Comment on Casino Building issue from well-informed reader...

Wes - I read the two exceptions to the FL Building Code on-line (http://www.floridabuilding.org/c/default.aspx)regarding the need for a pile foundation system under a major habitable building, which is what the Casino building is. The first exception was the one the City used up to now by claiming it was not the rebuilding of the old building - the same as their claim it was not a "substantial improvement". Well, the IG found that to be BS, so the City is now forced to use the remaining exception to the pile foundation system requirement. This exception is the seawall along the dune. They are now claiming this seawall will provide protection of the building from the effects of erosion of a 100 year storm surge. The City can use this exception (and therefore save probably half a million $$ on foundation work) as long as the following is demonstrated:

2. Habitable structures located landward of existing armoring which is capable of protecting buildings from the effects of erosion from a 100-year storm surge. The applicant shall provide scientific and engineering evidence that the armoring has been designed, constructed and maintained to survive the effects of the design storm and provide protection to existing and proposed structures from the erosion associated with that event. Evidence shall include a report with data and supporting analysis, and shall be certified by a professional engineer registered in this state, that the armoring was designed and constructed and is in adequate condition to meet the following criteria:
2.1. The top must be at or above the still water level, including setup, for the design storm plus the breaking wave calculated at its highest achievable level based on the maximum eroded beach profile and highest surge level combination, and must be high enough to preclude runup overtopping.
2.2. The armoring must be stable under the design storm including maximum localized scour, with adequate penetration and toe protection to avoid settlement, toe failure or loss of material from beneath or behind the armoring.
2.3. The armoring must have sufficient continuity or return walls to prevent flanking under the design storm from impacting the proposed construction.
2.4. The armoring must withstand the static and hydrodynamic forces of the design storm.

Do you know if the City has provided the required engineering and scientific data, analysis and reports to demonstrate compliance with the above? I also think this is something the FL DEP would like to know too, as they probably issued their CCCL permit (F.S. 161 & F.A.C. 62 B-33)based upon the City incorrectly listing the project as NOT a substantial improvement and NOT a habitable building, both of which ahve been determined to be UNTRUE.

Much more follow up is required on this. I also find it interesting that the IG is rendering building code interpretations. This is a matter that should be reviewed by the FL Building Commission and DCA.