE, OKAY, SO I HAVE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY NO QUESTIONS ASKED, AND I'M WILLING TO STAND BY AND HAVE ANY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD TO QUESTION THAT, THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE.

SO THE QUESTION OF SURCHARGE IS NO AND VOID.

THE WALLS ARE UNDER FOUR FEET TALL.

I HAVE DRAWN THEM TO DIMENSION.

IF YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS CHARGE, THE DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE, UH, UH, IN THE PICTURES.

NOW GOING TO PAGE 10, PLEASE.

THOSE ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE WALLS PROVING THERE IS NO SURCHARGE ACCORDING TO LAW AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.

IF YOU COULD GO PLEASE TO THE CONCLUSION PAGE.

YOU, YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 30 SECONDS.

THANK YOU.

THE CONCLUSION SHOWS I WOULD LOVE TO ABIDE BY ALL THE CITY CODES.

I HAVE DONE THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE CITY, UH, SAYS,

[00:35:01]

AND ALL THE WATER ARE UNDER FOUR FEET.

AND IN MY OPINION, THEY CAN EXEMPT THIS.

I HAVE TOLD THE CITY THAT I WILL GLADLY ADDRESS ANY EASEMENT PORTIONS THAT I MAY NOT HAVE REMOVED.

THAT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY.

I'M DONE.

I, I WILL ASK YOU GUYS TO ELIMINATE THEIR, UH, RULING THAT THE, UH, LAWS ARE ILLEGAL.

ONLY THE EASEMENT I CAN ADDRESS.

ALL RIGHT, AND WE'RE OUT OF TIME.

UM, AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU STAY THERE CAUSE I SUSPECT WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, MR. UH, YES, REBA, DR.

REBA.

SO HOW DO YOU, HOW DO I SAY YOUR NAME? YES.

YES.

REBI.

THANK YOU.

UM, MELANIE, DO WE NEED TO ACCEPT THE, UH, WE NEED TO ADMIT THE YES.

PROPERTY OWNER'S, THE APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS? OKAY.

WELL, I MOVE THAT WE, UM, ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS EXHIBITS FOR THE RECORD.

AND I'LL SECOND THAT.

THANK YOU.

DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT? NO.

OKAY.

SO, UM, AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO OPEN THIS UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSION MEMBERS IN CASE ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND BE RECOGNIZED.

YES, MR. BENING? NO, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CODE OFFICER.

IS THERE A PROVISION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE ANYWHERE THAT DEFINES SURCHARGE? UH, WHICH IS IN THE ORDINANCE? CAUSE UH, WHEN WE GOT THIS, UH, INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT FOR OPINIONS.

CUZ UH, US CALL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, WE RECOMMEND, WE RECOGNIZE, UH, CERTAIN SOMETHING IS NOT USUAL.

SO WE ASK THEM ABOUT WHAT OUR FINDING IS, AND THEN THIS IS BASED UPON THEIR INFORMATION, THEY GIVE IT TO US.

NO, I I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I'M SORRY.

MAYBE I SHOULD CLARIFY.

IS THERE ANY DEFINED PORTION OF THAT CODE THAT WAS REFERENCED THAT YOU PROVIDED AS EVIDENCE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A DEFINITION? IS THERE ANY ACCESSIBLE DEFINITION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE THAT A CITIZEN COULD FIND FOR WHAT SURCHARGE MEANS IN THE, UH, CODE THAT YOU CITED IN THE, IN THE, UH, EXHIBIT IT IS, UH, POPPING FORMATIONS WITHIN THE CITY ORDINANCE.

SO THE, UM, CITIZENS THAT CAN SEARCH WHERE, SO IN THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU PROVIDE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE IS A DEFINITION THAT THE CITY PROVIDES OF WHAT SURCHARGES, BUT YOU JUST DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THE EXHIBITS? UH, I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE I SEE THE DEFINITION.

WE ONLY GOT THIS INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SEARCH DEPARTMENT.

OKAY.

I UNDERSTAND.

IT JUST SEEMS TO, THAT THIS ENTIRE DEBATE WILL HINGE ON WHAT SURCHARGE IS OR IS NOT.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE SURE TO CLARIFY IF THERE ISN'T A CITY DEFINITION, BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT THEN WE MAY HAVE TO GO ON ANOTHER DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE OR WHATEVER THE ACCEPTED GENERAL DEFINITION OF SURCHARGES DOES THAT.

OKAY.

WELL UNFORTUNATELY I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

OKAY.

THAT PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT ENGINEER.

YEAH.

OF THE, IS IF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE IS STILL ON, ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER THAT? UH, YES.

THIS IS TODD WILCO, A DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL.

WE DID SPEAK TO OUR MANAGING ENGINEER, ALLEN LOU, AND HE SAID THERE, BASED ON HIS INFORMAL CALCULATIONS, THERE MAY BE SOME SURCHARGE PRESENT, BUT HE DIDN'T KNOW THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS OF THE WALL AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM.

SO HE COULDN'T GET THE 45 DEGREE MEASUREMENTS.

SO BETWEEN HIM AND THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THEY DISCUSSED IT AND THAT'S WHERE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THAT PERMITS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS JOB.

RIGHT.

I'M SORRY, TODD, I I, MAYBE I'M NOT ASKING THE QUESTION CLEARLY, BUT ARE YOU THE DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE, I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION IN THIS PRO, IN THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO OF THE, OF HOW IT WAS BUILT.

I'M ASKING THE DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE.

IS THERE LIKE A CITY OF AUSTIN DEFINITION OR IS THE GENERALLY PROVIDED ONE OR THE ONE THAT HE PROVIDED ACCURATE? THE, THE GENERALLY PROVIDED ONE WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WE USE AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MR. GREEN, UH, ASK CODE, WHAT IS THE IMPACT, UH, TO REQUIRING A PERMIT? UH, DOES THIS REQUIRE REWORK? DOES THIS REQUIRE, I'M SURE THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL COSTS WITH THE PERMIT, BUT, UH, WHAT, WHAT IS THE UM, IT'S THE REAL IMPACT HERE AND A LOT OF TIMES, UM, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER CAN BUILD CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY COME OUT.

AND I DID NOT KNOW THAT THE OWNER IS ENGINEER, BUT THE WORKER WHO BUILT THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THEY ARE NOT ENGINEERS.

UM, SO DID THEY FOLLOW EVERYTHING PER THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN? UM, OR DID

[00:40:01]

THEY ACTUALLY BUILD EXACTLY, UH, THE SAME THING THAT THEY DRAW, WHAT TYPE OF MATERIAL THEY'RE USING.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT VARIATION THAT WOULD HAPPENS, UH, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.

SO THE REASON A LOT OF TIME WHEN WE ASK, UH, OWNER TO ACTUALLY OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT, FIRST OF ALL, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN TO SHOW THE CITY WHAT ARE DOING.

AND THEN THE CITY WILL CHECK IN THE CITY RECORD TO SEE ANYTHING, UH, WITHIN THE AREA, SUCH AS EASTMAN'S PRESENCE OR, UH, SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, GAS LINE, THE PROCESS OR ANY CONDO DOORS IN THE PROCESS.

SO WHEN ANY TIME A CONSTRUCTION, UM, EVEN HAPPENS, THEY DO NOT DAMAGE OTHER THINGS OR CAUSE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. AND THAT'S THE REASON TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT, UH, IN THIS SITUATION.

NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL WORK WITHOUT PERMIT.

ACCORDING TO THE CITY ORDINANCE, UH, IT IS ACTUALLY ALSO INVOLVED WITH THE EASEMENT IN THE PROCESS AS WELL.

UH, WHICH FOR SOME REASON THE OWNER DID NOT REALIZE THERE'S A EASTMAN REQUIREMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE CITY, UH, EVEN THOUGH HE DID CALL THE, THE CITY ACCORDING TO EASTMAN PROBLEMS. UM, SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE ARE ASKING HIM TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT.

AND WE HAVE PROVIDED MULTIPLE CONTACT, UH, FROM WATERSHED PROTECTIONS AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENTS.

UM, SO THEY CAN BETTER ASSIST HIM OBTAINING A PERMIT.

AND ACTUALLY, UH, THE PERMIT PROCESS ALSO IS ON THE, UH, CITY WEBSITE.

UM, IF HE'S UNABLE TO DO IT, THERE'S ALWAYS, UH, UM, PROBABLY PROBABLY FINDING SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, THEY CAN PROBABLY HELP HIM, UH, TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT.

SO I WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

SO IF HE, WE, WE HOLD THE, THE FINDINGS IN THE, THE RECOMMENDATION, WHAT'S THE, UH, IMPACT OF REQUIRING A PERMIT? DOES THAT MEAN THE WALLS HAVE TO BE TORN DOWN? THE DIRT TAKEN OUT? UM, THE, WHATEVER IS USED FOR THE, THE SURCHARGE DISCHARGE, UH, THE MATERIALS ARE REEVALUATED.

SO WHAT, WHAT THE PERMIT IS MAINLY IS, WELL, IT DOES HELP THE CITY TO KEEP A RECORD OF WHAT THE OWNER BUILT ON SITE, UH, AT THIS POINT, IF THE OWNER IS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN THAT ACTUALLY ALLOW DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR TO CHECK ON SITE TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER'S BEEN BUILT IS CORRECT AND THEN WITHOUT ANY DANGER CUZ UH, THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK, WHICH IS NEXT BY REALLY BUSY STREET, ALL THE EAST RIVERSIDE.

SO ANY FAULTY CONSTRUCTION THAT HAPPENS CAN CAUSE LANDSLIDE, MUST LIE, UH, OR ADDITIONAL DAMAGE TO THE STREET THAT CAN CAUSE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

SO, SO THERE'S A LOT OF REASON THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE WHATEVER THE CONSTRUCTION THE OWNER BUILT IS, YOU KNOW, SAFE.

AND THAT'S THE ULTIMATE, UH, GOAL.

BUT JUST SO HAPPENED IN THE PROCESS IS ALSO GETTING INVOLVED WITH THE EASTMANS.

UM, IF THE OWNER, UH, CHOOSE NOT TO OBTAIN THE, THE PERMIT, THE CITY WILL HAVE TO UNFORTUNATELY ASK FOR THEM TO EITHER, UH, PUT BACK THE VEGETATION, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, AND REMOVE THE STRUCTURE OR I GUESS THE OP PENALTY INVOLVING THE PROCESS.

SO CAN I ASK THE GENTLEMAN, UH, FROM THE, THE CITY'S DSD DEPARTMENT, WHAT WOULD BE THE PRACTICAL EFFECT IF THE OWNER GOT THE PERMIT, UH, PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTATION SIMILAR TO WHAT WE JUST SAW TONIGHT? UM, WHAT WOULD YOUR APPROACH BE TO VALIDATING THAT DESIGN? AND, AND I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION OF THIS TODD WILCOX.

UM, BASICALLY THOSE DRAWINGS WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.

UH, THE, THE, THE ENGINEER THAT DREW THE DRAWINGS WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS ANY EXPECTED LOAD SURCHARGE OR, OR NOT.

UM, AND, AND THOSE DRAWINGS FROM WHAT I SAW, COULD BE USED FOR EVERYTHING HE NEEDED TO ATTA TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT.

UH, THERE THERE'D BE A FEE FOR THE REVIEW IS BASICALLY THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL TO WHAT HE'S DONE NOW IS JUST THE FEES FOR THE REVIEW AND THE PERMIT.

UM, HE'S GOT, IT APPEARED THAT HE HAD EVERYTHING INTACT THAT HE WOULD NEED ALREADY TO APPEAL THIS NOTICE THAT HE WOULD'VE NEEDED TO GET THE PERMIT.

WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S THE BALLPARK COST ON THOSE PERMITS IF YOU KNOW? UM, I'M, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING.

UH, I'M THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION MANAGER.

UM, SCOTT IS ON THE LINE.

HE'S THE RESIDENTIAL DM.

HE MAY BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

I, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH PERMITTING COSTS, UM, AS, AS RELATION TO THE, TO THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT.

OKAY.

IS ANYBODY HERE WITH THE CITY HAVE ANY IDEA?

[00:45:02]

UH, YES SIR.

MAY I PLEASE? YES, SIR.

UM, A PERMIT WILL NOT HELP AND I, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE COST AND I'M WILLING TO DONATE WHATEVER THE COST IS TO ANY CHARITY OF YOUR GUYS, UH, DESIRE, IF THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITION FOR A SURCHARGE, EVEN IF I PULL A MILLION PERMITS, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE.

I HAVE PROVEN IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DEBT.

I AM OKAY.

AND I HAVE SAID IT NUMEROUS TIMES IN WRITING THAT FOR THE EASEMENT THAT I HAVE SHOWN IN HERE, THAT I HAVE REMOVED ALL THE WALLS, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THAT EASEMENT ON THE STORM PIPE THAT IS BURIED, I WILL VOLUNTARILY FOR THE PERMIT ONLY FOR THAT EASEMENT, NOTHING FOR THE REST OF THE WALLS, WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE NO SURCHARGE.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

I GUESS MAYBE FOR THE CODE OFFICER, UM, OR MAYBE FOR TODD, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SURCHARGE IS, UH, THAT IT SUPPORTS A SURCHARGE THAT THE CODE STATES, CUZ I, THAT IS THE HINGE OF THIS ISSUE AND THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY HAD SHOWED NOTHING OF THE SURCHARGE? CAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT, THAT THERE'S ANY DEBATE THAT THE WALL IS LESS THAN FOUR FEET.

THERE'S TWO LEGS TO THE ARGUMENT, FOUR FEET AND SURCHARGE.

SO FOUR FEET'S NOT IN DEBATE, IT'S ONLY ABOUT THE SURCHARGE.

AND THIS, I DON'T, AM I, I'M, MAYBE I'M MISSING, I DON'T, COMING INTO THIS MEETING, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SURCHARGE WAS, SO I COULD BE MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT I'VE SEEN NOTHING PROVIDED FROM THE CITY SHOWING THAT THE SURCHARGE, THAT IT DOES SUPPORT SURCHARGE ACCORDING TO THE CODE PER YES.

AND IT, THIS, THIS IS TODD AND, UH, PER, PER THE DIAGRAM THAT THE, UM, APPELLANT GAVE US, IT SAID 3.98 FEET IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE IS THE HEIGHT.

SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS ARE AND, AND OUR, OUR MANAGING ENGINEER WASN'T ABLE TO GET ANY EXACT MEASUREMENTS FROM IT.

SO THE FOUR FEET INCLUDES THE FOOTING, WHICH FROM THE TAPE MEASURE VIEW AND, AND OFFICER SUE'S PRESENTATION, IT SAID, I THINK 41 INCHES, WHICH WOULD BE SEVEN, SEVEN INCHES SHORT OF THE FOUR FEET.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THE FOOTING WENT DOWN.

SO IT MAY VERY WELL BE APPROACHING FOUR FEET OR MORE WITH, WITH THE FOOTING.

AND THEN WITHOUT THOSE EXACT MEASUREMENTS, UH, WE WOULDN'T, OUR ENGINEER WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CALCULATE AND, AND, AND DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS A SURCHARGE OR NOT.

TODD MAY, EXCUSE ME, THAT WOULD BE, I'M SORRY.

CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION REALLY QUICK? SURE.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF INCLUDING WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT, IF ANYTHING YOU SUSPECT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH? IT COULD JUST BE SUBJECT TO REQUESTING A PERMIT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES FALL OUTSIDE OF THE WORK THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT.

BUT THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GO ON IS THAT YOU SUSPECT THAT IT MAY BE WRONG.

IT SEEMS LIKE THE, THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON TO EXEMPT ANY WORK FROM A PERMIT BECAUSE ANY, THE FOOTING COULD BE EXTRA DEEP ON ANY RETAINING WELL BUILT AND YOU COULD NEVER KNOW.

SO, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

IT SEEMS, IT SEEMS ODD TO ME, MR. SEALEY, I I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

UM, AND THE REASON FOR THE EXEMPTION IS WALLS THAT ARE DRAMATICALLY LESS THAN FOUR FEET, THAT ARE EASY TO DETERMINE THAT THEY'RE LESS THAN FOUR FEET WITH WOULD FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.

SO IF IT WAS A TWO FOOT WALL, WE, WE KNOW MORE THAN LIKELY THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A TWO FOOT FOUR A FOOTING TO SUPPORT A TWO FOOT WALL, PARTICULARLY ON A, ON A 30 DEGREE OR WHATEVER DOWN SLOPE THAT IS IN THE RIVERSIDE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FOOTING IS TO HOLD UP THAT 41 INCH WALL.

AND WE NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEASURE IT.

HE NEVER PROVIDED PLANS OR REQUESTED THE PERMIT, SO WE COULD SEE THAT UP FRONT.

SO THE, THE REBUTTAL OF THAT WAS TO ASK HIM FOR A BUILDING PERMIT SO HE COULD PROVIDE THOSE PLANS AND PROVIDE US THOSE MEASUREMENTS AND WE COULD SEE IT TO ENSURE THAT IT, IT MET THE CITY CODE.

YEAH, I WAS CURIOUS WHY MR. MS. ROBBIE WAS TALKING ABOUT THESE INTERNATIONAL, UM, ACCEPTED CIVIL ENGINEERING PRACTICES.

AND IT OCCURRED TO ME, WELL, WHERE DOES THE CITY OF AUSTIN FIT IN ALL THIS? AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS NOT ADDRESSED THIS AT ALL.

AND IT REALLY, THIS CASE SURELY SHOULDN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP BECAUSE HE'S NOW SHOWN US THAT HE DOESN'T, HE DOESN'T NEED A PERMIT BECAUSE IT'S THE SURCHARGE DEFINITION.

UM, THANK YOU.

YEAH, I DO HAVE A LONG QUESTION AND I THINK IT'S, UH, I THINK, I GUESS A LITTLE BIT DIRECTED TO MR. WILCOCK.

SO IT SEEMS TO ME FROM WHAT WE'VE LISTENED TO THAT, UM, THE ISSUE'S BEEN BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE PERMIT IS THE DRAWINGS CAN BE LOOKED AT, AND CERTAINLY WE SAW THERE'S AMPLE DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS.

AND I GUESS THE SECOND PART IS THAT PART OF THE CITY PROCESS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE AN INSPECTION, WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE

[00:50:01]

THAT THINGS ARE ACTUALLY BUILT THE WAY THAT THEY'RE DRAWN.

RIGHT? IT'S, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT, UM, IN THE CITY PROCESS FOR SOMETHING TO SIMPLY BE DRAWN TO CODE.

IT ALSO HAS TO BE BUILT TO CODE, AND THERE HAS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION, WHICH IS TYPICALLY DONE THROUGH THE INSPECTION PROCESS.

AND MR. LEE DIDN'T QUITE USE THE WORD INSPECTION, BUT WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BEING ABLE, HE'S TALKING ABOUT MAKING SURE THE RIGHT MATERIALS.

I THINK MY INTERPRETATION, AND TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, WAS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE INSPECTION PROCESS, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROCESS.

SO THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR MR. WILCOX IS, UM, IS THERE A PROCESS WITHIN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE SOMETHING HAS BEEN BUILT WHERE THERE'S, UM, IF THE APPELLANT GETS A LETTER FROM A, UH, TEXAS REGISTERED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OR CIVIL ENGINEER, WHICHEVER ONE, UH, THE CITY CONSIDERS APPLIES IN THIS CASE, UH, A TESTING THAT THEY HAVE, THIS WOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT PARTY.

THIS WOULD NOT BE THE APPELLANT'S OWN, UM, WORD THAT THEY HAVE INSPECTED THE CONSTRUCTION AND, UH, AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL, UH, OPINION AS A TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEER OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE.

THEY BELIEVE IT MEETS THE CITY REQUIREMENTS.

IS THAT ACCEPTED? Y YES, SIR.

THAT WOULD BE IF IT WAS A, YOU KNOW, NON-BIASED THIRD PARTY, WE ACCEPT THAT IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AS, UM, AS THE, AS THE TRUTH.

THANK YOU.

UM, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS OR INCLUDING THE COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE ONLINE? YES.

CHAIR.

YES, GO AHEAD, ANDREA.

SO THIS ISN'T REALLY A QUESTION SO MUCH, IT'S JUST MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THE CITY IS ASKING MR. YARE TO PROVIDE ENOUGH EVIDENCE BY SUBMITTING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO SHOW THAT HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY NEED A PERMIT.

AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE SEEN TONIGHT, MR. YARI HAS PRESENTED A LOT OF EVIDENCE, VERY COMPELLING.

THE CITY HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE.

UM, ADMITTEDLY LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT THEM, IT, YOU KNOW, YEAH, THAT DOES LOOK LIKE A STEEP SLOPE.

THAT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS, BUT THE MEASUREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CITY SHOW A 42 INCH TALL RETAINING WALL, THE PRO THE, UM, THE ITEM OF THE SURCHARGE WAS NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL BY THE CITY.

UH, WE'VE NOW ALL LEARNED QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHAT A SURCHARGE ACTUALLY IS, IS THAT SEEMS REASONABLE.

AND, UM, I'M JUST NOT SEEING THAT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY ACTUALLY JUSTIFIES THE NEED TO GO AND GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

MY OPINION THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONERS.

YEAH, MR. BENIGNA, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS, UH, VICE CHAIR FOR I AGREE.

UH, I'M SURE A THIRD PARTY COULD, COULD PROVIDE, SHED SOME LIGHT INTO THE, UH, QUALITY OF WORK PERFORMED, BUT I'D SAY THAT SPECIFICALLY THE WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT SECTION QUOTED BY THE CITY AND THEIR CODE CARVES OUT THE SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC SCENARIO THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE THAT TO BE DONE.

AND IF THEY DESIRED FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK TO ALWAYS BE INSPECTED BY AN ENGINEER, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE INCLUDED WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT.

AND I THINK I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER P FRYBERGER THAT EVERYTHING WE'VE SEEN TONIGHT IS THAT THIS MAN WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO MAKE SURE HE WAS FOLLOW THE RULES BY CALLING CITY CODE, UM, AND NOW IN SOME SENSE IS BEING PUNISHED FOR IT AND HAS PROVIDED AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT NONE OF THAT, UM, APPLIES TO HIM IN THIS SCENARIO BECAUSE IT'S UNDER FOUR FEET AND THERE'S NO SURCHARGE ISSUE.

SO, UM, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE QUESTION PERIOD AND I, AND TO CALL A VOTE.

ALL RIGHT.

DO ANY OF OUR ONLINE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? TIM? LIZ? YEAH.

UM, CAN I BE RIGHT HERE? ME? I'M SORRY.

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

CAN YOU SHARE YOUR VOLUME UP, TIM? I I THINK THAT MIGHT HELP BEAR WITH ME THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN CALLED.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD HAVE A VOTE ON THAT.

OKAY.

DO WE HAVE THAT SECONDED? YEAH, HE SECONDED.

I SECONDED.

OH, OKAY.

SO, UM, I'LL CALL A VOTE, SEE IF WE, SO, UM, UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION THOUGH? WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE MOTION JUST TO CLOSE THE, I I MOTION TO CLOSE THE PERIOD OF QUESTION? YEAH.

AND WE'VE GOT A SECOND.

AND WHERE DO YOU SECOND IT? OKAY.

[00:55:03]

I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT OPEN, BUT WORDY.

GO YOUR VOTE.

YOU BOOK TO CLOSE IT.

WELL, YOU DO A SECOND.

NICK.

MR. GREEN, I STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

SO MINE'S, NO.

OKAY.

UM, YES, I'M SORRY.

CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOUR MOTION WAS? THIS IS LAUREN COREY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

I'M SORRY, I, I BELIEVE WE'RE IN THE PERIOD OF QUESTION AND SO I WAS MOVING TO CLOSE THE PERIOD QUESTION.

SO, SO WE CAN, WE CAN MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT? YES.

OKAY.

UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO, TO CLARIFY FOR COMMISSIONER GREEN, UM, THAT YOU CAN STILL ASK QUESTIONS OF THE, UM, OF ANY OF THE WITNESSES ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS CLOSED.

UM, BUT IF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VOTE ON OKAY.

UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU NEED TO MAKE A, A MOTION FOR THAT.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

OKAY.

YEAH.

I, I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC SET.

SORRY, I CALLED IT THE QUOTE HERE.

NO, I UNDERSTOOD.

YES, FOR THE, THE PUBLIC PORTION.

SO, UM, SO DO WE TAKE A VOTE? IS THAT RIGHT? ON THE CLOSING? OH, SINCE HE CLARIFIED THE MOTION, WHERE ARE YOU GONNA STILL SECOND IT? YEAH.

YES.

OKAY.

? YES, WE SET THE VOTE.

VOTE.

UH, NO, THAT THAT'S FINE.

AS LONG AS YOU, YOU'VE JUST MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I WAS JUST CLARIFYING SINCE IT'S NOT THE STANDARD LANGUAGE WE USE, BUT RIGHT.

OKAY.

SO WE COULD JUST LAST QUESTIONS.

UM, IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO CLOSING THE SESSION NOW WITH THIS CLARIFICATION? NO, TIM, LIZ.

OKAY.

SO WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC SESSION.

ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ANYBODY? I GOT A QUESTION FOR CODE.

YOU HAVE, THERE'S A REFERENCE HERE TO AN INTERNATIONAL BUILDING STANDARD.

UM, IS, DOES THAT CONTAIN A DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE? DOES ANY, ANY OF OUR WITNESSES HAVE ANY EXPERTISE IN THAT FROM THE CITY THIS TIME ABOUT COX? AGAIN, UH, NEITHER, NEITHER THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL NOR THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE DEFINE SURCHARGE.

IT, IT'S, THE COMMONLY USED DEFINITION IS, IS THAT WHAT BE USED IN THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS.

THANK YOU.

UM, WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'VE ALL HAD AN EDUCATION TODAY, LIKE WE'VE GONE TO AN ENGINEERING CLASS ON, UH, SURCHARGE AND RETAINING WALLS.

UM, AND, UH, THIS IS OUR, THIS IS, THIS IS KIND OF A THORNY ONE, I SUPPOSE ON THE ONE, UH, ONE HAND I WANT TO COMMEND MR. YARIBA BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST COMPLETE REBUTTAL I'VE EVER SEEN IN TERMS OF YOUR, YOUR DRAWINGS, UM, PERSONAL OPINION.

YOU, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PULL A PERMIT FOR LESS EFFORT AND TO PREPARE THESE DOCUMENTS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, YOU DID, UM, YOU MEANT WELL BY GOING TO THE CITY AND, UH, IT'S ALMOST A CASE OF, UM, NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.

UM, BUT THAT DOES HAPPEN SOMETIMES YOU, YOU PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF SOME OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, WHICH DIFFER FROM WHAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UM, AS APPARENTLY PERHAPS ASKING YOU TO DO.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARILY OUR ROLE AS A COMMITTEE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TASKED WITH IS TO INTERPRET THINGS AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, APPLIES THE RULES, RIGHT? NOT NECESSARILY WHAT AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD IS OR WHETHER, UM, WE AGREE WITH THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES.

UM, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'VE SEEN, UM, THAT EVEN IF WE KNOW THAT THERE'S, THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AT THIS TIME OF HOW THIS WAS BUILT, AND THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE EASEMENT, WHICH IS NOT, UH, UM, DISPUTED, RIGHT? THAT STILL SOMEHOW NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

.

UM, MAY I, I'M SORRY.

I KNOW I'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT, BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S ACCURATE ACTUALLY.

THE, UM, SURCHARGE THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS DIFFERING FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION.

I THINK WE MAY BE USING DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY, BUT I, I THINK MR. WILCOX SAID THAT THERE'S JUST A COMMON DEFINITION, AND I THINK MAYBE THE ENGINEERS, IT'S LIKE SAYING TWO PLUS TWO IS FOUR.

CAN YOU DEFINE THAT? IT'S LIKE, NO, IT'S JUST EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT MR. WILCOX WAS SAYING, AND THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THE DEFINITION THAT THE DEFENDANT USED OR THE APPELLANT USED IN HIS CASE WAS, UM, UH, OPPOSED BY THE CITY.

AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY THAT HIS CALCULATIONS WOULD BE WRONG.

I MEAN, IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF THEY SHOWED THAT THE SURCHARGE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAD THEIR OWN MEASUREMENTS AND THE SURCHARGE WOULD BE WAY OFF, BUT

[01:00:01]

IT, THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THEIR, THEIR TESTIMONY AND THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO DO THAT.

SO I, I'M SORRY, I JUST DIDN'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S A, A, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IN THE SENSE THAT CITY CODE IS WHAT MATTERS HERE, NOT SOME INTERNATIONAL STANDARD.

UM, BUT THE CITY DOES NOT DEFINE SURCHARGE AND IT'S JUST A COMMON DEFINITION.

UM, SO I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN DISPUTE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE HOMEOWNER'S TESTIMONY WAS SPECIFIC AND VERY, VERY ACCURATE.

TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY'S TESTIMONY WAS, UH, SPECULATIVE AND NOT REALLY.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS AN, OR, UH, AN ORDINANCE THAT MIGHT VERY WELL NEED TO BE REDRAWN FOR THE CODE TO BE SPECIFIC.

CAUSE EVERY SO OFTEN WE GET A HOMEOWNER WHO KNOWS THEIR BUSINESS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

MR. TOAD, I'M SORRY.

I THINK YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET A WORD IN AND, AND I I'VE MISSED YOU, SO I APOLOGIZE.

UM, THE CITY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE SURCHARGE IS.

NO, NO.

I CALLED TO MR. ON MR. OH, SORRY.

I THOUGHT, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

MRAD, HE'S ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ONLINE AND, AND OH, I THINK YOU'RE MUTED.

TIM.

TIM, YOUR VOLUME IS DOWN.

WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

WE CAN WHAT'S GETTING READY? WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

UM, DO WE HAVE A DIAL IN NUMBER OR THE MUTE SYMBOL SEEMS TO BE ON FOR YOU? YOU'RE MUTED ON YOUR END.

YES, I UNDERSTAND THE SYMBOL.

WAIT A SECOND.

, JUST WAIT.

IT IS AN INTERNATIONAL, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA.

WELL, WHILE TIM GETS THE, THE AUDIO, UH, RESOLVED, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION FROM ANOTHER COMMISSIONER? MR. SEIG? LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY.

I JUST WANNA CALL FOR THE VOTE AND TIM, GO AHEAD AND BLOW THAT ONE AWAY FOR TIM BEFORE WE CALL A VOTE.

ALL RIGHT.

FAIR, FAIR ENOUGH.

TIM, WE STILL CAN HEAR YOU? YES.

UM, UH, CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A POINT OF ORDER FOR EVERYONE, UM, THAT, UH, ANYONE SPEAKING SHOULD WAIT FOR, TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR, UM, BEFORE THEY, BEFORE THEY BEGIN SPEAKING.

THANK YOU.

I THINK TIM IS OKAY.

HE'S CALLING IN.

UM, IN THE MEANTIME, MR. THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? YES.

TO, FOR HIM TO CALL IN AND ALL, UH, AND WE HAVE THE END OF OUR MEETING.

WE'VE GOT, UH, UH, TWO HOURS THAT I, UH, SEVEN MINUTES.

WE CAN WAIT.

I DON'T THINK WE'LL WAIT THE FULL TWO HOURS, BUT SEVEN MINUTES.

TIM, ARE YOU MAKING, ARE YOU DIALING IN? CAN YOU NOD? OKAY.

YES.

OKAY.

HE CAN NOD.

YEAH, I THINK WE'LL WAIT A MINUTE OR TWO.

AND IF WE GO, DO YOU HAVE ME, YOU HAVE ME NOW? YOU, ME NOW? YES.

OKAY.

UM, I AM SORRY EVERYBODY, I'M BATTLING A TECH ISSUE BECAUSE I'VE GOT SOME NEW EQUIPMENT AND I'M UNDER THE WEATHER, SO I'M FIRING ON TWO CYLINDERS HERE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE WAIT.

UM, I JUST HAVE A QUICK COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, UM, FOR, UH, FOR CODE, UM, BEFORE WE, OR HAVE WE VOTED? WE HAVEN'T ALREADY VOTED.

I'M SORRY.

WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION YET, SO WE WANTED TO HEAR WHAT YOU SAY.

HAVE

[01:05:01]

TIM, GO AHEAD.

OKAY.

UM, SO I, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, UH, UM, UH, IS IT NOT THE CASE THAT WE INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE IN OUR ORDINANCES? AND I THINK YOU'RE POSING A QUESTION.

UM, YES, I RECOGNIZE, YES.

UH, YES.

THIS IS, UM, LAUREN, COREY.

UM, YES, WE DO INCORPORATE THE, WE HAVE ADOPTED THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL AND BUILDING CODE, AND WE DO HAVE LOCALS, BUT, UM, THE DEFINITIONS ARE NOT AMONG THE LOCAL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED.

SO TECHNICALLY, OH, SO FOR EXAMPLE, GO AHEAD.

I'M SORRY.

MAY I STILL BE REC? OKAY.

UH, SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT FOR EXAMPLE, UH, I THINK IT'S IN, UH, SO OUR CHAPTER 25 12, THE TECHNICAL CODES IN OUR, IN OUR, IF SOMEBODY WERE LOOKING IN THOSE CODES, IT WOULD REFER THEM TO THE 2021 ADDITIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE OR THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, DEPENDING ON WHICH AND WHICH THEY WERE CONSULTING.

SO IF IT IS THE CASE THAT, UH, A RETAINING, UH, THAT THE, THE INTERNATIONAL, UH, INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY CODE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, EXCUSE ME, WERE TO PROVIDE A SURCHARGE RANGE FOR A RETAINING WALL IN ONE OF ITS CHAPTERS WITH SPECIFICATIONS, THEN, UM, AND THE OPINION OF THE, TO THE ATTORNEY, SINCE THAT'S WHO FIELDED THE FIRST QUESTION, UM, WOULD THAT PUT A BUILDER ON VALID NOTICE AS TO THE, AS TO THE, AS TO THE ACCEPTABLE IMPACT LOAD OF WHICH I BELIEVE SURCHARGES IS, IS A SUB A SUB CLASS, RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, AS A MATTER AS A MATTER OF LAW, COULD SOMEONE CLAIM, COULD A, COULD AN AGREED OWNER CLAIM THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE NOTICE OF THE SURCHARGE RANGE? IF IN OUR ORDINANCES, UH, THEY ARE REFERRED TO EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE? AND, UM, UH, AS THIS FOLLOW UP QUESTION, YES, IF NOT, IN OTHER WORDS, IF THAT WOULD NOT PASS LEGAL MUSTER, UH, CAN CAN YOU CITE A, A, A A CASE THAT WOULD, WOULD SO INDICATE THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

TIM, I THINK YOU POSED A QUESTION.

UM, MS. CURRY, DID YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD? YES.

YOU RECOGNIZED, UH, COMMISSIONER SOAD? UM, UH, YES, THEY WOULD BE ATTRIBUTED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF, UM, WHAT IS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CODES.

UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT IS IN THOSE CODES.

UM, THE, UH, DSD MIGHT BE BETTER ABLE TO DO THAT.

UM, BUT YES, YOU'RE CORRECT.

AND MS. CURRY, JUST THAT TERM ATTRIBUTED WITH KNOWLEDGE, UM, FOR US NON-LEGAL PROFESSIONALS PUTS THE ONE SENTENCE DEFINITION OF THAT.

UM, SO, SO AS COMMISSIONER DO, SAID, MENTIONED, WE INCORPORATE BY A REFERENCE, UM, SO IN THE CITY CODE, WE HAVE FORMALLY ADOPTED A SPECIFIC VERSION OF THESE INTERNATIONAL CODES.

AND, UM, SO WHEN YOU ARE BUILDING SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO ADHERE WITH OUR CITY ORDINANCES, YOU, UM, BY REFERENCE, UH, YOU HAVE TO ALSO ADHERE TO THOSE INTERNATIONAL CODES UNLESS WE'VE MADE A SPECIFIC LOCAL AMENDMENT, WHICH I STATED WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY LOCAL AMENDMENTS, UM, SPECIFICALLY TO THE SURCHARGE ISSUE.

SO THOSE INTERNATIONAL CODES, UH, TYPICALLY THEY INCLUDE REFERENCES TO DOZENS AND DOZENS, IF NOT HUNDREDS OF ADDITIONAL STANDARDS.

AND, AND, AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS INTERNA OTHER STANDARDS BY REFERENCE, THEY'RE ALL WRAPPED UP IN THE SAME.

OKAY.

YES.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. GENERAL.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER TOAD.

UM, WELL AT THIS POINT, UH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WELL, IT'S, UH, WE, IF HE ASKS, I'LL HAVE