REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None.

DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:

Executive:
None.

Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee:
Mr. Rick Doell stated that the Ad Hoc Cost Recovery and the Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee met. Ms. Patricia Childs reported that both subcommittees met to discuss working together so efforts are not duplicated by the subcommittees and by City of Phoenix staff. It was decided that the Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee would work on the Fee Schedule and the Recovery Fund. The Ad Hoc Cost Recovery Subcommittee will work on activities that the Development Services Department performs that don't pay for themselves. Examples would be Sign Permits and Enforcement of Signs. If there are not fees associated with this type of work, etc. the subcommittee will be taking a look at this.

Process and Procedures:
Mr. Ben Barcon reported that the last meeting held was on December 14th. The subcommittee is happy to report that the Conditional Permit Process is on this agenda and ready to be approved. This will hopefully streamline some of the jobs that can possibly go through with one review along with cutting the workload for DSD Staff.

Mr. Barcon stated that the subcommittee discussed the Technical Guidelines for dryer vents. The City today has some exposure with the residential construction or installation of the dryer vents; the UL listing of the appliances, and some of the manufacturers guidelines. Apparently there is conflict between the two. The City of Phoenix would like to get out of the middle of this situation. The City is asking the residential builders to take responsibility for this. This means that the builders will have to post a plaque where the dryer vent goes. This needs to state to the owner that the appliance must meet the UL rating of the appliance itself. The City is trying to solve problems with fires that may happen as a result of too much lint getting clogged in the dryer vent.

Mr. Rick Doell made a short presentation at the subcommittee meeting clarifying the installation of school playground shade structures. This is a concern of the City's that when as a shade structure is put up, then the schools will install them too close to the building. This is ongoing and will be discussed on how to deal with this issue.

Technical Subcommittee:
None.

Hillside Subcommittee:
No quorum present - meeting will be rescheduled in January 2002.

On-Site Retention/Flood Plain Management:
Mr. Gary Coley stated that this subcommittee met on December 12th. A presentation was given to the subcommittee regarding this issue. There will be a draft regarding Flood Plain Management released the second week of January. If this were released, Mr. Coley would like to request that this issue be placed on the DAB Agenda for January. This issue will be very comprehensive by putting a policy into place, as one doesn't exist today, and will mirror what procedures are going on at the County level. The purpose of this is to have a seamless procedural book for the design community with procedures that county, city, and state agrees on.

DISCUSSION/INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTON ON WATER/SEWER EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS:
Mr. Jim Shannon, Water Department, distributed a hand out to the Board on Water Services Policy Focus Group Meetings with the Home Builders Association along with Questions from Homebuilders and Developers. He stated that meetings have been ongoing and they have made progress on resolution on a lot of items in question. A small group in July met to discuss Easements. Additional meetings may be held if the Home Builders are still interested in meeting.

Mr. Pete Hemingway asked Mr Shannon what was the basis for the width of the easements. Mr. Shannon answered by saying that they provided that information at the July 17th meeting with the Home Builders. The reasons for the need for that width were based on safety as well as access for equipment during emergency situations. Mr. Hemingway stated alternate widths were discussed at 40 feet and 80 feet, depending on the size of the pipe, there was some methodology that the Water Department used to come up to the with. The other issue was how often do catastrophes happen.

Mr. Shannon answered by saying that Operations provided data with all that information at the July meeting. The number of typical main breaks in a year and the data on accidents related to City staff in comparison with the industry was supplied at the meeting.

Mr. Ben Barcon stated that a presentation was made, then they moved forward and this was approved without DAB input, review or approval. His concern is how can this happen and what is the Boards role with regard to this issue.

Mr. Darrell Wilson stated that Mr. Carnell Thurman, DSD Engineering Supervisor, received the design standard change and was requested to implement the design standard change. Challenges came up by a developer on its applicability and considerations were given on a case by case basis. Whether this was going to be adopted by a final policy is still unknown.

Mr. Jim Shannon stated that case by case was used only in situations where the City provides clarification with the applicant. It was used where some inter-city developments in redeveloped areas where there are some existing sewer easements that didn't meet the requirements. The customer went through Development Services and the Reviewers told the customer that they needed to increase the easements. In these situations some of them were small lots. They may have been developing three or four lots. To have a 35 to 40 foot easement to increase it to that on a couple of lots it wouldn't make the development feasible. On the redeveloped areas, where there is already existing water/sewer easement that don't meet the City's requirements, the City will review those on a case by case basis. Mr. Barcon asked how the variance process works.

Mr. Jon Wendt, DSD Assistant Director, stated that the customer would go through a Technical Appeal. The Development Services Staff would hear the appeal and follow the appropriate steps.

Mr. Hemingway asked if the appeal comes to the Development Advisory Board for resolution.

Mr. Gary Coley stated that these issues need to deal with at the City Council level. He stated that he was not aware that the Water Department is a policy-making department that has authority to make a policy and implement it. The Water Department does not review it, Development Services is in charge of reviewing the technical side. Part of the issue was there was not much input from the community, prior to this.

Mr. Lionel Lyons questioned the authority of the Board to make policy decisions. He stated that this is the duty of the City Council. Part of government authority of the Development Advisory Board is the decision that was made in terms of the policy that goes to the City Council.

Mr. Barcon stated that the Board asked Mr. Shannon to present this information to the Board for an update, along to discuss further this situation. He suggested that Mr. Lyons have a meeting the Director of the Water Department and see if an agreement can be made.

Mr. Lyons stated that one of the reasons that this board was created was to advise the City Council. This Board cannot set policies. If the Board is asked to do something, the Board will follow-up with the request (unable to hear the rest of the comments).

Mr. Coley asked if this was a City Manger question or is a Mayor/City Council question?

Mr. Lyons stated that the issues the DAB recommends on behalf of the City should goes through City Council or some advisory group or subcommittee group for discussion and recommendation. The only people authorized to set policies are the City Council.

Mr. Coley stated that he had a meeting with Mayor Rimza and Staff. Mr. Coley asked if the Development Advisory Board charged to deal with all phases of the development community and activity in City Departments and the City. He was given the answer "yes".

Mr. Shannon stated that the Water Department is a utility, also, this isn't just a development issue. The Water Department is operating utilities that operate with the water and sewer systems and are subject to EPA requirements. If the Water Department can't access the sewer and a backup/spill occurs, this means that an environmental violation and the Department are subject to criminal and civil penalties.

Mr. Coley summarized this issue up by stating the willingness or ability of all departments in the City to work together before the fact, rather than after the fact, and discuss issues that are happening and how the issues might impact the other departments. He stated that he, along with members of the Board, felt like the Water Department failed to discuss issues regarding this policy prior to implementation. The Board is now looking for a way to interface on a more open basis in the future.

Mr. Shannon responded by saying that the Water Department has done that. The Water Department has had various meetings to discuss many other potential policy changes such as, as builts requirements, on the approval process, and on the private sewer and life station policy. Currently, the Water Department is in the process of updating their Design Standards Manual, which they've just hired an Engineer to work on this.

Ms. Patricia Childs stated that Mr. Coley suggested that the Water Department keep the Development Advisory Board informed of the issues. Mr. Greg Russell confirmed, and stated that the Water Department needs to keep other City Departments informed if issues. He stated that it doesn't appear that City Departments cooperate with each other.

Mr. Hemingway stated that the Water Department is having discussions to change policies. The Board would like to review the issues before the policy takes effect.

Mr. Darrell Wilson addressed the list of meetings dates that was handed to the Board by Mr. Shannon. He stated that this issue was addressed primarily to the Homebuilders Association. After reviewing the dates, Mr. Wilson stated the meetings occurred after the implementation of the policy. Mr. Shannon agreed with his comment.

Mr. Barcon suggested that as a future agenda item, he would like to hear a briefing from Mr. Lyons on the result of his meeting with the Water Department.

Mr. Lyons stated that he would meet with the Water Department and report to the Board. He stated that it's Development Services obligation to the Board to assist them with whatever we can.

Mr. Wilson thanked Mr. Shannon for his presentation.

DISCUSSION/INFORMATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CONDITIONAL PERMIT PROCESS:
Ms. Denee McKinley, Development Services Regional Team Manager, began the presentation by thanking Mr. Barcon for bringing up this idea for this program in the Process and Procedures Subcommittee.

Mr. Barcon and Mr. Larry Litchfield presented the idea to Ms. McKinley suggesting getting more plans out in one review. How could this be accomplished? Mr. Derek Horn, Development Services Structural Engineer, volunteered to develop the program. In the beginning of the implementation of this program, Mr. Horn worked with his team, put a draft together, presented it to the Development Services Department Technical Research Team, and finally presented it to the Development Advisory Board's Process and Procedures Subcommittee. This is not a program that every customer would be able to take part in, as customers may not be willing to do what it takes. There is a lot of customer coordination in this program.

Mr. Barcon stated that this program only pertains to major projects.

Mr. Derk Horn confirmed this statement. He thanked the subcommittee for their work and appreciates their ideas and input. The goal of the program is to approve a plan and permit after one plan review. The guiding principals of this program are:

• Quality Submittals
  This doesn't mean perfect submittals, but something that is code compliant or something that is very, very close to code compliant, so there is little work for both DSD staff and the customer to approve on the first try.
  
• Appropriate Projects
  These would include non-complex, major occupancies, such as business, mercantile, residential storage, etc.
  
• Non-Appropriate Projects
  These would include educational, hazardous occupancies, and large assemblies.
  Guiding Principals
  Up front work should be completed, such as zoning approvals, variances, the civil review on the project should be well underway.

Mr. Horn continued to explain that the actual process is very straightforward. Once the team has all agreed to do this project, the team meets with the review team to discuss code issues, get a scope of the project, and communicate with other team members. The team wants to be able to work with the customer. If they need extra detail, extra sheets brought in, changes, etc.; this is when the team would be calling the customer. Close communication is extremely important between the team and the customer.

Mr. Horn stated that before a conditional permit can be issued the following stipulations must be reached:

• Review staff must conditionally approve the grading/drainage plans and offsite plan. Offsite plans can be bonded.
  
• Landscaping plans submitted for review.
  
• Dedications submitted for review.
  
• The hearing office must approve required/requested abandonment's.
  
• Required plats/replats must be approved by City Council and recorded.
  
• A valid address has been established per 11/30/01 Policy: "Valid Address Required for Permits."

At the end of the process if everything is done correctly a building permit will be issued. The building permit may have some notes indicated on the bottom for customer information.

Life Safety items that need to be addressed in a satisfactory manor must be met as well. These include items regarding:

• General Plan Submittal Requirements
  
• Architectural/Life Safety
  
• Structural
  
• Plumbing
  
• Mechanical
  
• Electrical

Development Services Staff is asking the Development Advisory Board for approval of this procedure.

Mr. Gary Coley asked what the scope of work is this process appropriate for? Mr. Horn stated that this is being left open.

Mr. Barcon stated that this process needs to be requested by the owner or the owner's representative. This choice needs to be included on the site plan review checklist. An effort needs to be made to let the public know that this available.

Mr. Barcon mentioned that the Development Advisory Board approve the draft dated December 14, 2001 of the Comprehensive Conditional Building Permit for Implementation with the modification major projects will be clarified, Gary Coley seconded the motion.

ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED

DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ON FIRE HYDRANT METERS AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES:
Mr. Larry Stump, development Servies Department, Plumbing/Mechanical Inspector, distributed a handout on Backflow Protection for Fire Hydrant Meters.

Mr. Barcon mentioned that this item did go through the DAB Process and Procedures Subcommittee. The Subcommittee did make a recommendation for modifications and requested for this item to be placed on the agenda for discussion.

Mr. Stump stated that Cross Connection control deals with protecting the part of the water that the City spends millions of dollars in treating that goes out to the customers. Putting in backflow preventors, which are located at the water meters for industrial use and commercial use keeps backflow from happening to backcycleing and through backpressure. One issue that has been overlooked in the backflow program is Fire Hydrant use. Permits are always being issued for the contractors to use temporary water for fire hydrants. Fire hydrants come off of the top of the water that runs down the City mains just like metered water does. It's very important to protect it.

Mr. Stump went on to say, how do we issue a permit for fire hydrant water use without also protecting it against contamination getting back into the City water main through backflow pressure? The typical source is construction water or reclaimed water.

Mr. Stump is requesting from the Board implementation of this procedure as soon as possible to ensure protection of potable water.

Mr. Coley asked if there was some major discussion between the fire department between Phoenix and Tucson about ten years ago regarding backflow devices and fire systems.

Mr. Bob Goodhue, Deputy Director, stated that this issue dealt with fire lines and putting backflow preventors and fire line systems that go to buildings and the reduced pressure. He stated that this is a separate issue. This issue deals with when people want to use fire hydrants or temporary water usage in a special water meter that connects to the fire hydrant so that it can fill up water trucks, etc. In the City of Phoenix, we don't require the backflow prevention of those devices. These are temporary devices.

Mr. Stump went on to explain that the customer/business would come into Development Services and get a permit. This backflow preventors would be incorporated into the permit for the temporary meter for the fire hydrant. This would be monitored through an inspection process.

Mr. Stump stated that the contractor would own the backflow device. After completion the contractor can remove it from the meter and use it on the next construction when needed. After the contractor installs this device an inspection would have to be done and a green tag issued before use can begin. The contractors usually have a testing company for meter/fire line protection. A list is published for certified testing companies that assist contractors.

Mr. Coley asked if an annual inspection of these devices sufficient for something that will be moving around.

Mr. Stump stated that there would not be an annual inspection, only every time it would be in use. This needs to be certified each time that it's installed on the fire hydrant.

Mr. Stump continued to explain that public notification would be on the DSD Newsletters, letters to contractors associations and at Counter 8 in the Development Services Department.

Mr. Ben Barcon stated that a motion was made at the Process and Procedures Subcommittee to make a recommendation to the Board for approval of this procedure with the modifications. The modifications called for the second detail, which was discussed at length. This has already been discussed at the subcommittee and this can go forward without repeating this issue.

Mr. Pete Hemingway stated that this will be on next months agenda as an action item only.

DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON MEETING DATES AND TIMES FOR 2002:
Mr. Pete Hemingway stated to the Board consideration of the frequency of meetings for 2002. He mentioned that possibly the Board would like to meet every other month rather than once a month. If the Board met every other month the agendas would probably be extended and the meetings would be longer. There was no comment from the Board. Mr. Hemingway stated that the Board would continue to meet monthly the third Thursday of the month at 3:00 p.m.

CALL TO THE PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION)
Mr. Lyons stated that he is proud to report to the Board that for four consecutive weeks the Development Services Department has been 100% cost recovery. In the past several weeks, cost recovery has gone back up from 104% to 107%. He mentioned that he would keep the Board informed of this information. Mr. Lyons also mentioned that Development Services is constantly working on filling vacant positions within the Department.

Mr. Lyons mentioned that the City has two new council members; Peggy Neally and Michael Johnson.

Mr. Lyons stated that this would be Alan Olson's, Assistant Director, Development Services Department, last meeting. Alan will be retiring after 13 years of service with the City of Phoenix. Mr. Lyons stated that Mr. Olson has done a tremendous job.

Mr. Alan Olson stated that he has enjoyed working for the Board. He stated that the Board has a great future and said they have great ability to bring various projects of the City together and make better coordination of rules and regulations within the City. He wished the Board well.

ADJOURNEMENT:

MOTIONwas made by Gary Coley, seconded by Judy Pavsek, to adjourn the September 20, 2001 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Session adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted: