DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES

FEBRUARY 20, 2003

Members Present Ben Barcon Gary Coley Mike Colletto Michael Fries Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffron Larry Litchfield Scott Mardian Greg Russell Herman Orcutt Steve Speer Darrell Wilson Members Absent Patricia Childs Stephen Elssmann Melissa Gallegos Danny Ortega Julie Stiak

Staff Traci Bangor, City of Phoenix, Fire Department Karen Beckley, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Joyce Grossman, City of Phoenix, Mayor's Office Derek Horn, City of Phoenix, DSD Deborah Flowers, City of Phoenix, EAS Department Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Lionel Lyons, City of Phoenix, DSD Jon Kolstad, City of Phoenix, EAS Department Joe McElvaney, City of Phoenix, DSD Jay Mundy, City of Phoenix, DSD Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD Mario Paniagua, City of Phoenix, Council Office John Parks, City of Phoenix, DSD Kevin Reily, City Of Phoenix, Fire Mark Sipes, City of Phoenix, DSD John Watson, city of Phoenix, Fire Ex-Officio's Present Rick Doell, City of Phoenix, DSD Sandy Zwick, City of Phoenix, Planning & Zoning Ex-Officio's Absent John Siefert, City of Phoenix, Streets Joe Parma, City of Phoenix, NSD Jim Shannon, City of Phoenix, WSD Others in Attendance Ray Bizal, NFPA Rus Brock, Homebuilders Association Liz Carabine, Mayor's Commission Neil Davison, Davison Associates Dan Demland, Demland Design Dave Drantnol, Isolate International Imad Eldrubi, Wildan Tracy Finley, Shea Homes Mathew Fritz, Shea Homes Thomas Carlo Gegen, RJA Courtney Gilstrap, AMA Suzanne Gilstrap, Gilstrap & Associates Ken Ireland, BOMA Bette Jenkins, BLJ Enterprises Wayne Kaplan, Arizona Multi Housing Assoc. Debra Margraf, AZ Chapter NECA Kevin Miller, Toll Brothers, Inc. Phil Quidort, Knoell & Quidort Dev Pawar, Art Architects Kevin Rude, BOMA Sheldon T. Shaw, Robert Kubicek Arch. Richard Shick, Ellerman & Shick Arch. Christine Shipley, Dunlap & Magee Arnold Sieger, BOMA H. Spears, Linderoth John Valiulis, Hilti Bill Weeman, DMJMH&N Mark Wetmore, Richmond American Homes Sara Yerkes, ICC Johny Yoder, Star Roofing

CALL TO ORDER
Pete Hemingway, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:10 p.m.

MINUTES OF January 16, 2003:
Pete Hemingway asked the Board to review the meeting minutes of November 21, 2002 for approval.

MOTION was made by Greg Russell, seconded by Gary Coley, to approve the meeting minutes of January 16, 2003. Motion carried unanimously. seconded

REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Larry Litchfield stated that he would like the following item to be discussed at a future meeting:
Meeting the Board of Technical Registration Requirements for the submital of Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Plans. This item is the review of the status of the enforcement of the BTR regulation or ruling of the submittal of sprinkler and fire alarm plans.

DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:

Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee
Herman Orcutt stated that the subcommittee has been working out the definition for policies with the DSD counter, is about 80% completed. The site area is 100% complete, signs 100% complete, and civil is about 96%.

Mr. Orcutt also stated that DSD is 96% of cost recovery. Commercial is down, but Residential is up, and DSD is about 1% of where they want to be with cost recovery.

Technical Subcommittee:
Mike Colletto stated that this subcommittee did not meet

Process and Procedures Subcommittee:
Ben Barcon stated that this subcommittee has not met during the last month due to the NFPA 5000 meetings that are currently being held.

Mr. Barcon gave a status on NFPA 5000 Chapter 1, Administration, stating that meetings have been held regarding the proposed changes and amendments to this chapter. This subcommittee is probably about one meeting away from having their review completed and recommendation to the DAB.

Hillside Subcommittee:
Michael Fries stated that City Staff has requested that this subcommittee meet again in March 2003.

NFPA Building Code Subcommittees:

Correlating:
Joe McElvaney reported that this committee has met several times over the last month. They oversee the various NFPA Subcommittee Groups and review what has been reviewed.

(Note: Each subcommittee gave their report beginning on page 25)

Discussion/Update on the Commercial/Design Review on the Text Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance
John Parks, stated that on February 19, 2003, City Council approved the Commercial Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which also included upgrading of city wide design review guidelines. They passed that with an emergency clause that became effective on today, February 20, 2003.

He continued to explain that the majority of the text amendment dealt with Citywide Design Guidelines and commercial development. There is a section of development standards that specifically applies to big box development that would be 100,000 square feet and above. These new guidelines apply to most of the development in the City of Phoenix

6. Discussion/Update on the Appointment of Members to Serve on the Water Services Subcommittee:
Mr. Hemingway stated at the last DAB meeting this item was discussed and identified that members would be appointed from the DAB to serve on this subcommittee, which was contingent on the Water Servcies Department providing a contact/facilitator.

John Wendt, stated that the contact person for Water Department is Aaron LaRoque. Mr. LaRoque is a registered Civil Engineer with the Water Services Department and has been recently been appointed to a new position approved by the City Council to serve as the point of contact for DSD. Mr. LaRoque physically has a cubicle in DSD on the 3rd Floor and he will be the liaison to this subcommittee. Mr. Wendt continued to explain that this subcommittee was formed based on a study that was done by the Budget and Research Department as a way to facilitate communications between the Water Services Department and the Development Services Department

The following DAB members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee:
• Gary Coley
• Barbara Koffron
• Darrell Wilson (Note to Carole: Check with Darrell to see if he wants to serve on this subcommittee)

7. Discussion/Update/Possible Action on a request made by a Development Advisory Board Member which states:
That the DAB request the Mayor and City Council discontinue its single evaluation of the NPFA 5000 Building Code and that, in its place, a comparison be done of the existing Uniform Building Code used by the City, the NPFA 5000 and the ICC family of codes; that the evaluation be conducted through a special task force created by the DAB in a time frame that allows comprehensive and complete comparisons of the three codes; that all stakeholders who have a legitimate reason to be at the table to be allowed to participate and vote ensuring that no one group is given a majority and that the comparison include the following elements:
• Consideration of fire and life safety
• Affordability
• Availability of support services from the model code organization for enforcement
• The process by which the codes are developed
• Tenure and credibility of the model code documents
• Enforceability and practicality of code requirements

It is also requested that the task force be comprised of the following representatives:
• Fire protection (firefighter or fire marshal)
• Architects representing each of the following:
 Multifamily residential, single family residential, commercial, industrial, and medical)
• A city Development Services Department Building Official
• Engineers representing each of the following:
 Structural, mechanical, electrical, and civil
• Builders representing each of the following:
 Multifamily residential, single-family residential, commercial, industrial, and medical

• Subcontractors representing each of the following trades:
 Plumbing, roofing, mechanical, electrical, and carpentry
• A member of the realtor community
• A member of the Mayors Council on Disabilities
• A member of the Chamber of Commerce
• A representative from the neighborhoods or Neighborhood Revitalization Committee

Gary coley stated that he has a concern with this issue and the information that he distributed to the DAB explains a lot. He stated that the DAB needs to hear from the public who has an opinion on this issue.

NOTE: Much of the public expressed opinion on the NFPA 5000 Code Adoption. Following will be verbatim on their comments:

Rus Brock
Mr. Chairman, I’m Rus Brock, representing the Homebuilders Association, 3200 East Camelback Road. Before I start though, I’d like to make sure that all of you understand, that a number of community members are working very hard on the NFPA 5000 Subcommittees and nothing I might say that might preference on where we go is going to detract from the hard work that is going on to make that code flow.

I do want to pass out a couple of things beforehand. This is a letter that I gave to the Development Advisory Board in September of 2002. I don’t want to talk about the first two paragraphs, which really addresses whether it should be this code or that code. I really want to talk about the last paragraph. The last paragraph really goes to a little of, what is the mission of the Development Advisory Board. The Development Advisory Board specifically, “make recommendations to the City Council and periodic updating of the Phoenix Construction Code and Technical Development Standards.” To me it appears to be firmly to initiate the review of both codes. The DAB also establishes working agreements, one of those was to operate from a base of knowledge. First, I don’t see how we operate from a base of knowledge on building codes without looking at all available codes.

I guess while we’re all being good soldiers and we’re working hard on that code, I don’t think the Development Advisory Board was created to be soldiers. You were created to advise the City Council, not take direction from the City Council. As industry, professionals, and leaders I think the obligation is to look at both codes.

A couple of concerns I have for the NFPA code inparticular, I’m going to pass out another item that was just brought to my attention today. This is a letter from Dr. Howard Bashford, who’s a doctor at Arizona State University, from the school of construction. I think he has ore in the water to review the code. But this is an e-mail that came to me today unsolicited, relative on how materials get approved.

Mr. Chairman, I’m Rus Brock, representing the Homebuilders Association, 3200 East Camelback Road. Before I start though, I’d like to make sure that all of you understand, that a number of community members are working very hard on the NFPA 5000 Subcommittees and nothing I might say that might preference on where we go is going to detract from the hard work that is going on to make that code flow.

I do want to pass out a couple of things beforehand. This is a letter that I gave to the Development Advisory Board in September of 2002. I don’t want to talk about the first two paragraphs, which really addresses whether it should be this code or that code. I really want to talk about the last paragraph. The last paragraph really goes to a little of, what is the mission of the Development Advisory Board. The Development Advisory Board specifically, “make recommendations to the City Council and periodic updating of the Phoenix Construction Code and Technical Development Standards.” To me it appears to be firmly to initiate the review of both codes. The DAB also establishes working agreements, one of those was to operate from a base of knowledge. First, I don’t see how we operate from a base of knowledge on building codes without looking at all available codes.

I guess while we’re all being good soldiers and we’re working hard on that code, I don’t think the Development Advisory Board was created to be soldiers. You were created to advise the City Council, not take direction from the City Council. As industry, professionals, and leaders I think the obligation is to look at both codes.

A couple of concerns I have for the NFPA code inparticular, I’m going to pass out another item that was just brought to my attention today. This is a letter from Dr. Howard Bashford, who’s a doctor at Arizona State University, from the school of construction. I think he has ore in the water to review the code. But this is an e-mail that came to me today unsolicited, relative on how materials get approved.

This is the conversation that Dr. Bashford had with a Mr. Keith, from NFPA. He indicated that they do not have a NER evaluation process in place, which is a process by which new types of materials and applications get approved. I’m very concerned about proceeding with a code that this is another type of incidence where they need to do the research to understand what this really means and what are the implications on building types. Whether that by single family, high rise buildings, whatever types of buildings that might be effected by the fact that isn’t any place to evaluate the materials. I don’t think that Dr. Bashford has anything in the way of the review of the code one way or another. He’s expressing his concern now for the code.

Third point, I think you have some real staffing implications. You think about the plans reviews that are in the Development Services Department today, grown up by virtually of their only being one code, with training and certifications through the ICBO, exactly where are those career paths for those individuals? I happen to think they’re going to be in other cities that adopted the I-Code. I think you need to make some serious assessments on what kind of outflow you might of the good experienced people from the City of Phoenix, who might honestly don’t want to learn the NFPA. Their whole professional career has been the code, and that’s principally because there was only one other code. But, also, if they should leave, or if you should have obtrusion, where are you going to find people that know anything about the NFPA. You’re not going to find it by drawing on other cities that are in the valley. Virtually every other city has adopted the I-Codes. So I have a concern about staffing, which would affect all of us as professionals in the industry.

Finally, I’ll just give you one example. I’ve been working really hard on that Residential Subcommittee and as committed as you are, that if this is the decision that the City of Phoenix makes, that we’ll do our best to make it work. However, one example, in NFPA 5000 there was a simple statement that said, “The construction site should be constructed per NFPA 241.” We subsequently convinced that it should be OSHA instead of this quote. This illustrates the point pretty well relative to this cascading effect.

One of the requirements in here talks about that they would have to put a fire extinguisher at the base of each stair. Simple enough. That fire extinguisher must comply with NFPA 10. Well, I don’t have a NFPA 10, so to comply with code, I have to go back to another codebook. To me, and we’ve seen this in other areas and there are others here that can address this certainly better than I can, there’s a standard referred to out of this standard, which reefers to 19 other NFPA codes. This doesn’t strike me as a codebook, it strikes me more as a director of what other codes I need to go look at to find that. I just think that the average individual is simply not going to be able financially afford to secure all the records material to make this code.

I would suggest and recommend that we do a fair and upgrade evaluation of both codes.

Pete Hemingway
Betty Jenkins, do you wish to speak?

Betty Jenkins
No, I just wanted to state that I’m in favor of.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.
Wayne Kaplan, did you want to speak?

Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman, was the comment card prior for or against?

Pete Hemingway
The comment card, Rus was in favor of the motion. Betty was in favor of the motion, and Wayne is in favor, the way the motion is stated.

Wayne Kaplan
Mr. Chairman, members of the DAB, my name is Wayne Kaplan, I represent the Arizona Multi Housing Association. My remarks will be brief and to the point. On behalf of our members who develop homes or manage more than 203,000 rental units, we fully support the request before you. As detailed other comments submitted to you, not to even consider the IBC is a slap in the face. To not look at the IBC is to deny those who want a full and fair review and discussion of what building code can best serve the needs of this city and it’s citizens.

We strongly urge you to approve the request by Mr. Coley. Thank you.

Pete Hemingway
Ken Ireland. He’s in favor. Ken did you want to speak?

Ken Ireland
No, I’ll pass. I’m with the Arizona/Phoenix BOMA and I’m in favor of this motion.

Pete Hemingway
Christine Shipley, she’s in favor. Would you like to speak or say anything?

Christine Shipley
No, not at this time.

Pete Hemingway
Mark Stromgren did you want to speak?

Mark Stromgren
Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m the 2003 President of the BOMA Phoenix Managers Association for Phoenix Arizona. We’re a non-profit organization with of about 400 members with the real estate community here in Phoenix and wanted to say that we do support Mr. Coley and the material that he’s brought forth this committee.

It really is a complete due process if we have both sides of the code to look at at the same time and to be given the time necessary to do so. Thank you.

Pete Hemingway
Just to let Board members, we are allowed to ask questions if you have a specific question of anyone while they’re up here.

Jayme Bartholomew, would you like to speak?

Jayme Bartholomew
I just want to say that I’m in favor of Mr. Coley.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.
Susan Engstrom is in favor of the item.

Susan Engstrom
Correct, I’m just here to support Gary Coley.

Ben Barcon
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, can you tell us what their affiliation is when you go through the cards.

Pete Hemingway
Susan and Jayme didn’t have one

Susan Engstrom
I am with Buildings Owners Managers Association.

Jayme Bartholomew
I am with Buildings Owners Managers Association.

Pete Hemingway
Tom Cady, DFD Cornoyer Hedrick. Would you like to speak, Tom?

Tom Cady
I am Tom Cady. I am with DFD Cornoyer Hedrick Architects. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this update, and Board. I just want to say that I have been studying the NPFA 5000 for the last couple of months, as I’ve been attempting training programs together for our in-house architects and staff to introduce them to it. My observation has been that this code, in comparison to the IBC 2000 is a very complex, totally new formatted, different nature of format that is going to impact each of us having a extremely steep learning curve to get into it. I greatly appreciate the effort that Joe McElvaney’s team has been doing in trying to analyze this code to come up with appropriate amendments and cross references that will make it more streamlined.

My observation is that it is going to impact architects as a very steep learning curve to get into the posture (inaudible) to do proper design or proper code analysis on buildings. It’s like starting again fresh right out of school, not knowing any codes. Thank you.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, do you have any questions for Tom? Thank you.
Paul Sherrard, would you like to speak? Paul is opposed to this item.

Paul Sherrard
My name is Paul Sherrard. I’m opposed. I think that these code issues have been beat around and drug through. If you wait any longer, you’re going to end up going to the next revision, and the next revision and it’s time to stand up for the people who buy these structures and not for the people who want to keep doing it cheaper. I think if you look, that’s what you’ll see. These people who buy the homes that these codes govern, have a 30-year mortgage on them. Sure would be nice if they lasted 30 years.

Pete Hemingway
Kevin Rude, ok thanks Kevin. Kevin is in favor of this item. Mark Stromgren, you already spoke, ok. Thanks, Mark. Clinton Barton, are you opposed to it, would you like to speak?

Clinton Barton
No, I wouldn’t.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.
Pete Schmautz, would you like to speak?

Pete Schmautz
Not at this time.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, he’s in favor of this item. Pete’s in favor of it.
Mr. Arnold Siegel, would you like to speak?

Arnold Siegel
No, we’re just here to say that we’re in favor of Mr. Coley’s motion.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.
Mr. Dennis Correll, would you like to speak?

Dennis Correll
Yes, I would.

Pete Hemingway
Dennis is opposed to this item.

Dennis Correll
Mr. Chairman, my name is Dennis Correll. I represent the Metro Phoenix Plumbing Heating and Cooling Contractor’s Association and we’re opposed to this.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, you’re opposed to?

Dennis Correll
We’re opposed to any International Code. If you, like Paul said, codes have been beat around quite a bit, just to summarize everything, the UPC code is taught by two different apprentice programs here in the valley, one is a non-union and one is a union. Our association has been teaching the UPC codes and has been doing it for years here. UPC codes are consensus codes that allows input from the general public, architects, engineers, and again, we are the people. There’s been a lot things said about it’s cheaper, I’m also a plumber.

If you use the International codes, you can run a 1¼ “ vent in a home for a toilet stack, and if you’ve every had a stoppage you can’t run much of a cable down an 1¼ “ vent and if there’s no clean out in the wall, if it’s over a main line it wouldn’t be required, so you’d have some serious problems. So either way, we’ll (inaudible)

. Pete Hemingway
The motion that Mr. Coley’s proposing is that we evaluate and compare NFPA 5000 with the International code to consider another code. So he’s asking that we slow down the process or look at additional codes. So you’re saying you’re in favor of that. I just want to make sure which way you stand.

Dennis Correll
I don’t think we need to be reviewing anything. What we have in place is fine. Where they’re going with this is the International Codes and they’re not the code we want.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, is the Board clear on where he stands. Ok, thank you.
Mark Giebelhaus, would you like to speak?

Mark Giebelhaus
I will.

Pete Hemingway
From your card you’re opposed to item 7 on the agenda.

Mark Giebelhaus
I am opposed to Item 7. My name is Mark Giebelhaus. I am the president of Marlin Mechanical Corporation, a plumbing contractor here in Phoenix. I am opposed to wasting more time, more taxpayer dollars in doing a code comparison with a code that, according to the City of Phoenix, City Council resolution, would not be able to be used in the City of Phoenix anyway because it’s not a voluntary consensus code as required by the City Council by the City of Phoenix.

So, therefore, I think that it would be a waste of time and taxpayers money to review a document that wouldn’t be allowed to be used in the City anyway. If you continue that lline of thought, what this really boils down to is who sets public policy? The NFPA code is an open voluntary consensus code that everybody, me, you, anybody who wants to be there can have a voice and a vote in the development of that code. Whereas, the ICC Code is only voted on by the ICC members, in other words, Building Officials. What that comes down to is that public employee will be setting public policy not in public and the policy leaders.

Pete Hemingway
Thank you. Questions?
Gary Sanford. He is opposed to this item. Would you like to speak, Gary.

Gary Sanford
No, not at this time.

Pete Hemingway
Who are you affiliated with, Gary, anybody?

Gary Sanford
(inaudible) Phoenix, Plumbing, Heating and Cooling.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.
Bryan Dewitt, whose opposed to this item. Brain would you like to speak, and who are you associated with?

Brian Dewitt
No, I wouldn’t like to speak. I am opposed to it and (inaudible) Mechanical Contractors.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.
Wayne Spears, he’s opposed to this item. Would you like to speak, Wayne?

Wayne Spears
Yes, I would. Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Wayne Spears. I’m a registered architect in the state of Arizona, along with two other states right now. I represent (Inaudible) and Associates, as their Director of Quality Control.

I have to say that I agree with everyone else, both in the agreement and the disagreement portions of what they have to say that nobody wants things to be any harder that they already are. In saying that, when we, as a company let me say this first. We’re a very aggressive company, in terms of our intent to try and provide affordable housing solutions, as well as being well built. We have to try and make sure that the jobs of the development authority and those who review our plan documents have no surprises, no concerns, no questions about what they get. Nothing would please me more than to see someone say this is a very fine set of drawings.
Having said that, when we first heard about ICC and the codes that they were putting together. We were ahead of the game. We had our documentation in place, before most jurisdictions had adopted. When the NPFA 5000 came along, again, the moment that this thing was released in draft form, we had copies in our office and started having personnel start looking at it to try and understand some of the things.

Fortunately, we came up with the same kind conclusions, as Mr. Brock, here, and the gentlemen from Cornoyer Hedrick. This thing is hard to understand. So I can see many of their concerns bearing out in the future with this. If my answer on there is one of those no means yes and yes means no types of things, I apologize for the confusion. I got a package of paper here that’s really quite astounding that’s in terms of positions and opinions that are here. However, I would encourage, and I guess this is my formal statement, please take consideration of both codes. If it’s the International Building Codes, that’s fine. If it’s the NFPA, then please consider these things in context with each other and in context with what the City of Phoenix has done in the passed. There is no sense in breaking away from something simply to be different. There’s an awful lot of cities in this state, and across the nation who are adopting code, the International Building Codes. I think they have good reasons for that, I think that keeping in step with that logic and sensibility the City of Phoenix could do a very fine job. Thank you.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, I’m a little confused.

Wayne Spears
So was I when I filled out the card. If the motions mean you would like both codes reviewed…..

Pete Hemingway
In essence, that’s the motion. So that’s what you’d like to see?

Wayne Spears
That’s what I’d to see.

Pete Hemingway
So you’re in favor of the motion.

Wayne Spears
Yes.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, I just want to make sure. Thank you.
Ronald Henrichsen

Ronald Henrichsen
I’m not in favor of the motion.

Pete Hemingway
Would you like to speak?

Ronald Henrichsen
Not necessarily

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you. He’s opposed to the motion. Do you have a particular affiliation?

Ronald Henrichsen
I serve on the Arizona Uniform State Plumbing Code Commission. We have a good plumbing code right now (inaudible).

Pete Hemingway
Thank you.
Victor Hicks is opposed to this item. Victor would you like to speak?

Victor Hicks
No, I wouldn’t.

Pete Hemingway
Thank you.
Debra Margraf. She’s opposed to this item. If you’re here Debra, would you like to speak?

Someone in the audience
She had to leave.

Pete Hemingway
Mike Barrett with Scottsdale Plumbing, he’s opposed to this item. Mike, would you like to speak?

Mike Barrett
No

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you, Mike.
Mr. Ray Bizal, from NFPA, and he’s opposed to this item.

Ray Bizal
Yes, please. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Ray Bizal and I’m with the NFPA. We are opposed to the item on the agenda.

If you do consider this, I hope that you wouldn’t commit yourself to what has been presented in writing. I mean I can see the consideration of the elements are missing a lot of things that you would have to consider as well as those that may have stake in what is at hand here, for example the architects and engineers. This is a very incomplete list, so I would be very opposed to that.

I am very much involved with the adoption of code issues all over the country, and I can say from Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, that the process that is being undergone here in Phoenix is probably the most open and most transparent process that I have every seen in any City or State adoption. I think that the City of Phoenix should commend themselves for doing a find job, as I know that the DAB members here are also working very hard on this.

Actually I’m here because our building code development committee for NFPA has been meeting here at the City of Phoenix for the last three days. We are lucky to have the staff from the City of Phoenix come to our meeting and explain what their doing in the process and how they have subcommittee and how anybody, including the ICC, can join those subcommittees and vote on the amendments. The building officials who are on this NFPA committee, as the Phoenix staff, why are you doing that? Why don’t you just have staff put together your amendment package and put it out to public hearing? It was very clear from the cities response that because that’s not the way we do things here.

This is a very open process; it’s very open to discussion by everybody. I hope that it will continue to move forward. There were a number of comments that were made about the NFPA about our evaluation service, that we don’t have one and are we doing one? Yes, we’re in the final stages of putting a product evaluation service together. It’s anticipated to be available at the end of this year, early next year.

Our training certification, we have that. You can sign up for certification building inspector, building plans examiner. We have fire certifications and electrical certifications now. There is a, I won’t call it (inaudible), but a way to renew from your existing ICBO process into this certification process. Similar, as you would, if you had to change to the ICC certification program.

Regarding the cascading of the NFPA 5000 being a reference document to get you into other NFPA documents, let me remind you that the International Building Code is not a complete building code. You have to adopt another building code just to address the residential occupancy. The NFPA does reference other documents, as most model building codes do. The NFPA 5000 reference is 435 other documents. The International Building Code references 500 other documents.

So I guess that argument would be the same for the International Building Code. I’m not even talking about the number of references from the IRC, so as people (inaudible) no matter what the city does, people are going to have training; their going to have to learn a new code. The International and the NFPA are new codes. We’re doing whatever we can to help and I will extend an offer to the Architects, the CSI’s, Structural Engineer’s, or any organization that is in the audience, BOMA. If you would like me to give a one day technical program for your employees, I’d be more than happy to do that for free. Please let me know and we’ll address those issues too.

Pete Hemingway
Thank you. Any Questions?
Tracy Finley, he is in favor of this item.

Tracy Finley
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Board Members. My name is Tracy Finley, I represent Shea Homes, Scottsdale, Arizona. I’m also on the Residential Subcommittee for the NPFA Code Evaluation.

One of the, I should say, as well as I have participated in numerous other code committees with the other cities that have adopted the I-Codes. In a comparison, we can break down the difference of a consensus-based occupant of who can vote, who can participate, all day long. We can participate with our opinion in I-Codes cites, as well as UBC cities, as well in NFPA now cities.

One of the big differences, I think, when you think about. It all comes down to this resolution of the City of Phoenix. We have this resolution of this consensus based document. Are we really going to hold the building code down with a definition of consensus based? The I-Codes are a consensus based document. Like other organizations, they actually recognize the I-Codes as a consensus-based document. Now is it an ANSI certified? No, nor did the resolution state that we had to be an ANSI certificate building code in the City of Phoenix.

So I think that should be very clear that we should just make sure that we’re choosing the right building code for the City of Phoenix. That means in order to choose that, we need to do an evaluation of the other building codes that are available. To choose one building code, just based on the word consensus, I think is wrong. We have, in our subcommittee alone, we’ve had numerous plans revisions or revisions to this document, as well as all of the other subcommittees.

How much is too much? At what point do we think feel how high of amendments do we get this stack and then we realize that you know what, we really amended the heck out of this document. We’ve talked, there’s been numerous speaking talking about beating up codes and we’ve done it for years. Absolutely. I don’t really see it as beating up codes. I see it as improving the codes.

The NFPA 5000, we’ve probably beat that document up more than we have any other code book that’s ever been established. City of Phoenix is what, the first national city to recognize this building code as a document for the City of Phoenix. That’s a little scary. We look at just the cost implications of the NFPA 5000. There’s huge implications to residential construction.

Now the City of Phoenix has been very willing to work with our subgroup to eliminate some of those areas and get clarification and we’re very gracious for that. The concern would be that any other city that adopts this code; we start this process all over again. In my opinion, this code document is not complete. It did not have all of the elements thought of that the I-Code have today. If you look at the number of cities today in Arizona that have adopted the I-Codes and have done a fair evaluation of the I-Codes, all of the committees that have reviewed any of the amendments that have been established today, I think that’s a nice history to have. So, therefore, I feel that we should at least evaluate the I-Codes, as well as the NFPA.

One comment in regards to the reference documents, one big difference from the I-Codes to the NPFA 5000 my observation of the two codes side by side; do they both reference numerous standards and (inaudible), absolutely. Big difference is, the I-Codes will actually give you either pieces of those standards or give you a building code element right inside of the building code. So if you go to flashing as an example, does it reference a standard for flashing? The I-Codes do not reference a specific standard, I’m just using an example, inside of that particular code document. Where the NPFA, you so to some sort of a flashing, it references you directly to that document. So you don’t have a choice. A choice isn’t given to you. You have to obtain that document. Where the I-Codes, at least you have the building code choice there first that you can look at, comply with, then you can reference documents as needed.

I can tell you in the many years that we have developed plans here in Arizona, as well as the many years that I have prepared construction documents, I’ve had to reference those standards listed very, very rarely inside the UBC, as well as the I-Codes. The NPFA, we will be, we will have a very, very large library of books and a very large library of standards just so that we can figure out how to build the homes today. Fire Places, reference another document; chimney’s reference another document.

I strongly urge this committee and this Board to please review the codes that are out there today and let’s make a fair evaluation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pete Hemingway
Thank you.
Carl Triphahn
Hi Carl, can you tell us who you represent.

Carl Triphahn
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and committee members. My name is Carl Triphahn, I’m the Executive Director of PIPE, Piping (Inaudible), Progess Education Fund. We’re a 50-year-old, plus, non-profit contractor association, based in the Phoenix metro area.

I’m a third generation family business contractor in Arizona, born and raised in the industry, if you will. I now represent a large group of over 200 contractors who are licensed and perform plumbing and air conditioning services throughout the state.

We are opposed to the direction that is being proposed (inaudible) in item number 7. We would like to commend the City Council, this committee, those responsible for allowing a process for probably the first time for development of a policy within their city. We’ve never had the opportunity provided to us before that are now provided for development of amendments and codes.

It has been typical practice for the Building Official to walk in, put the code book down on the table in front of the citizens committee and say, “This is the code the City’s adopting. Amended it, but do so lightly because we’re going to edited it and we’re going to propose our own interests.”
(Inaudible) comments with respect to other cities throughout the state adopting the I-Codes and Phoenix not doing it. We weren’t provided the opportunities in most of the cities in this state that we have been provided here.

What’s being asked for is something that wasn’t provided to the industry, that was ability to decide which codes were going to be used. Building Officials in most of the cities throughout the state simply decided that for the citizens, and they adopted it with the amendments.

So (inaudible) asked for something that wasn’t provided to us, I think that the City of Phoenix has made a good decision. They’ve asked to have an open process and allow the citizens the ability, the opportunity to participate and develop our policy. That’s not something that is supported by the ICC Codes. It is owned and controlled by public employees, and we are not allowed to participate in the develop process. We can’t vote, we can’t hold office, we therefore don’t have the ability to change the rules or (inaudible) in the process. That’s not openness, it’s not balanced, there’s no oversight. Though, third party oversight like you have would be ANSI NFPA Codes. That’s why the City Council in Phoenix took the direction they did.

In fact, some years ago when they put the resolution in place, the International Code Council was, in fact, given an opportunity to have a fair hearing. And they didn’t take it. Council sent a clear message in my opinion. That was, open your process. It showed openness, due process, balance, right to appeal, and we might be able to consider your codes. If we’re going to bring an open public policy, then access (inaudible) by all interested parties. They didn’t do that.

I will urge you to continue to move forward with this process in adopting NFPA 5000 code that allows everybody to participate, including the Building Official him self. And don’t deny us that opportunity to participate. This is an important issue for everybody, and I think that the ANSI open consensus process ensures due process. They have to, they’re ANSI accredited. Please move forward with this. Don’t change course.

And in fact, several weeks ago Council Subcommittee, I believe the Public Safety Committee voted unanimously that support staff keep this moving forward. I think that’s a strong statement from your City Council, and I think we should do that, we should move forward. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Gary Coley
Could you tell me that Chair of that Council?

Carl Triphahn
I’m sorry a little hard of hearing?

Gary Coley
Could you tell me, who’s the Chair of that Committee, Council Committee?

Pete Hemingway
Who’s that Council Chairman for that Subcommittee?

Carl Triphahn
I’m Sorry.

Mike Colletto
Chairman of the Subcommittee.

Pete Hemingway
Do you know?

Carl Triphahn
I believe Dave Siebert, Councilman Siebert.

Gary Coley
Is not Mr. Siebert affiliated with the PIPE Association.

Carl Triphahn
Mr. Siebert is the business manager of the Plumbers Local.

Gary Coley
Ok, thank you.

Pete Hemingway
You’re welcome. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman, is Councilman Siebert also elected by the constituants and the public to send him to office?

Pete Hemingway
I believe so.

Steve Speer
Oh, I just wanted to be sure.

Pete Hemingway
Thank you, Gentlemen.
Dan Demland. I think Dan would like to speak. Dan, you didn’t indicate on your card exactly where you stand.

Dan Demland
I support this 100%.

Pete Hemingway
You support the motion that Mr. Coley’s . . . .

Dan Demland
Yes, and I’d like to give some essence, thereof. My name is Dan Demland. I’m a registered Architect in the state of Arizona and have been practicing almost 25 years, a little over 25 years now, in the City of Phoenix inclusively.

My specialty is code understanding implementation as well as accessibility issues. I stated before this board with some very grave concerns about the direction the city has taken. First of all, let me begin with a small little story of something that happened In my past, because it’s very analogous to what’s going on now.

I once had a plan reviewer, (inaudible) plan review, determined a landing on a door that would cause a complete redesign of the production home. There was not definitional background for that. In fact, the code was very specific that it wasn’t to be applied there, but he was dead set that he was correct, come hell or high water. We went above his head, it eventually got turned around because we had based it on the actual definitions found in the code, as well as the Webster Dictionary.

I won’t waste a lot of time on Council Resolution 19015 that we all have badgered to death for the last several months, if not years. I will point out one thing; the definition of a consensus code was never given in that document. In lieu of that, we have to fall back to the only legitimate legal definition of consensus code that is found in the office and management budget circular A119. Five elements are elements to consensus code are listed there and the ANSI accreditation is not one of them. What the ANSI accreditation requirement is is nothing more than an endorsement of a proprietary specification. And any design professional on this Board or in my position who’s done work for government, understands the problems with endorsing a proprietary spec in your specifications.

Why am I opposed to NFPA 5000 is cost impacts. Let me tell what those cost impacts are. I’ll be very brief with some things; I’m going to give you some hard numbers. Under the adoption of this code, a supermarket, such a Fry’s or a Bashas or an Albertson’s will be required to put in 15 water closets for women and five for the men. Under counter part of the International Codes, those number drop to two and two. A home material, building of builders material warehouse, such as a Lowe’s or Home Depot, will go up to 22 water closets for women and 7 for men. Well counterparts under I-Codes would be 4 and 4.

I’m not talking about cheaper construction, as you’ve heard some people say. I’m asking where is the life safety issue in this? I see no safety issue brought up. However, I do see a cost that I have to go back to my client and explain that you need to have these additional things cause there’s a code. They don’t understand why. They only know the expenditures.

My cost projections have shown anywhere for a 40% increase to as much as a 70% on one model I did on construction costs. That frightens me to death. I have to go back to my client and explain that. I don’t know if I can, I don’t know if they’ll accept it.

I hear about the process of the NPFA being so great. Real briefly, if this is true and it is such a great code, why, Mr. Litchfield, in your own seminars do you call it a three-finger code. The code was not ready for publication. That I will testify as concurred by someone else earlier. NFPA had no experience in writing the building code.

Mr. Litchfield, before the subcommittee you stated that with the conglomeration of many other documents, fine, I have no problem with that. What document did NFPA use as basis for the structural elements? NFPA, to my knowledge, never did. They do. They reference in Chapter 59 is the IRC, the International Residential Code. That’s where they got there structural. What’s that saying? Did they just raise the IRC to the consensus code? Or are they admitting a deficiency in their own? Is the IRC a superior code? If it is, why are we even looking at the NFPA 5000?

Talk about my library. I’m going to have to increase my library. Thousands of dollars to (inaudible) every one of these secondary reference materials so I know how to design when I’m doing commercial, residential, or whatever. Staff’s going to have to do the same thing, unless you have some other way of enforcing without getting those. I’d have a problem if you don’t buy those trying to enforce that.
The NFPA talks about giving the City free codes, code books and training. But what about the supporting documents. How much more is staff going to have to pay to get those documents? What burden it puts on my practice, because I’m going to have to pass those on to my clients.
I have concerns about the misleading representations of this. There was a comment in this very body taken in December of 2000, both members who this exchange are sitting in this room. I won’t mention names, but you should remember. The one who was the City Building Official at that time was asked if he understood we would be comparing ourselves to other local municipalities. The response by the Building Official was advised that we wanted to make sure we were in alignment with other jurisdictions within the state, such as the State Fire Marshal and other cities agencies. I do produce right now the question, why, if that was true, is Phoenix the only one exclusively looking at NFPA 5000. If the NFPA 5000 was such a good code put up under light against all other codes that you’ve got a good product you won’t be afraid of a comparison or of the competition, but this current process has showed a fear of competition.

On the City of Mesa site, I was rather surprised because they’re doing a comparison, as well. They had a series of questions asked vendors. One of them was about the junior colleges and local third party training. Ironically, the only company that’s doing that according to this website, (inaudible) NFPA is a local company here. Ironically, the general manager of that company is here on this Board. And according to the number’s I see has made close to $100,000 over the last several months training, this company has. That is a conflict of interest.

I’ve been in before the Planning Commission and when a company has a project up there, even if the commissioner doesn’t do anything about the project or is handled by a different office, they excuse themselves from debate, hearing, and arguments. That is failed to be done here. Because that individual is still hearing (inaudible).

This whole process has been brought with misleading, inaccurate, information and most importantly; the people of the City, this great City are going to suffer. The passing of this code will make remodeling almost impossible and will encourage blight. Because we will not be able to bring up buildings to the current standards under this code.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Pete Hemingway
Thank you. Any questions from the Board. Thank you.
Sara Herkes. Now Sara, you didn’t tell me which way you’re going.

Sara Herkes
I thought I had.

Pete Hemingway
No, you left that blank.

Sara Herkes
I was confused. There was so many parts to that. I’m in favor of the motion.

Pete Hemingway
You’re in favor of the motion. Thank you.

Sara Herkes
Thank you very much for the opportunity. Mr. Chairman and members of the Development Advisory Board. There are so many things that I’d like to clarify that I’ve heard here today, I don’t even know where to begin.

Pete Hemingway
And you’re representing?

Sara Herkes
I’m the Vice President of the International Code Council. I work in public policy and my office is on Falls Church, Virginia.

Before I go through my comments I would like to address a couple of things that were brought up in the last few speakers. It’s interesting to hear the definition of what is a fair process and what I’m hearing here and what we are experiencing here in Phoenix, is that the process is only fair to one side. This has been a very exclusionary process here in Phoenix. I disagree with my colleague, Ray Bizal, from NFPA, when he said that Phoenix is the only City that is actually following a fair process. This is a exclusionary process, not a fair process. We have processes going on across the country. California is undergoing a review of the codes. Louisiana, as a matter of fact, I heard a couple of hours ago that Louisiana went through a very extensive code review of the IBC and of the NPFA 5000 and they voted 12 to 10 in favor of the IBC.

In our opinion, that’s a fair process where two codes were taken and reviewed based on technical merit. I ask that you please not let this process be so politicized, which is what has happened here in Phoenix. I have prepared some statements that I’d like to address, if I may. I hope to not go over the three minutes.

ICC submitted a statement to the Phoenix City Council last November in a letter requesting that the City move the ICC in it’s review and consideration of a building code for Phoenix. To date we have not received a response. If I may, I’ll go over some to the points that I feel are very pivotal to this important passed.

ICC disagrees with the staff of the Development Services Department interpretation that the codes produced by the ICC are not eligible for adoption in Phoenix because they do not meet the open consensus standards. In the letter dated October 9, 2002, a letter was sent to BOHMA that stated that the City of Phoenix had done a very excessive review of the criteria for open and consensus and fond that the City of Phoenix uses an ANSI definition designation. The letter also concluded that the International Code Council process is not open and consensus by ANSI standards. It cannot be considered by your City resolution.

I would like to clarify these misconceptions. The International Codes, are indeed, consensus codes by all definitions and principals as defined by the United States National Standards Strategy, which by the way was developed under the direction of ANSI.

The OMP circular A-19 and the National Technology Transferred Advancement Act of 1995, public law, 104-113. These principals are openness, balance, due process, appeals process, and consensus.

Larry Litchfield
Can I ask you one question before your proceed further?

Sara Yerkes
Yes.

Larry Litchfield
Who votes on what actually goes into the code, the ICC Codes.

Sara Yerkes
The vote is open at our meetings, at open hearings the members vote.

Larry Litchfield
Who are the members?

Sara Yerkes
Now the final vote on controversial issues, the final action votes, those votes are held by the code officials; building and fire officials. Because there are no best financial interests, those groups, we feel, have the safety of the communities that they represent at heart. They do not (inaudible)

Larry Litchfield
But, it is only Building Officials and Fire Officials that vote.

Sara Yerkes
Yes, they vote on the final action. Which you can compare to the NFPA process. You can say, well the NFPA, at their annual meetings did members vote. But the members vote is advisory only.

We saw that in Minneapolis. For example when the members voted on the one and two sprinklers for one and two family dwellings, the voted, the motion passed, and they all went home thinking they had a great victory. Low and behold, in July council rescinded that vote. So what is the more fair and open process; a Board that council appointed by the NFPA Board or the Code Officials that are working for the City Managers and county planners that have no financial vested interest in the outcome of the vote.

Larry Litchfield
But the actual last vote by the Building Officials and Fire Marshals, they can take anything on the floor that has been developed through committee action and turn it down, right?

Sara Yerkes
If there’s a controversy that cannot be worked out on the floor that’s been through the process and cannot come to a conclusion and that’s when that final action is taken, but only on the controversial issues. The members vote at the open hearings, during the hearing process and those votes are upheld.

Larry Litchfield
So the final vote is still reserved to the members only.

Sara Yerkes
Just like the NFPA’s final decision is with the Standards Council. Not with the members.

Larry Litchfield
Yea, but who was on the Standards Council? Sara Yerkes
The Standards Council, there are 13 individual’s and their appointed by the Board of NFPA.

Larry Litchfield
But who do they represent?

Sara Yerkes
Industry, mostly.

Larry Litchfield
Well, I think they represent a balance of the participants, don’t they.

Sara Yerkes
How do you define balance?

Larry Litchfield
It’s defined.

Sara Yerkes
To define balance if the representation is the installers, manufacturers, and those who have actually a say in what goes into the code. I don’t consider that a balance.

Larry Litchfield
Well, it’s everybody just about that wants to participate can vote on that last vote right, with NFPA.

Sara Yerkes
No, 13 member council

Larry Litchfield
I mean anybody that wants to be. Well if it’s an appeal, right.

Sara Yerkes
13 people versus how many in the ICC process.

Larry Litchfield
But that’s the appeal process.

Sara Yerkes
No, no. The Standards Council hopes to final the decision whether or not that code is released and if the NFPA 5000 many of the issues were referred to the Standards Council for resolution. The Standards Council voted on those issues and not the members.

Sara Yerkes
But, it’s again, with the ICC process it’s only the public officials that can vote at the final vote?

Larry Litchfield
Right, correct.

Larry Litchfield
Thank you.

Sara Yerkes
The acceptance that there are many ways of developing codes and standards, as I said, emphasizing the United States National Standards Strategy that was developed by the private sector, the standards community under the guidance of ANSI. It lays out the principals for developing national and international standards to meet society’s needs. This (inaudible) approach allows interested parties to address their own issues and develop working methods to fit the problems at hand, since no single standardization approach and satisfy all needs. ANSI provides third party accreditation, which is correct, as you’ve heard here. And ICC is a an ANSI credited standards developer.

According to a 1996 directory, published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called Standards Activities of Organizations in the United States, there are more than 600 standards developers in the United States, and ANSI accredits approximately 200. Out of the top 20 of the major 600 standards developers in the US in size and numbers of standards published, 11 or 55% do not put any of their standards through ANSI. And 4, 20%, opt to put only a small percentage of their standards through ANSI.

There are standards developers that have a mixed bag. For example, ASTM, UL; ASTM puts out approximately 10,000 standards, only about 1/3 of your standards goes through the ANSI process. UL, is another example.

Even Mr. Oliver Smooth, the Chairman of ANSI, said in a testimony for the United States Congress in 2001, “we believe that voluntary consensus standardization which has as it’s (inaudible) openness, balance, due process, and consensus has proven it’s value time and time again for almost 100 years. We are well aware that other means of standards exist. In many instances those are the methods and the resulting standards that are entirely appropriate for the targeted user community.”

Which by the way, ANSI has issued a letter, a statement, that they sent a copy to Bob Heinrich, the chairman of ICC, and Mr. Jim Shannon, President of NFPA. There position is their very happy that NFPA felt that their building codes through an ANSI accredited process, but they also recognized the fact that there is a building code out there developed by the ICC and that we choose not to put our process through their accreditation procedures.

Aside from the record of adoption of it’s codes and of it’s uses, the ICC is recognized in various federal, state, and local legislation regulations. For example, the United States Congress recognized the consolidation of ICC and it’s mission, “over the past few years International Code Council and unified the various regional American Building Codes into one comprehensive text that serves as the code of record for the United States.” This was said by Senator Christopher Dode on June 12, 2001.

Senator Dode introduced a code and safety for the America’s Act, a proposal submitted by ICC to provide cost effective (inaudible) trainer program based on the model building codes. This act passed into law at the end of 2002 and will be implemented by the United States Agency for International Development.

According to a 1988 study by the Federal Trade Commission, approximately 97% of cities, counties, and states that adopt building and safety codes had adopted documents published by the statutory mandates of ICC. Since that time, those entities updated their building regulations; the model codes were updated. With the consolidation of the model code organizations of the ICC and the publication of the I-Codes, those who adopt codes are updated with the I-Codes as part of the on-going process, code review process.

Since publication of the 2000 International Codes, 45 states have updated their building regulations by adopting one or more of the I-Codes and 37 states have adopted the International Building Code, even through statewide adoption or local adoption.

In addition the Department of Defense has adopted the International Plumbing Code, the International Mechanical Code, and in 2002 they chose to reference the International Building Code and it’s unified facilities criteria as the basis for all military construction. Today, as I mentioned, the state of Louisiana voted 12 to 10.

Larry Litchfield
Mr. Chair, I’d like to ask that the 3-minutes rule be evoked. I think that we’ve gone way over the 3-minutes on this testimony.

Sara Yerkes
I’ll wrap up real quick.

Pete Hemingway
If you could wrap things up we’d appreciate. Just for your information, Sara, we do have your paper that was prepared and we’ve all reviewed it.

Sara Yerkes
I would just go over some of the ICC on-line training, because I believe this is important in your code review process. You should consider the services that the organizations provide. ICC provides complimentary initial training, based on the needs and the requests by the jurisdictions that have adopted the I-Codes.

We will be doing over 600 seminars this year, as many as 90 topics. We have our on-line training, ICCcampus.org, which has 90 interactive and self-instructional on-line forces. We offer certification program, national certification, 54 categories. And we just initiated a new national contractor-licensing exam, that covers 12 categories and trades. We have code interpretations, annually. We provide over 100,000 telephone interpretations. We do informal written interpretations, about 5000 each year. And formal published positions of the ICC that will be developed with staff through an ICC interpretation committee. And other services, such as a creditation of labs and quality assurance agencies, evaluation building products professional development, over 150 courses available.

I’d like to finalize by telling that the International Codes are widely adopted and enforced throughout the United States. The NFPA 5000 has not been adopted anywhere in the United States to date. The City of Phoenix is the only city that is exclusively looking at the NFPA 5000. ICC is an organization member of ANSI. Our governmental consensus process meets all existing laws, regulations, and policies is an open balance and fair method. We believe that the City would be doing a disservice to it’s citizens by not giving the ICC . . .

Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, please.

Pete Hemingway
If you could please wrap it up, Sara.

Sara Yerkes
Thank you very much for your time, I won’t take any more of your time. I’ll be glad to answer any questions if you have any.

Pete Hemingway
Any questions from the Board? Thank you.
Joe Meyer
Joe, and you are?

Joe Meyer
In favor of this motion. My name is Joe Meyer, I’m with Gray Development. We are a local (inaudible) builder here in Phoenix, Arizona. We are also members of the Arizona Multi-Housing Association.

I know that the change is inevitable and we’re forced the need to address a new building code. To probably most of you it seems like it’s been going on for a lifetime, for us it seems like it was just yesterday when we first heard about this thing. We got an enormous amount of materials to absorb and the concern as to what this really means to us in our business. To me, it’s completely unclear.

We do our own in-house design and have a full staff of professional architects, myself to my partners and architects by training; we take enormous time and effort to design a good quality product. We know (inaudible), before we talk about plumbing and air conditioning impacts costs there, there are huge changes that will impact the liability of the building (inaudible) that we currently have in place.

Look at the additional changes in there required to (inaudible) fair housing design. The elimination of the CHRA, safe harbor provisions that were in place with the ICC Codes, creates very, very big concern for us. We don’t have a place to hang our hat and say look, we have a fair unbiased interpretation of what’s required under federal guidelines.

To us this is a radical departure in process and more (inaudible) for code. We have a very huge concern about how this affects our immediate business plan, as well as how we work with the City of Phoenix, who has been an outstanding partner with us in working through building codes and interpretation of building code issues and arise and appeal. We’ve got thousands of inspections that are required throughout a project. We’ve got qualified inspectors right now, how are we going to be assured that the inspection staff out there is going to be up to speed timely with this code. How are we going to get our plan reviews done, timely when we’re dealing with new codes and the architectural team on top of that is going to learn all new codes.

This process is being excellerated and, for purposes that are beyond just the technical merits, comparing which is in the best interest of the life safety interests of people that are going to be affected by these codes. I think that this is a huge important decision for a community and hung up on technicality or political perception as to what a consensus code should be. (inaudible) two codes here, both of them are technically proficient. I think it’s coming upon us to give everybody in the industry an opportunity to see which code really warrants adoption based on their technical merits solely. That’s all that I have to say

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.
Suzanne Gilstrap. Susan is in favor of Item 7.

Suzanne Gilstrap
I am in favor Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, it is a pleasure for me to be here and I want to thank you for calendaring this issue for debate. I, like Rus Brock, want to recognize the hard work that’s gone into this, not only by staff, but by members of the Development Advisory Board.

I think we’ve all been working very hard and the reason that we had to be working so hard is because we have a code that is not yet finished. So, we are in the process of having to finish the code. So it has created a lot of frustration. You’ve heard from a person like me who is not technical but works on a committee where there one of the opening statements by the representative from the Mayor’s Council on Disability said that, the Accessibility Chapter, which is Chapter 12, was so poorly written, that they basically threw it out and had to start all over. I think that says a lot about what we’re doing. We’re looking at a code that is first time out; it’s not been tested. We’re having to amend it trying to make it work, and there’s going to be no guarantee that at the end of the process it’s going to work.

I also think it’s very interesting that a lot of the objection that we’ve heard today has come from the pluming community. The plumbing community, by the way, went to the legislature in 1997 and mandated a Uniform Code. They felt we should have uniformity throughout the state in the Plumbing Code. Yet they are before you here today, advocating that the City of Phoenix adopt a code that is different from what virtually every other city in this state is adopting or at least reviewing.

I would like to, I think you have a list, you have a list of the communities and counties that have adopted the International Codes.

Pete Hemingway
Yes, we have a full packet.

suzanne Gilstrap
You also have a letter from Councilwoman Neely.

Pete Hemingway
We do have that, we reviewed it.

Suzanne Gilstrap
It is suggesting that this process has been too fast and is not consistent with Phoenix policy. Mr. Chairman I would encourage this committee and I think, as Rus Brock has stated earlier, you have a responsibility to the committee, to the community, as Board members to make sure that you have looked at alternatives before singling out a code that appears to be causing all kinds of problems. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

Pete Hemingway
No questions. Thank you.
Liz Carabine is opposed to the item. Is Liz still here?

Liz Carabine
Mr. Chairman and the Board, thank you for allowing me to speak. I (inaudible) differences on the committees and I am opposed to changing the actions that we’re talking already and add to Suzanne’s comment about the Mayor’s Commission had said that we threw out Chapter 12. This is the only chance we had to have a voice in that process. If you throw it out and look at all the (inaudible) and start over, I don’t know if we can start from scratch again.

At a time when budget is so important, I would like you to consider the valuable man hours and the volunteer hours that put an effort to get it this far. To turn around to look at everything and start from scratch again. It’s going to postpone the process for months and years. With so many other things that we need to move forward with and make this City a better place.

I can understand that there’s some frustration about having to relearn what everyone’s else that has come to this table seems to be very intelligent and I have a concern that they feel they’re not able to relearn a code. These are the people that are building our homes, should they not be able to learn the new code. If I could take the time and try and learn it, I think it should be important for everyone to try and learn it.

In fact, the public and the people that are buying homes and buildings have some input into this process, I think it’s important for us to continue forward.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you, Liz.

I don’t have anymore cards on Item 7. Before we go up to Board discussion, I need to take about a 4 or 5 minute real quick here to consult with our legal entity and then we’ll proceed. So if we can take a real brief recess, like about 5 minutes, we reconvene at about 25 till according to that clock, then we’ll get going.

At this time we will continue our discussion.
Update/Possible Action on the Request Board member Gary Coley. I want to thank everyone who make comments and had input into this process. We appreciate your efforts. I want to particularly thank staff. I know that over past three months, they’ve done a phenomenal job, as far as gathering data, putting things together, and pretty much keeping those of us who have been informed. On the Subcommittee pretty much informed. With that, in consideration of those things that we’ve identified, I’d like to open it up to Board discussion. If anybody has any particular comments that they’d like to raise at this time.

Larry Litchfield
Mr. Chair, an allegation was made of a conflict of interest. We checked with the City Attorney at the break and he ruled that there was no conflict.

Pete Hemingway
Yes, I was a part of that. So we will continue to move forward again. With that I’d like to open up discussion from the Board. Gary you raised the issue so I’ll open it up to you to see if you have any additional comments.

Gary Coley
There’s a lot of things being talked about. The whole point of this, when the DAB was formed it was formed for a purpose. When the Development Services Department was put together over the last 20 years, and every advanced they made I cheered, because they’ve come a long way from an unworkable department to one that I’m proud to be associated with. And then to take both of those and handcuff them and tell them that you have only one choice to make, I think it is an absurd, political embarrassment.

My feeling is that the DAB Board process is a consensus process. We could review any document any standard and have all of the stakeholders and anyone that’s of interest participate in what would come out the other end would be a consensus standard that is right for the City. To politicize it any differently, I think, is a disservice to the DAB, to the DSD, and to the citizens of Phoenix.

I’m more concerned about that politicizing the process and evaluating technical merits. There are people far more qualified than I am to do this. But I got to tell you, if I’ve got to buy something I would want the people selling who are selling it to me to be setting the standards for it. So I urge that we do what’s right for the citizens and vote yes.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, any other comments.

Herman Orcutt
First of all, I’d like to echo what Gary said. I think this is a defining moment for the Advisory Board. I think this is the kind of thing we’re here to advise. We should be here to advise about. It’s extremely important. I think that we’ve been on the wrong track. I agree with the (inaudible) I know my people in some of these meetings, there’s a tremendous amount of effort. I just think it’s part of the (inaudible). We should be (inaudible). We’re the sixth largest city in the country and why are we trying something brand new that’s nobody has tried?

Let me go on for just a minute here. I’m part of the (inaudible) member of the Board. And our national group has been working for years with the three major code bodies, building code bodies. One of which is the Uniform Building Code, which is now of course, in Phoenix. The idea was to make a national code that everybody could work with it. As an Architect, as an Engineer you could work with it all around the country and know that it’s pretty much the same. As a building materials manufacturer you can count on the same kind of thing there, a consistency all over the country. If I’ve got everybody working together the three different codes folded into one, they put together what they think is a good code with years of effort and evolved by all three of them in experience, then all of a sudden another one comes along out of left field and we have to take it without any consideration.

Mr. Bizal said that this was an open process, I’d say it’s anything but open. We’re looking up one code. If it’s going to an open process, why are we looking at both of them? I think this consensus issue is really a red (inaudible) and it’s a technicality or detail we should ignore, frankly. In the larger picture of, as an Advisory Board to the Building Department, was biggest cities in the country, we need to be trying to do the best thing. For not only our citizens, our professionals, our staff, but the people in the country that move here.

So in closing I’d like to say to everybody there that’s going to vote on this, let’s use the common sense test. Gary’s motion makes sense, is it a common sense thing?

Pete Hemingway
Any other Board members?

Larry Litchfield
Mr. Chair. I think that as a Board have been through this before in January 2001 a motion was made to consider, I forgot what the exact motion was, but the recommendation was taken to Council. Mr. Coley, himself, delivered the message to council. As the staff person at the time, I sat in the meeting and basically the motion, or the motion at that time to accept some other codes, basically, was rejected. The concept of a consensus code was continued.

What happened at the hearing here a few weeks ago, the Public Safety Committee, unanimous vote, 4 to nothing, to continue the process think reaffirms what the Council has taken the action on what codes they would like to consider. The Code Adoption is not a building code issue, it’s not a building official issue, I should say. It’s a policy issue that should be set by the elected officials of the City. We as a Board are only recommendations. This motion, all it does is delay process that has been going on for almost two years in the adoption of the 5000. Actually, it’s been going on since the 97’ resolution, but reaffirmed in 2000 when the Board took action on adopting the 5-Step Process.

So we’ve been down this path before, it was rejected by Council. Back a year and a half ago, it was reaffirmed here just a few weeks ago, Council wants to go to the consensus code process. Call it what you want, call it names of whatever. I think, we as an Advisory Board to Council, have to go what Council is advising us. They’ve already taken three votes on this item, and all three votes have been unanimous. Whether it be on a subcommittee or at the main Council level. The votes may have swung a little bit since three or four years ago, but so far with the Public safety Committee speaking out here a couple years ago, I think the policy set by Council is set, and whatever happens today is mute. Whatever vote we take because we’re advisory to Council only, we do not set the policy for the City of Phoenix. It’s set by Council.

Gary Coley
Peter could I offer a clarification of the presentation that was made was not to the Council as a whole, but to the same subcommittee that is still chaired by the same plumbing official that got us where we are here today. So, Council didn’t vote on the DAB.

Larry Litchfield
I didn’t mean to say that, but it came out that way. What I wanted to say is that two weeks ago the Public Safety Subcommittee, the four members that were present, vote unanimously in favor of continuing the process.

Pete Hemingway
Excuse me. I guess Gary what I need to do, this is my part I apologize, I need you for formally read the motion.

Greg Russell
Wait a second, Mike was trying ask a question.

Mike Colletto
If you need to do that so we can . . .

Pete Hemingway
Yea, let me do this, then we can continue. If you can formally read it and then the motion into the records and then we will entertain a second.

Gary Coley
And with the understanding that this is a recommendation. Part of the process is the involvement of the stakeholders. And while I offer a structure within this motion, it’s certainly won’t upset me to expand the participants to whatever level that needs be to get everybody involved. With that in mind, this is an offering of structure that certainly I would have no objection in it being expanded on.

I move that the DAB request the Mayor and City Council discontinue its single evaluation of the NPFA 5000 Building Code and that, in its place, a comparison be done of the existing Uniform Building Code used by the City, the NPFA 5000 and the ICC family of codes; that the evaluation be conducted through a special task force created by the Development Advisory Board in a time frame that allows comprehensive and complete comparisons of the three codes; that all stakeholders who have a legitimate reason to be at the table to be allowed to participate and vote ensuring that no one group is given a majority and that the comparison include the following elements:
• Consideration of fire and life safety
• Affordability
• Availability of support services from the model code organization for enforcement
• The process by which the codes are developed
• Tenure and credibility of the model code documents
• Enforceability and practicality of code requirements

I further requested that the task force be comprised of at least the following representatives:
• Fire protection (firefighter or fire marshal designee)
• Architects representing each of the following disciplines:
 Multifamily residential, single family residential, commercial, industrial, and medical)
• A city Development Services Department Building Official
• Engineers representing each of the following:
 Structural, mechanical, electrical, and civil
• Builders representing each of the following:
• Subcontractors representing each of the following trades:
• Plumbing, roofing, mechanical, electrical, and carpentry
• A member of the realty community
• A member of the Mayors Council on Disabilities
• A member of the Chamber of Commerce
• A representative from the neighborhoods or Neighborhood Revitalization Committee

Pete Hemingway
Thank you, I’ll entertain a second.

Herman Orcutt
I’ll second.

Pete Hemingway
I have a second by Mr. Orcutt.
I apologize for that, it’s my oversight, I thought we introduced it at the last meeting, but I guess not.
Go ahead, Mike.

Mike Colletto
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I agree with what Larry said. This resolution that the City Council passed has been on the books since 1997. There’s been plenty of time for people to go directly to the Council to try and change that. Here we are almost through the process of adopting this code, we’ve put a lot of work into this process, and then at this point and time, we’re coming forward with another resolution to ask them to reject it when the just reaffirmed it at the City Council Subcommittee level. I think that we’ve already been shown that that’s not their will. They represent the public; they’re elected by the constituents of this town.

But I wanted to point out something to the members. This document that we’re talking about, the NFPA 5000, and we talk about balance and we talk about people who participate, well the Technical Correlating Committee, as most of you know, is made up of the chairman of all the subcommittees that sit on it. The same way that we’re doing our presentation here. We got all the subcommittees, then we’re going to have the correlating committee. Well the people that oppose this code sit on that correlating committee for the NPFA 5000.
• International Fire Marshal’s Association
• The Preview Group, who represents the American Institute of Architects
• Cage and Babcop Associates
• Schirmer Engineering
• Blue Ridge Design
• City of Kansas City
• The National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards
• The National Society of Professional Engineers
• The National Multi-Housing Association
• City of Las Vegas
• City of Portland
• The National Council of Structural Engineer’s Association
• The International Code Consultants

All these people that are standing here saying they’re opposed to this code, and say that this code is incomplete that is not a complete document, were on the committee that put it together.

I submit to the folks here is they don’t have control of this process. That’s the reason they don’t want this code to be adopted. That’s my opinion. We’ve worked long and hard and this City’s put a lot of effort into this, put a lot of expense into this code. The City Council has reaffirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed their position. I think we ought to move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Pete Hemingway
Thank you. Any other Board members.

Herman Orcutt
Mr. Chairman, I just think remembering back when Phoenix had their own code, that every other community around had a different code, how much fun it was to have to go to two different codes when you were designing a building and putting it together. It’s a challenge. I can see this happening again. And this may be a little bit (inaudible) but I think it’s just (inaudible) the same thing as the City of Phoenix. As of January 1st, all of your plans will have to be submitted in metric. I’m not going to take any more feet and inches. What do you think that would do? How much fun do you think that would be for people to design it and build it and come up with a product just a slightly different size or a different length to suite that different requirement?

This may not be a big deal to somebody but it’s a big deal when there’s two different codes in the same valley, if you will, (inaudible) for consideration. It’s just (inaudible). I go back to the (inaudible), this to me does not meet (inaudible).

Pete Hemingway
Thank you. Any other comments from the Board members for further discussion?

Gary Coley
Mr.Chair, I’d like to call for the vote by roll or a show of hands.

Pete Hemingway
We’ll do the roll call vote and I’ll start off over to my left, with Herman. If there’s no further discussion, go around the table accordingly.

Members Present Herman Orcutt Ben Barcon Barbara Koffron Mike Colletto Greg Russell Steve Speer Scott Mardian Michael Fries Gary Coley Larry Litchfield Pete Hemingway

Votes In Favor Opposed Opposed Opposed Opposed Opposed In Favor In Favor In Favor Opposed Opposed

Members Present Final Vote

Votes 7 Opposed 4 In Favor

Talley of public comment cards:
16 In favor
13 Opposed

Motion, as made, does not pass.

Pete Hemingway
With that, we’ll move on to agenda item number 8.

Agenda item number 8 is:
Discussion/Update/Possible Action to Proceed with Step Four of the Five-Step Process and Schedule a Hearing Date
(Step Four is the public hearing with the full DAB to hear proposed code amendments related to the NFPA 5000 Building Code and associated codes)

With that, Mr. McElvaney, if you could abreast us on the current status of the process and we will entertain a motion.

Rick Doell
Mr. Chair, I will yield to Joe, as the Building Official I was going to present this, but Joe’s done such an outstanding job on this I’d like to have him present it.

Joe McElvaney
Thank you, Rick. Mr. Chair, as you know, several subcommittee’s has had their meetings since November. Approximately one week a week for most of this committee’s. Some committees are done. I would like at this time to ask from each subcommittee’s chair person to recognize them, their members of the audience who are on those committee’s, because they’ve all done a great job.

I guess the first committee that I’d like to talk is the Energy Subcommittee.

Michael Fries
We thought we were done until today. We have another meeting.

Joe McElvaney
Ok, you have one more meeting, potentially. Mr. Litchfield, Commercial.

Larry Litchfield
We had a meeting today and got some last minute recommendations which we have one more meeting planned for next week.

Joe McElvaney
Ben, did you do yours.

Ben Barcon
Yea, but I’d like to add that you’ve got another meeting coming on Friday, and that group is?

Joe McElvaney
The Correlating Committee.

Pete Hemingway
No, you have a multi-housing.

Joe McElvaney
This Friday I have a special meeting one on one with myself and the Multi-Family Housing Association members. They wanted to discuss the code. So I’m meeting with them by myself and talk about issues they may have to see what they did.

I did that meeting last week with the Homebuilders Association and we got through a lot of their comments and concerns and we’re going to probably work with them too.

Ben Barcon
So given that, we thought we were done, but we extended the time (inaudible).

Pete Hemingway
Oh, Residential, yea. We’re not done. We’re going to end up being the challenging group. We have had some tremendous working sessions and I commend Mr. Brock, and his constituency. They have done a phenomenal job, as far as bringing items to the forefront, as far as residential issues. Courtney Gilstrap, with the Multi-Housing Association has been hanging in there and I commend her also. Her group will be meeting with Joe.

What we’ve done, as far as our committee, we’ve developed a process. We have some working sessions with the various constituencies and they have some direct input into the items. I know that they’re meeting on Friday, February 21st. We have another meeting scheduled next Wednesday, February 26th, and I suspecting that we’ll be meeting a couple of weeks after that. At least to get through some of these items. So be honest with you, I don’t see us completing, for probably, as a minimum at least three weeks. That would probably be optimistic. I would probably say.

But I would also say that, in regards to the over all process, I don’t think that should preclude Board members from starting. That does not preclude us from starting Step 4 of the process.

Joe McElvaney
Scott, do you want to give an update on your Accessibility.

Scott Mardian
Yea, we’re through 12, but there are some other chapters that we have to clean up and there are still a few items. So maybe two more meetings, I’m thinking. We’ll finish whenever we get finished.

Joe McElvaney
So with that Mr. Chair, based on the hearings from the Chairs, they seem to have one to maybe three weeks, three meetings to go yet, maybe four necessary. We are working on right now, Carole Borrego, and let’s thank Carole and Joanne because they keep us going.

Most of these committee’s are pretty close to being done. Therefore, we are asking to go to Step 4. What this would do for us is to have a full hearing with the full DAB. If anybody has outstanding issues that we don’t know about yet, that could bring it to the full DAB, the full DAB can maybe, or defer it to that subcommittee, and say, hey, go to that subcommittee, their more than willing to work with you. Of if the subcommittee rejected their comment and they want to appeal it to you, this is the opportunity. Most likely they’ll be two big public hearings. We ask that you move forward with this.

Larry Litchfield
Mr. Chair, I’ve got sort of a process in mind that I’d like to put on the table, not necessarily as a motion, at this point, but for discussion purposes. This would be to basically move on to a hearing process set up knowing that at the hearing we’re going to probably hear a lot of interesting code changes and suggestions. The committee structure, I think, would continue but at some point at time for this process we need to cut off the submission of code changes, at least for this cycle, so the cycle can stop. But the code changes can always be submitted at any time so that the process will continue. In conjunction with what’s happening with the Fire Code, Barbara and company will be looking at their document and upgrading it, probably in the next six months, and there will be an opportunity to make amendments during the next six months in conjunction with the Fire Code.

In my 34 years in dealing with codes, the only way to really make a code work is to put it in place. The first time you unroll a first set of plans, whether it be for a house or whether it be for a commercial building, it doesn’t make any difference what code it is. You’re going to find something that isn’t fixed whether it be the IBC Code or whether it be the NFPA 5000, it won’t make any difference. I’ve put about 10 codes in my lifetime and every one of them you say; how did that get in there and you need to go fix it. So we need to have an understanding that this is a continual process and to develop a process that is continuous to allow a continuous feed of changes as they occur.

As part of this, make a very strong recommendation from the DAB that the Building Official, during this six month period of time while the code is being put into place, take due diligence in tracking and identifying those issues, so that they can come back to the various committees for resolution.

That would be true, I would be making this motion, whether we would be adopting the IBC or the 5000, it won’t make any difference. Whenever you make a major change in direction, you’re going to have this problem. That’s just part of the process whenever you adopt a new code, you’re going to have a time frame when you need to allow some additional changes to take place. Again, there’s only probably going to be three or four during that time frame that it come up, at least what I’ve seen.

Let’s go ahead a schedule a hearing, but also establish a date in which the testimony could be code changes could be submitted for this round. If the boat leaves the pier without them, well there’s a next boat around in six months and we just continue to take in recommendations for changes. So I throw that on the table for discussion.

Pete Hemingway
We’ve heard from all the subcommittee chairs. Any further discussion.

In regards to this, I think in some point at time we do need to start the process of having public hearings. I’m a proponent of doing things as efficiently as possible, so if we could start the process, and set a public hearing. I do envision us; I’m not limiting it to two. I think we have to serve the community and if somebody comes up with some real viable issues that we need to address as part of the code, then we need to refer that to a subcommittee. We do need to give it due diligence and look at that. So I won’t limited it to two, even possibly after the first one, if there’s no public input, and everybody’s happy with it, somehow I won’t suspect that won’t be the case, but if by chance that is, then we can always move ahead after that.

So with that without further discussion, we will entertain a motion to proceed with Step 4, which is the public hearing and establish a date for that hearing.

Mike Colletto
I move.

Pete Hemingway
Mr. Colletto’s moved that we begin step 4 of the process with the staff to do a public hearing.

Barbara Koffron
Second

Steve Speer
Second

Pete Hemingway
I have a couple of seconds in regards to that. Any further discussion.

Larry Litchfield
Would you accept a friendly amendment to put a timeline for the receipt of comments from the public hearing and also to continue the code review process after that period for the next round with the Fire Code.

Mike Colletto
In that regard, I think it would be wise because it would give everybody an opportunity to know when.

Pete Hemingway
When the cut off date is. Ok, do we have a specific date? Or does staff recommend it.

Larry Litchfield
I can tell you what we do with the Electrical Code. We basically established a date, we had an open meeting with a bigger group and we said a week after that. If we’re going to have a hearing, let’s say next week, say a week after that we would accept code change proposals that would then go to the committee’s for review, because at some point after that, we need to put the document to bed.

Scott Mardian
I know it’s getting late, I think this enters into the discussion. The idea of wordsmithing. After the committees are done, the document is going to be wordsmithed by some group of professionals. I think that everybody needs to know how that process works. Because I’m unclear of when that happens. So if there is a clear process, I’d like to know, and if there isn’t then let’s figure out what do to as far as this goes.

Joe McElvaney
It’s happening now, wordsmithing. As each committee is approves something, I’m giving those approved minutes to Carole. She’s making sure the margins are right. When I type, as you’ve seen, I add r’s and e’s. Carole is taking care of those words with the margins. That’s taking place as we speak.

Scott Mardian
I’m thinking more in terms of, if we use the word dwelling in chapter 12, it’s also used in chapter 14; not residence. That’s what I’m talking about.

Pete Hemingway
So there’s consistency throughout the document

Scott Mardian
So there’s consistency throughout. I should have clarified that. What is the process for that?

Rick Doell
That would come after we finish with the hearings and gone to Council and got approval, because they won’t know what the final document is. Then as we take it to the DAB after it’s printed up, that’s when DAB will come into play when we will review it for consistency.

Joe McElvaney
Rick is looking at all the proposals now.

Scott Mardian
Maybe there’s not an answer, if there’s changes after whose looked at that and says, hey, that wasn’t our intent, you changed that.

Rick Doell
City staff will be looking that. We won’t change any intent, it wouldn’t be legal to do that. If it’s an English issue, then it’s an English issue.

Don Jones
Mr. Chair, a process that maybe staff isn’t aware of, all ordinances before they’re adopted goes through the ordinance review committee in the law department, where a number of Lawyers look over the ordinance. We are not going to add the technical expertise in a lot of these areas that you do, probably we won’t get to involved there. Especially the administrative section there may be some additional comments. After that process takes place (inaudible) what we propose.

Michael Fries
In consideration of all the effort in all these Boards and subcommittees have put together, and I know there’s obviously a great deal of need for efficiency, and we’re all in a hurry on this. I think it would be a great disservice to push this too fast. I’m not saying drag this out, but I think I’d be interested in seeing what the other committees have done. To ask someone to ask my committee to give them stuff to read, I mean, us on the committee have a hard time keeping track of what we voted on because we’re seeing so much information so fast. I think we need to have a chance for all of us to look through it and make sure we haven’t set up some mistakes and stupidities because it’s a challenge to do this.

Joe McElvaney
We have that. We’re heavily doing that and I’ve got five copies that we just printed out today of all the amendments that have been approved for all those chapters. We have been e-mailing them out to the Multi-Family Housing Association, and I’ve used the word DRAFT because there may be errors in it.

Pete Hemingway
I think that his concern is, that we as an entire Board have not seen that document so I don't know what, for example, Energy has recommended.

Michael Fries
Quite honestly, I don’t want to sit in front of a public hearing and hear something come up and have no idea on what they’re talking about and how we’ve reacted to it. I mean, I’ve put too much effort into this, I’ve spent once a week or more than that, since November so I’m asking let’s go at a normal pace and put out a really good document. Let’s be honest, we’re not putting it out to a welcoming committee.

Pete Hemingway
So what are you saying?

Michael Fries
I would like to finish the work before we have a hearing.

Pete Hemingway
Before we have a public hearing?

Michael Fries
Correct.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, so you don’t want the work ongoing while we’re entertaining ….

Michael Fries
I don’t think we’re 99% done. One committee is done, that’s it, out of how many committees.

Mike Colletto
Mr. Chairman, I think the intent of Larry’s motion was so we could take the input in that we got at the public hearing to take that into consideration.

Larry Litchfield
Yes.

Mike Colletto
I think that was the idea. If we keep the process moving, but we’re not shutting the door.

Michael Fries
In consideration of discussion, I’m going to ask maybe an obvious question that I should know the answer but I don’t, so I’m going to ask it. I’ve been to a couple of these committee meetings, it’s usually not those kind of questions that we hear. When we have these open quorums, it’s usually someone getting up who’s not happy with whatever decision or they’re greatly (inaudible). I’m not sure if this is really the process that we’re going to hear the things we’re missing in the code. I am mistaken.

Larry Litchfield
Michael let me maybe answer your question by referring to what happened to the no step entry process. We had a proposal that a committee formed, the item was brought forward and we had the public hearing at the library, and a number of issues came up during that hearing. The committee then went back and restructured it and came back with a recommendation that was crafted based on those public-hearing comments.

Mike Colletto
It was referred back to the subcommittee.

Larry Litchfield
It was referred back to the subcommittee and then a better solution was brought forward. I think we’re to that point with the code development, is that we could wrestle with this thing in the subcommittee level for months and months and months. We probably need to have this public hearing to get everything that would still be out there to get into the system so at least we can consider.

There’s been a process where staff has; we’ve got a web page, they’ve sent e-mails, then send hundreds of notices out, but have we really hit everybody? So that’s what basically a public hearing is.

Mike Colletto
Are these hearings for these people to review the work that the committees have done?

Larry Litchfield
To date.

Michael Fries
To date and the amendments that we’re proposing to the NFPA. Is that intent of these hearings?

Pete Hemingway
I think the intent of these hearings is to have general public input into the documentations; either amendments we’ve suggested, so in essence, yes.

Michael Fries
How are they going to know what the amendments are if we haven’t published the amendments out in final form for them to look at.

Pete Hemingway
But I think the part is to also get started (tape change). So that we come back, maybe at the next public hearing, if that’s a specific item, we could say we’ve addressed it and we’ve talked about it and a subcommittee recommended or the Boards recommends because of this.

Mike Colletto
Mr. Chairman, Mike, I think the folks that will be standing in front of those mics are the folks that have watched this process very closely or have participated in the process and are probably on the e-mail list or mailing lists already. They may have an additional change that they want to do.

I think what we’re doing is saying that we’re coming to the end of this process where we’re going to set a deadline for the changes. As you know, these codes work in cycles and to keep within the cycle, there needs to be a cut off time at some point and time.

Joe McElvaney
To help answer your question, too. We have this huge e-mail list for people who want to know everything we do. We’re going to e-mail the whole amendment package to everybody so that they can get it. So you’re going to get another big e-mail from us. We’re going to put it on our web page. Mr. Hemingway asked if we could put it at the library, well, I can put three copies at the library if that’s what you’d like for us to do.

Rick Doell
We can have copies available at the counters to pick up, as we’ve done that in the past.

Michael Fries
I’m not disagreeing with setting a schedule. I just brought up the caution. I just want to make sure when we have these hearings that people know the work we’ve done. It’s we don’t want this code, it’s more like we’ve reviewed these amendments and we think your missing three more. I don’t know how I can could that with his committee if he’s not done.

Joe McElvaney
All the minutes as when you’ve approved them, has the code change that you approved. There are all on the internet right now, so everyone can take a look and download them. That’s one of my next job next weekend to pull all the minutes and double check what you have approved and compare that with the approved list that we have over here. That information is already available to look at the minutes to see what we have already approved and rejected already.

Pete Hemingway
Any other discussion in regards to the motion? We do have two cards from the public in regards to this.
Mr. Rus Brock is opposed to this item and Mr. Ray Bizal is in favor of this item. Rus come up if you want to say anything.

Rus Brock
Yes, our committee as you correctly commented, Mr. Chairman, is probably more further behind. The general public, the people that your servicing in the City of Phoenix, presumably, are to get through this whole code book, plus all of those amendments somehow and make meaningful comments at a public hearing. I think you need to take the time to get the right material out there.

We’ve been working on this for months. How’s the general public going to really grasp, there’s a lot that (inaudible) unprofessional to, haven’t dug into this thing yet. For only one week after that public hearing to shut off the subject. I think there are a number of people that are going to come to that public hearing and this is the first they know about Phoenix. In spite of the fact that we all have been working real hard.

I called Eric Brown, whose on your Design Review Standards Committee, who’s building a loft project on 7th Street and Jefferson. He can’t build that project under the NFPA 5000. He’s already working with DSD to get the same project built on the South side of Washington. (Inaudible)

We’ve got a number of people who are going to step up to the plate and don’t even know what’s going on and they’re going to need a lot more than one week after this public hearing to bring forward whatever they would like for us to do.

If you’re going to embark, based on the previous vote, we are, something dramatically different, take your time, do it right.

Larry Litchfield
Mr. Brock, what you recommend for a time frame.

Rus Brock
I think something in the 3-week range or for something like that would be more appropriate. I think a second public hearing would also be more appropriate. Thank you.

Scott Mardian
I think I’d feel more comfortable myself it’s more like 3 or 4 weeks from now.

Pete Hemingway
The public hearing or the final . . .

Scott Mardian
Yes, the public hearing.

Pete Hemingway
You want the public hearing 3 or 4 weeks from now?

Scott Mardian
I would feel more comfortable myself.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, did you have any comments, Mr. Bizal.

Ray Bizal
Nodded “No”

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.

Tracy Finley
Mr. Chair, I had also filled out a card to speak on the subject as well.

Pete Hemingway
I apologize, Tracy, if you have any questions come on up.

Tracy Finley
We’re opposed to going to a public hearing at this point. I guess two points that I just want to make. We have gone through numerous meetings and we have worked out numerous issues with our Residential Subgroup. A couple of things just to kind of keep in mind, is that the numerous proposals that we still need to write, staff needs to write, interpretations that we still need to work through. So that fact that we have had numerous meetings, we have not had numerous resolutions officially approved and voted on yet. So I just think that we definitely need more time in order for you to even go with (inaudible) the material that we’ve even voted on. Today, it’s been very, very minimal. So I just think that you need a little more time to be able to see that as well.

One other comparison that Mr. Litchfield made, comparing history of the no step entry, and went to a public hearing and we were able to come out with a resolution that in that particular case. I just personally that is not a fair comparison to that as one single item compared to an entire document that we have. What we have six subcommittees, and we have numerous and numerous amendments to this document. We just need a little more time to get everything on the table so that you have fair opportunity to represent yourselves well, like you mentioned in the public hearings. So thank you.

Larry Litchfield
I think I was referring more to the process than the items. There was a process there.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, any further discussion on the item.

Ben Barcon
I’m sorry, can you repeat the motion.

Pete Hemingway
The motion is to proceed with the 4 Step of the 5 Step process and have a public hearing with the friendly amendment to that being that we establish a final date for public input and to move forward and basically after that we would finalize the document.

We have not talked about specific public hearings dates.

Greg Russell
Peter, can I make a comment on the hearing date? What if we set the first hearing date 2 weeks away that gives people more time? Set the next public meeting a week after that, then tentatively say that unless we need another public hearing after that, we make the cut off date a week after that.

Larry Litchfield
That gives you 3 weeks.

Greg Russell
It puts us out essentially 4 weeks out. It would depend upon if we needed another public hearing or not.

Pete Hemingway
So your proposal is that we have a public meeting in 2 weeks, and then a week after that we would have another public meeting.

Greg Russell
Yes.

Pete Hemingway
My only question is between that public meeting and the second one, how do we digest that input that we get from the first one? Or it the Council we don’t we just integrate that and keep moving.

Greg Russell
I think that it’s

Pete Hemingway
I’m just raising a question, I’m just asking. Whatever the Board chooses to go is fine with me. I just want to make sure that I understand the process.

Larry Litchfield
Mr. Chair, I’d like to hear more from staff as to the option of 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, what are their readiness to do that?

Joe McElvaney
Mr. Chair, staff would like to have an informal hearing next week, possibly. Let everyone digest it to see what it is. We know it’s going to be raw data for as Rus and Tracy said for a lot of people. As you saw today, I saw more people today at this meeting than I have at any subcommittee. I wish they would come to our subcommittee so we could get input to them. I think we see the same people at the meetings. Maybe then we’ll get more input and we can refer them to those technical subcommittees appropriately and go forward. Maybe two weeks after that first hearing, say ok, two weeks later, this is the cut off date, that’s it, and we’ll go from there.

Ben Barcon
So you’re recommending 2 weeks.

Joe McElvaney
Well, first we can have a meeting late next week. Have it Friday. I know that legislation is going on and several committee members who are on the technical committee do other work. Have it Friday, maybe have it late in the afternoon, that way the design committee who’s working can get off work at 4:30.

Ben Barcon
So a meeting late next week, and then what?

Joe McElvaney
And then have two weeks to get everybody back comments to us and have a cut off date, then have a meeting after that. That way you have 3 weeks that Rus talked about to have people come in.

Barbara Kofron
Now, this is going to be on e-mail tomorrow.

Joe McElvaney
I can e-mail it out tomorrow.

Barbara Koffron
(Holding up amendments) That’s what you have a week to read. This is one of those things that don’t cut yourself short. You have worked very, very hard on this and I appreciate it. I want you to live through this process, too.

Joe McElvaney
I can refer this to my boss, if he tells me something different, I’ll just at his suggestion.

Barbara Koffron
I think that 2 weeks would be better for everybody.

Rick Doell
A suggestion is that we look at 2 weeks to do the public hearing and if need be we’ll meet again in another 2 weeks. So that gives everyone, I think, enough time to correlate the information, get it in the right format, have it presentable, have hard copies on the counters, they can be e-mailed, also. The correlating committee will have a chance to go through it and they’re really the ones charged with correlating what the subcommittees have done, so at that particular point we can start working at each (inaudible) and how this is put together as a whole.

Pete Hemingway
So if you wanted to do it on a Friday, as a suggestion, you would be looking at March 7th?

??
That’s two weeks from today, yea.

Pete Hemingway
I think so. And you want to have it in the afternoon, you would be looking at.

Joe McElvaney
Mr. Chair, I would prefer the afternoon because I think the design community would like to attend. That way they could do their normal work hours and could hear this issue brought up at the Public Safety Subcommittee. We work during the day, we want to have it late in the afternoon.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, so we’re looking at probably March 7th, for the first public hearing, if the Board.

Ben Barcon
If Friday’s the best time, are we going to get people out on a Friday night? It’s the end of the week, they’re done with their work week.

Steve Speer
If you want to go 2 weeks out, why don’t you go Thursday, March 6th.

Greg Russell
You want Thursday, rather than Friday.

Pete Hemingway
You want Thursday, March 6th.

Michael Fries
Do it at a normal business time. Why do we need to do it 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon.

Greg Russell
If you do it at 3:00 . . .

Larry Litchfield
There is sort of an alignment of the stars. If we do it March 6th, the first hearing, because on March 20th would be our normal DAB meeting and we could hold another hearing at that point.

Pete Hemingway
Is the Board amenable to that? Ok, so we’re looking at March 6th for a public hearing and what time, 3:00 p.m. on March 6th. Then staff we’re looking at you looking at a place for us.

So if we take action on the motion, we will take action to begin step process number 4, and I don’t know how . . . Let’s formally state the motion exactly as what we’re going to do.

Pete Hemingway
I’ll remove my friendly amendment, based on the dates that we now generated.

Pete Hemingway
So the friendly amendment is gone and it’s just starting step 4 of the process, which is a public hearing and staff will take the specifics of March 6th.

Mike Colletto
Just as clarification on my point. Is there a time when the amendments that will be considered will be, they’ll be a deadline for that?

Pete Hemingway
What I suggest that we do, have the public hearing; as part of the public hearing have an action item to establish that date. So following the public hearing, and hearing the voice of the public we’ll then proceed to establish that date. That’s would I would recommend. Because if we only have three people, we may not have much input.

Joe McElvaney
Mr. Chair, as long as the amendments coming to this Board on the 6th are technical in nature, so that we don’t rediscuss this issue on what code to adopt.

Pete Hemingway
I don’t think that we can limit the public from making that statement. The Board won’t be taking an action at that. It’s a public hearing. The only item for action will be a motion to entertain to establish the rest of the process.

Call for the vote.

All those in favor of the motion to begin step 4 of the process:

8 in Favor
2 opposed
Motion passed

Call to the public:

Barbara Koffron
Mr. Chair are you taking items for the possible agenda, items for next month.

Pete Hemingway
We can.

Barbara Koffron
I’d just like to add for next month our Draft proposal for Article 9 to do a brief presentation on that.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, Thank you.

With that, we’ll entertain a motion for adjournment.

MOTION was made by Steve Speer, seconded by Larry Litchfield, to adjourn the February 20, 2003, DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously. seconded

Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

 
Rick Doell, P.E.
Deputy Director, Building Official

Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, Secretary III

c:

Board Member Mayor Skip Rimsza City Council Members Mr. Fairbanks Mr. Washington City Clerk Mr. Lyons

Mr. Wendt Mr. Doell Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Goodhue Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Bunyard Mr. Fleming Mr. Horne Mr. Kienow Mr. Mundy

Mr. Parks Ms. Reed Mr. Singbush Ms. Stotler Ms. Owens