Loading...
2006-10-31 BOA MinutesBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 31, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Building and Construction Appeals Board was called to order at 2:00 p.m. in the La Quinta Civic Center Study Session Room. Director Hartung presided and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Hegge Kevin Leonhard Dennis Wish None STAFF PRESENT: Tom Hartung, Building & Safety Director Greg Butler, Building & Safety Manager Tim Jonasson, Public Works Director Ed Wimmer, Principal Engineer Paul Goble, Senior Engineer Kathy Jenson, City Attorney Diane Aaker, Special Projects Assistant APPELLANTS PRESENT: Mr. Jack Tarr, General Partner, Washington 111, Ltd.. Bill Sanchez, Construction Manager, Washington 111, Ltd. Mark A. Taylor, Contech Construction Products, Inc. Darwin Dizon, P.E., Contech Construction Products, Inc. Eric Strahan, Contech Construction Products, Inc. Brett Anderson, Sladden Engineering Steve Speer, Engineering Consultant Ms. Becky Martin, Esq. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Craig S. Hill, CE, Earth Systems Southwest G:appea1min1006.wpd Director Hartung asked City Attorney Jenson to make a statement. City Attorney Jenson disclosed that Commissioner Hegge's electric company had received income from the City within the last twelve months. She stated that the above statement is in concurrence with the FPPC rules. For the record, she continued to explain that since the Commission will not have a quorum without Mr. Hegge that it is her opinion that he can participate in the proceeding under common rule of necessity because the Board will not be able to proceed without Mr. Hegge. Director Hartung questioned Mr. Hegge if he approved, and his answer was yes. II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Director Hartung stated that staff had no changes. He asked the Board if there were changes or questions. There were none. III. PUBLIC COMMENT Director Hartung asked if there were comments on any item not on the agenda. There were none. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - None B. Department Report - None V. PUBLIC HEARING - None VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Election of Chairperson Director Hartung asked members if anyone wished to volunteer as Chairperson. On motion of Commissioner Hegge, seconded by Commissioner Leonhard, and carried unanimously, Commissioner Dennis Wish was elected Chairperson. Director Hartung invited Chairperson Wish to direct the flow of the meeting. He further mentioned that the appellant may give a presentation of the product and what is being requested in the appeal. There was also a comment that City staff will follow with a presentation. In conclusion, both parties will have a chance to speak. City Attorney Jenson stated that the rules are very informal and to keep in mind the meeting is being recorded and not talk at the same time. She explained questions were appropriate, and the appellant may submit any kind of documentation followed by City staff. There was also a discussion regarding G:appea1min1006.wpd 2 order of items to be heard. City Attorney Jenson called the Board's attention to the staff report explaining that the appellant may proceed first. In response City staff would be next, and then the appellant may submit additional rebuttal information. B. Appeal of the Decision of the City Manager concerning La Quinta Staff discretionary policies regarding the suitability of alternate materials and methods of installation for an underground retention facility as applied to the Washington Park development Director Hartung summarized for the Board that the City Manager has determined the use of the zinc coated steel is not appropriate for the application. Mr. Tarr is appealing the decision as well as the length of time that the system should be designed to hold water. City Attorney Jenson expressed a concern regarding the seating arrangement, and asked each to state name before presentation, and to speak loudly to make sure everyone could be heard on tape. Following a seating rearrangement, Chairperson Wish restated that he would like to have a definition of the storm drain system for the lay person, specifically an open bottom storm drain system. Mr. Jack Tarr, Appellant, General Partner in Washington 111, Ltd., asked his representatives to introduce themselves. Following introductions Mr. Tarr discussed major differences between corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and corrugated steel pipe (CSP). He discussed and explained underground retention photos and how soil perks through prescreen and sediment is drained into the system. Chairperson Wish asked about motor oil and drippings from cars and how the system responds. Mr. Tarr asked to let engineers do what they do best and to design a system to respond to concerns. There was discussion regarding approval for use of concrete. Director Jonasson discussed 100 -year life span of the system. Mr. Tarr noted that service life minimums would be established and asked to allow for the best collaborative solution to the problem. He also mentioned that he will pay for maintenance shared by the tenants. Mr. Hill discussed soil adjustments for the structure, a double rain test, and the use of peat gravel or rock. Mr. Tarr mentioned that he is in agreement with City's consultants G:appea1nun1006.wpd Mr. Tarr continued saying that he assumes liability as property owner and agreed to one inspection per year and that CC &R's are in place. Chairperson Wish discussed concerns regarding change of property ownership, and whether or not there would be disclosure. There was discussion regarding conversations with the Building Industry Association (BIA) and Tim Jonasson's 10/19/06 letter to Fred Bell, Executive Director, and that the City's draft bulletin has been revised to specify a 72 -hour percolation requirement. The 72 -hour standard is also the maximum allowable within adjacent jurisdictions. Mr. Tarr was in agreement with the 72 -hour percolation requirement. On motion of Commissioner Leonhard, seconded by Commissioner Hegge, and carried unanimously, the 72 -hour percolation was approved. Steve Speer gave a presentation discussing geometric and material approval and outlined the following request: • Concept approval sought from onset; • Documentation submitted to: Demonstrate validity of proposed use, and widely used by all major public works authorities in U.S.; • Intent was to defer design details to design stage: Design by qualified professionals, and reviewed by qualified professionals. Mr. Speer showed slides of underground retention chambers used at Wal -Mart in Laurel, Maryland and Los Oso, California. He continued by showing slides depicting critical corrosion locations and how to mitigate corrosion by design. He included slides of the Parsons Brinkerhoff Study in the Washington D.C. area which was used in one of the harsher water -side corrosion areas in the U.S. Slides were also shown from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program of the 2005 U.S. maps depicting inorganic nitrogen and other chemical compositions demonstrating 7.5 pH and minimum resistivity (see Attachment 3). Brett Anderson, Sladden Engineering, also commented on the 7.5 analytical report. Mr. Speer concluded by stating a desire to build a successful structure using Mr. Craig Hill's letter, dated October 29, 2006 (see Attachment 5), along with other documentation. Mark Taylor, Contech Construction Products, discussed engineering design and support of the system. He also distributed calculations regarding, "Structural Design Check for Structural Plate Pipe," outlining description, safety factors, loads, etc., including Vehicle Live Load chart (handout attached). He also spoke about Service Life Charts exceeding the Cal -Trans guidelines. G:appeahnin1006.wpd Following the above presentation, Chairperson Wish questioned soil resistance and noted that variables could be adjusted by design. Mr. Speer agreed that all can be mitigated and designed appropriately. There was a break at 3:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:20 p.m. Director Hartung discussed Mr. Craig Hill's letter, Attachment #5. Mr. Hill reviewed his report and noted that it was a theoretical approach. He spoke of the design, installation, and maintenance of the system. His recommendation was that the soil be sloped. Director Jonasson discussed the objective design process and spoke of the systems life span. It was also mentioned that space restrictions are forcing the system underground. He also reported that the developer's proposal is not an approved equal. Senior Engineer Goble discussed the open bottom system for underground retention and that it is part of the design criteria they are seeking. Further discussion included issues related to future pollutants and 72 -hour perk time. Chairperson Wish asked if there would be a way to monitor the system. Mr. Tarr stated there would be options to enforce maintenance of the system, such as recording a document against the property title. Director Jonasson mentioned that City staff would be more comfortable with an underground structure in concrete, a non - reactive material underground. Director Hartung asked the Board to consider that the appeal is uncharted territory and that the standard may be used in the future. City Engineers Wimmer and Goble presented slides and the Underground Retention Report (attachment 4). The overview included appeal items, history, research references, site conditions known for corrosive soil conditions. The following was noted from local agency experience: CVWD requires polyethylene wraps on pipelines in La Quinta extending eastward, and cities to the east prohibit corrugated metal pipe underground retention basins as a result of corrosion concerns. The U.S. Army Corp Lifespan chart was shown with minimum resistivity which equals 25 years to perforation. it was further reported that California municipalities with non - corrosive soils have experienced corrugated culvert life spans of 23 -35 years. A slide of galvanized steel corrosion was shown from Cabazon Outlet Mall. Mr. Goble reported that a high risk of corrosion exists with uncoated steel, but low risk with concrete for all La Quinta soils. He further remarked that the storm drain system would be difficult to isolate. It was also reported that an expected lifespan is calculated at 61 years with coatings and protection. Mr. Goble concluded that staff intends to work with the developer to determine a standard, but has been reluctant to approve the specific design. 5 G:appea1nun1006.wpd A discussion began concerning responsibility of cost related to the system. It was mentioned that the cost would be assumed by the developer. Additional items addressed were issues of life safety, inspection protocol, approaching design as new technology, and relying on engineers. There was continued discussion regarding maintenance. City Attorney Jenson mentioned that there could be a recordation on the title imposing on -going maintenance Mr. Hill's design was the next topic of conversation. City Attorney Jenson asked Mr. Hill to repeat the following statement louder. Mr. Craig Hill repeated that if properly designed the culvert can be mitigated, and with proper maintenance will work. Commissioner Hegge clarified that the reason for the hearing is that no written City standard exists. City Attorney Jenson explained that the Board has a draft bulletin. Director Jonasson clarified that the item came from the Developer's Handbook which contains engineering policies developed over the years. It was mentioned that the policies are technical in nature and they have not been codified. Director Hartung clarified that the Board is set to hear appeals made on the Building Official's decision. He continued to explain that this is the closest thing to a technical board, since there is not a Board to hear appeals in the Public Works Department. Chairperson Wish commented on Public Work's draft standard and continued to note that it falls into a grey area. Director Jonasson agreed that there is not a formal engineering policy adopted for underground pipes. Mr. Jack Tarr concluded that there would be obvious checks and methods to maintain the system. There was discussion regarding comparison of Maricopa County percolation policy to La Quinta. Mark Taylor, Contech, was asked by Commission Leonhard how structure is attached. He summarized stating that the connection is not an anchor -bolt design but 3/16 inch metal. He mentioned a slotted concrete footing (keyway) and a plate dropped into place is possible. Commissioner Leonhard questioned the size of each tube and plate sizes. The discussion included comments regarding seismic activity. Chairperson Wish added that it is a monolithic system and would move with soil. Commissioner Leonhard expressed concerns regarding wear and tear on the system and that concrete has more resistance. 6 G:appeahnin1006.wpd Mr. Taylor explained that flexible metal structures perform well in earthquake conditions. Chairperson Wish explained that basements perform well below grade and move with the earth. Chairperson Wish asked for a comment from Craig Hill who agreed that metal is a more flexible structure and moves with the soil. Mr. Taylor discussed designing for structural integrity, hydrylic flow, and capacity with metal pipe. He further commented about the soil resistivity/pH is outside the range of where metal pipe is recommended there are certain design procedures in place. If you can do something to protect with coatings to isolate from corrosive soils then you can consider the product as a solution. He concluded that the proposal is to completely isolate with coatings, not use 18 gauge culvert for direct burial in the soil. He further stated that it would be designed with correct metals and coatings to add service life. He further questioned the concern regarding standing water from irrigation, runoff, and oils, since they are factored into the design. He commented on the issue of polymer coating in the upper 3 feet, recommended in the Earth Systems letter, and said he did not understand the need. He concluded by stating that if the criteria has been met with the galvanized pipe he questioned the need to add asphalt or polymer coating to the inside. Mr. Speer thanked everyone for their time. Chairperson Wish questioned how to proceed next. City Attorney Jenson recommended a discussion about the issue. Chairperson Wish stated he had come to a decision about the issue. Chairperson Wish asked Commissioner Hegge about his decision. Commissioner Hegge expressed concerns regarding safety and longevity issues. He further stated that he believes concrete is the way to go. He commented that he City is in a position to write a policy, pending math, that the structure can have longevity. He offered his support to proceed and to prove the system works. Commissioner Leonhard expressed his concern. He stated that concrete is not a solution, and does not believe the system is designed for the desert area. He continued that comparison to Maryland and other areas of California is not the same. Director Jonasson discussed that policies are not written completely in a vacuum and that they want something that works by looking for alternate materials to use instead of concrete. He stated that developer's bottom line is considered. He also agreed with Director Hartung's comment regarding the decision becoming engineering policy doctrine. There was further comment that concrete is not the only acceptable material. Ed Wimmer, Principal Engineer, asked to clarify that a 100 -year storm has a probability rate of one percent in any given year. He also mentioned that someone had stated oil is not a concern. It was further mentioned that Mr. Hill 7 G:appeahnin1006.wpd reported that oil is of great concern, because it will dilute the permeable layer for percolation. He continued to mention that the greatest area of clarification is that La Quinta is a very specific location on Planet Earth and a lot of discussion has been regarding places other than La Quinta. Mr. Wimmer asked the Board to consider, as the second Board member mentioned, that these are very difficult soil conditions and to a degree that a metal system can be isolated should guide the decision. He concluded by stating that City staff does not believe it can be isolated. Director Jonasson added that most of what will be seen in the retention basin is nuisance water and are not sure what will be contained. At very minimum, if the Board sees fit to allow the applicant's appeal, that all items in the Earth Systems letter be included, and the coatings not be excluded as the developer has asked. Commissioner Hegge commented that the math has not been proved out, and are talking about finishing the study to prove that it will have the life span. City Attorney Jenson stated that one thing the Board could do with regard to the conditions or the recommendations is to say that all of the recommendations need to be considered in the design and that does not necessarily mean that the coating would have to be, but the application of the coating in the upper 3 feet is something that has to be considered. Commissioner Hegge stated that isolation from the soil is an absolute. Chairperson Wish voiced agreement with everything from Earth Systems and Sladden and added that it all needs to be considered in the design, as well as a maintenance agreement between the City and the owner and future owners of the property. He further expressed agreement with the design science. He spoke of dealing with new technology every day, and how it may not meet letter of the code, but does fall into grey area, "or equivalent." He mentioned that he deals with structures, proprietary sheer wall systems, mechanical hold downs, and connectors that did not exist fifty years ago, but exist now. It was mentioned that ICC approvals, and code reports are a guideline for proper testing of materials. He stated that the product has proven useful throughout the country, but specific soil condition is in question. He agreed that soil is corrosive pertaining to building structures. But he continued that there is sufficient science and engineering creativity that can be overcome. He said if we find out through this test later, in his opinion he doubts that we will not be dealing with catastrophic failure, he thinks with proper maintenance we will be able to identify where failure occurs. He also stated that if it does not work the code can be changed in the future to restrict it to what we know will work best for this area. He agreed with the use of this system as long as all of the factors are taken into consideration. 8 G:appea1min1006.wpd Chairperson Wish commented that he agrees with the science of the design and that codes are used as a testing guide. He further stated that he is in agreement with use of the system. Mr. Jack Tarr's attorney, Betsy Martin, questioned if Mr. Hill's letter would be followed. City Attorney Jenson commented that it would be the City who responds with reference to the letter. Chairperson Wish stated that Mr. Hill's guidelines are already stipulated in the report to the City and has been read and accepted for consideration by the Design Engineer, Brett Anderson. He commented that he thinks it will be up to Brett Anderson to prove it all out along with whatever testing lab was doing the testing of the specific site soil - to account for the high chloride and sulfate levels that could occur, and that there was a range. The low resistance that would shorten the life span was also reviewed. There was a brief conclusion regarding the proper isolation of the bedding materials, coatings, and coverings. He further stated that the issue will be solved as an engineering problem. Director Hartung expressed concern regarding testing the water related to the soil. He stated that he agrees with the soil side, and with Mr. Hill's concern regarding the value and determination of the water chemistry. He stated that he did not want to convene the Board again. The discussion continued about polymer coating, and the comment was made that it is necessary at this point. There was continued discussion related to the water at the bottom of the system and that the chemistry is the same as any other. Chairperson Wish stated that it is subjective. He asked if he was wrong in assuming that the chemistry of the runoff is not affected by the sulfates and chlorides in the soil, or leached from the soil, and attached with the water to the metal surface. It was further discussed that the quality of the water running into the culverts from the tarmac into the sewer system is not really affected by the chlorides and sulfates as it would be had it permeated into the soil, collected sulfates, chlorides, and then attached to the metal surfaces. Mr. Hill discussed that as water flows into the system, poor maintenance could allow water to rise. Chairperson Wish asked if there is agreement if polymer coating is stipulated on the inside as part of the design, right now, as a requirement. There was discussion that the polymer coating is preferred by staff and is viewed as a safety factor. It was explained that this would be a system approved by the City Attorney and developer regarding maintenance. 9 G:appea1min1006.wpd Chairperson Wish commented that as a developer you were already aware that this was a potential requirement by the City and are still willing to go with it. Mr. Tarr responded that he would comply with the wishes of the Board. But he prefers the term "consider." Chairperson Wish questioned whether the polymer is put on in the manufacturing process instead of sprayed on. The answer from the engineers in attendance was post - applied. There was further discussion concerning whether or not a change was spotted later could polymer be applied after it was built. Chairperson Wish discussed the importance of taking a conservative approach for the City since it is new technology. He further asked that once proven, in future years, it could be modified and would be a good compromise. There was discussion regarding three feet of polymer, possibility of concrete inside, isolation from the soil, and life expectancy. Mr. Hill commented that he agreed with the flexibility to review the entire design. Mr. Wish noted that there are many polymers on the market that will handle the specific corrosive nature of the soil. It is the manufacturer's responsibility and the designers to consult technical reports and testing lab reports to determine corrosive material. Mr. Dezon asked what measures the City has in place concerning mitigation of sediment. Mr. Goble stated that drywell filtration systems or knockouts were generally used. There was discussion regarding gunite coating that would essentially turn it into a concrete system. Chairperson Wish stated that it was his decision to go with the system, considering everything that had been presented in the meeting, to allow the Building Official, (he corrected to say Public Works Department), and to maintain the final decision as to how conservative the design is, but still using that system verses the concrete system. Chairperson Wish briefly concluded by stating that what we are getting to is how high the polymer coating will be, and how you prove that through the design criteria, and how far standards are exceeded to maintain quality and safety. First motion suggested by City Attorney Jenson_ as follows: City Attorney Jenson noted that she was sensing a direction by the Board. She stated the following recommendation or the actual decision could be as follows: "That the 5 -gauge galvanized metal plate would be an appropriate equivalent if the soils material is isolated, if you have a recorded maintenance and inspection program that requires periodic maintenance and inspection, and requires certification when the property changes hands, and that the conditions spelled out in`the Earth Systems letter are incorporated into the design with the City Public Works Director having authority to make minor modifications, changing the level of how high the polymers will be." 10 G:appea1nun1006.wpd Chairperson Wish mentioned that he could not have stated it better, and that he agreed. He further stated his opinion that Public Works be open- minded and flexible in working with the client, since new technology and changes are dealt with daily, and hoped that if there was animosity that it be put aside. For the record, City Attorney Jenson clarified that she recommends the document be recorded and meet the approval of the Public Works Director and City Attorney. City Attorney Jenson repeated that the 5 -gauge galvanized metal plate could be an equivalent with the following conditions and that it be isolated. Second motion was entertained by Chairperson Wish and noted that two of three board members were in agreement. Second motion was entertained by the Board as follows: On motion by Chairperson Wish, seconded by Commissioner Hegge, opposed by Commissioner Leonhard, the Building and Construction Appeals Board approved (2 -1) modifications to the City Manager's decision as follows: The Board approved the use of an alternate equivalent material of 5 -gauge galvanized metal plate with conditions that engineering be properly done to isolate it from the surrounding corrosive soil contents (sulfates), that we take into consideration all recommendations from Earth Systems Consulting (attachment 5), as well as Sladden Engineering. Chairperson Wish asked City Attorney Jenson to clarify Deed in legal terms. City Attorney Jenson clarified that a Covenant will be recorded on the property requiring regular inspection and regular maintenance, and a Certificate of Compliance each time the property, holding the structure, is transferred. The format of the maintenance and inspection schedule would be determined and defined during the design process. The document would be subject to approval of the Public Works Director and City Attorney. Chairperson Wish also stipulated that inspections be conducted by a registered Deputy Inspector in the City of La Quinta. Commissioner Wish further explained that the inspection issue would be put in the hands of a third party. City Attorney Jenson clarified this would be a modification to the City Manager's appeal decision. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL A. None 11 G:appea1nun1006.wpd VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. None IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:28 p.m. �C11�.o --,� ���L� --1 1.2•�i Diane Aaker Special Projects Assistant G:appea1min1006.wpd 12