Gene Yes. [Speakers off mic]. Greg The way it stands now, I think looking for if no opposition to the we’re there’s change made here, which is just a clarification to the existing code, the issue that’s of the cane user is a separate issue not currently addressed either in the that’s existing or in the proposed, so that would have to be something that either the next cycle or— Derek DSA would have to take a look at that separately. Greg Yes, so given that, does anybody oppose this current language for what defined it’s to do this go-around? Any opposition to this? Carol Can I repeat what saying then? What saying then is should we keep you’re you’re the current code language? Greg No. saying is there any opposition to the proposed change here. The concern I’m been raised about the cane is not addressed either in the existing current code that’s or the proposed, so that would have to be dealt with in the next cycle or at some future point, but just looking for opposition to this change as proposed. It we’re sounds like no opposition to this but recognition that yes, the cane there’s Gary. sorry. Go ahead. Then, Kaylan and Vidal, I want to weigh in with I’m you quickly, too. Gary Gary Layman with CALBO. At our last meeting I did make comment about a concern of the picket coming down similar to what Gene has indicated, but after listening to and comments to it, and then reading shall provide a Derek’s response continuous and uninterrupted barrier along the length of the ramp, that kind of concurs that it has to be a solid, smooth surface. So, happy with how we’re it’s written. Greg Okay. Thank you. Kaylan or Vidal, any other comments? Vidal This is Vidal. When looking the agreement, agreeing to a proposed we’re we’re amendment, correct, the one that was just read? Greg Yes. Vidal Okay, that be a continuous barrier, uninterrupted. there’d Greg Yes. Vidal Alright. I agree. Greg Okay. Kaylan. Kaylan I would just second what Gary said. good. I’m
Gene Yes. [Speakers off mic]. Greg The way it stands now, I think we’re looking for if there’s no opposition to the change that’s made here, which is just a clarification to the existing code, the issue of the cane user is a separate issue that’s not currently addressed either in the existing or in the proposed, so that would have to be something that either the next cycle or— Derek DSA would have to take a look at that separately. Greg Yes, so given that, does anybody oppose this current language for what it’s defined to do this go-around? Any opposition to this? Carol Can I repeat what you’re saying then? What you’re saying then is should we keep the current code language? Greg No. I’m saying is there any opposition to the proposed change here. The concern that’s been raised about the cane is not addressed either in the existing current code or the proposed, so that would have to be dealt with in the next cycle or at some future point, but we’re just looking for opposition to this change as proposed. It sounds like there’s no opposition to this but recognition that yes, the cane Gary. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Then, Kaylan and Vidal, I want to weigh in with you quickly, too. Gary Gary Layman with CALBO. At our last meeting I did make comment about a concern of the picket coming down similar to what Gene has indicated, but after listening to Derek’s response and comments to it, and then reading shall provide a continuous and uninterrupted barrier along the length of the ramp, that kind of concurs that it has to be a solid, smooth surface. So, we’re happy with how it’s written. Greg Okay. Thank you. Kaylan or Vidal, any other comments? Vidal This is Vidal. When we’re looking the agreement, we’re agreeing to a proposed amendment, correct, the one that was just read? Greg Yes. Vidal Okay, that there’d be a continuous barrier, uninterrupted. Greg Yes. Vidal Alright. I agree. Greg Okay. Kaylan. Kaylan I would just second what Gary said. I’m good.
ACC_04-26-18_Transcript.docx