Pete Hemingway stated that Section 1616.3, Seismic Design Category, and Chapter 27, Electrical (Special Inspections) was brought up during “Call to the Public” at the last DAB Technical Subcommittee meeting. He mentioned that the Board was not able to take action on this, as this was not on the agenda. Mr. Hemingway stated that City staff does have a recommendation in regards to that section and Mr. Horn will address these issues.

Section 403.2 and 903.2, Automatic Sprinkler Systems:
MOTION was made by Paul Scott, seconded by Danny Ortega, to approve Section 402.3, Automatic Sprinkler Systems, of the 2003 International Building Code, to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process.
MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY (Rus Brock abstained from voting)

Section 1007, Accessible Means of Egress
MOTION was made by Greg Russell, seconded by Paul Scott, to approve Section 1007, Accessible Means of Egress, of the 2003 International Building Code, to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process.
MOTION CARRIED with one opposition (Rus Brock abstained from voting)

Section 1616.3 Seismic Design Category
Mr. Horn stated that his issue was raised during the public comment portion of the last DAB Technical Subcommittee Meeting. During the meeting concerns were raised regarding the implication with the seismic design category pre-designation stating that it could impact other sections of the code. The staff is prepared to offer an amendment to the code to clarify the intentions.

Mr. Hemingway stated that the Technical Subcommittee feels confident to move this item forward.

MOTION was made by Pete Hemingway, seconded by Danny Ortega, to approve Section 1616.3 Seismic Design Category, of the 2003 International Building Code, to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process.
MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY (Rus Brock abstained from voting)

Chapter 17, Structural Tests and Special Inspections
MOTION was made by Herb Hacker, seconded by Ken Roth, to approve, Chapter 17, Structural Tests and Special Inspections of the 2003 International Building Code, to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process.
MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY (Rus Brock abstained from voting)

Chapter 27, Electrical (Special Inspections)
Mr. Horn stated that his issue was raised during the public comment portion of the last Development Advisory Board Meeting. During the meeting concerns were raised that there were no revisions included for Electrical Special Inspections in this section or in Chapter 17. These revisions were overlooked during the code review process, and the DAB Technical Subcommittee recommends approval of these items.

MOTION was made by Greg Russell, seconded by Ken Roth, to approve Chapter 27, Electrical (Special Inspections) of the 2003 International Building Code, to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process. MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY (Rus Brock abstained from voting)

Section 2406, Safety Glazing
MOTION was made by Herb Hacker, seconded by Barbara Koffron, to approve, Section 2406, Safety Glazing, of the 2003 International Building Code, to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process.
MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY (Rus Brock abstained from voting)

Update, Discussion, and Possible Action recommending revisions of the sprinkler ordinance requirements for single family homes to the Fire Safety Advisory Board:
Mr. Ken Roth read a brief summary of the DAB Fire Sprinkler past meetings, explaining the various topics discussed. The subcommittee’s main purpose was to adopt a Fire Sprinkler Ordinance to present it to the Development advisory Board.

The main factors in the decision to have the City of Phoenix adopt the ordinance are:

• Residential Fire Sprinklers have been shown to save lives, save property, save water, save on home insurance costs, and save on the use of fire equipment and personnel resources.
• Technology has made fire sprinklers effective to knock down fires with 1-2 heads and keep the fire in the room of origin. Fuel sources for home fires have gone up.
• The new fire sprinkler technology has made the installation of systems very cost effective without the need to upsize water meter sizes in most cases.
• The available payback for builders with the use of design freedoms.
• Hollywood has exaggerated sprinkler reality. In fact, water damage and water loss damage is minimal and education of the public is vital.

With this in mind, it is the subcommittee’s recommendation that the Development Advisory Board make a recommendation to the Fire Safety Advisory Board to recommend that residential fire sprinklers be required in all new homes.

MOTION was made by Carlo Gegen, seconded by Ken Roth, to adopt a residential fire sprinkler ordinance for all new residential construction to be included in the current sprinkler ordinance.

Mr. Brock stated that the Home Building Industry is opposed to mandatory fire sprinklers in single family homes. He mentioned that he attended the subcommittee meetings and appreciated the subcommittee members listening to his input. He read a memo from the Phoenix Fire Chief to the Board stressing a sentence in the memo, which read, “It is not the intent of the Fire Department to adversely effect development. We have encouraged the subcommittee to look for creative solutions that allow the developer to offer protected property at the same cost the buyer enjoys today. Incentives might include increased density and larger cul-de-sacs for reduced fire flow.” Mr. Brock stated that the Fire Chief doesn’t want to impact the cost of development and trade off should be developed. The Planning Director has stated that he will not work with density trade off. Mr. Brock stressed that the Subcommittee cannot dismiss the fact that two key management staff in the City of Phoenix is saying, in his opinion, that they won’t be supporting a mandatory fire sprinkler ordinance. Mr. Brock stressed that the Subcommittee needs to explore design freedoms before moving this on. Mr. Brock is opposed to moving this issue on to the Fire Safety Advisory Board.

Jake Jacobson suggested that the mandatory requirement for sprinkler installation on homes starting at 3,000 sq. ft. or 2,800 sq. ft., with the provision that all construction below that be optional. Mr. Roth stated that it’s between sixty-cents to eighty-cents per square foot to install sprinklers and stressed that this is a small amount of money to install.

Mr. Litchfield stated that there are a lot of fire sprinkler technical issues that the Fire Safety Advisory Board, using their staff, needs to resolve. Those being, what is the design criteria, what kind of system will be installed, etc. Also, pipe and meter sizing needs to be determined. The staff of the Fire Department and the Inspectors of the Fire Department needs to figure out what the technical provisions are going to be. Once that is determined, the Water Department needs to be involved with the metering size and fire hydrant location, which involves the Planning Department. He stated that there are many steps to take before finalizing.

Conversation continued between Board members of the pros and cons of Residential Fire Sprinklers installed in all new homes.

After discussion, Carlo amended the motion to read:
MOTION was made by Carlo Gegen, seconded by Ken Roth, that the Development Advisory Board make a recommendation to the Fire Safety Advisory Board to adopt a residential fire sprinkler ordinance for all new residential construction. Also, that a joint subcommittee be formed between the Fire Safety Advisory Board and Development Advisory Board to review technical modifications and savings with design standards and freedoms. Upon review completion that a joint public hearing be held with both Boards for a final recommendation.