MOTION was made by Barbara Koffron, seconded by Pete Hemingway, to move ASME A17.1, ASME A18.1, and ASME A17.3 as amended by the staff and committee, to Step 5 of the Five Step code adoption process. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

A. The Arizona State Plumbing Code with 2003 Supplements (Including Appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public)

MOTION was made by Ben Barcon, seconded by Barbara Koffron, to accepts the Arizona State Plumbing Code with supplements as submitted by staff and move the Arizona State Plumbing Code to Step 5 of the of the Five-Step Code Adoption Process. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

A. 2005 Edition of the National Electrical Code / NFPA-70 (Including Appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public)

MOTION was made by Darrell Wilson, seconded by Carlo Gegen, to approve the 2005 Edition of the /NFPA 70 including appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public and move it to Step 5 of the Five-Step Code Adoption Process. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

A. 2003 Edition of the International Mechanical Code (Including Appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public)

Matt McGraw and Dennis Strieter submitted a public comment card in opposition of to this item but did not wish to address the Board:

Lyle Porter, LDP Associates, stated he is opposed to the adoption of this code. He stated that he works with IT equipment, data centers, and communication equipment. Mr. Porter stated he is concerned about the provisions in the code pertaining to battery charging stations with exhaust systems. He commented that the City of Phoenix is the only jurisdiction that has proposed amendments to Chapter 5, Section 502, Exhaust Systems. Mr. Porter stated that as a business owner, he foresees his customers going elsewhere to build their computer rooms and data centers because of the restrictions. He added that this would present a loss of revenue for the City.

Stephen McCluer, APC Corporation, stated that he is also opposed to Chapter 5, Section 502.3.2 and the associated definitions in Section 202. He commented that the amendment establishes restrictions that are very costly to the industry. He added that Phoenix has the most stringent requirements in the United States. Mr. McCluer stated that as a manufacturer he has had to modify his product to meet Phoenix requirements, where he is not required to do so for other jurisdictions.

Ron Stenzel, Darcomm Network Solutions, stated that he encountered this mechanical code in the construction of a data center on Central Avenue with the server room. He remarked that they had to install the City prescribed ventilation system at a cost in excess of $30,000. He further commented that the manufacturer told him, they may have violated the UL rating on the piece of equipment by complying with the Phoenix requirements. Mr. Stenzel added that this could have created a single point of failure in a data operation of a public safety facility, but by violating that UL rating, may have introduced a hazard to the people that work for him. Mr. Stenzel requested that the Board strongly consider his testimony in the Board decision process for amending the code.

MOTION was made by Jake Jacobsen, seconded by Barbara Koffron, to approve the 2003 Edition of the International Mechanical Code including appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public with the exception of Section 201 and Section 502.3.2, which are remanded to the DAB Technical Subcommittee, and move the International Mechanical Code to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

A. 2003 Edition of the International Code Council Performance Code (Including Appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public)

Rick Doell, stated that he is concerned with the application of the Performance Code as set forth in the Administrative Provisions proposed for adoption. He commented that the exceptions restrict the use of the code to the approval of the Building Official. He stated that the International Building Code could be used anyway, as could other documents under the provisions of Alternative Methods of Construction and Design as approved by the Building Official, Section 104.10. He continued to say that adopting a code that has to be approved by the Building Official to use does not make much sense.

Derek Horn, Development Services Deputy Director offered staff comment in response to Mr. Doell’s statements. He explained that this issue was discussed at the subcommittee level and these provisions were put in for both the Performance Code and the Existing Building codes because they are new codes to the City and to the community. The subcommittee decided that they wanted the Building Official to review the use of the codes to make sure they are being used appropriately.

MOTION was made by Barbara Koffron, seconded by Gary Cocoran, to remand the 2003 Edition of the International Code Council Performance Code , and Agenda Item 7, the 2003 Edition of the International Existing Building Code, to the Technical Subcommittee for further review, discussion and an opinion from the City of Phoenix Law Department. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Hemingway suggested that Mr. Doell work with the Technical Subcommittee on this issue.

Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

A. 2003 Edition of the International Existing Building Code (Including Appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public)

David Dratnol, Isolatek International, stated that this item was discussed at length with the Technical Subcommittee, that he had expressed the same concerns as Mr. Doell. He added that the International Code Council had established an ad hoc review committee to examine further the International Existing Building Code. Mr. Dratnol stated that since its publication, many jurisdictions have raised concerns about its application and use. He commented that it was a bit premature for the City to move forward with adoption of the Existing Building Code until the findings of the ICC ad hoc committee and their recommendations are published.

Barbara Stocklin, City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Officer, expressed concern that the IEBC would not be adopted. She stated that she proposed amendments to Chapter 10 to address historic preservation. She explained that the City does not currently have a code to specifically address historic buildings. She added that her department is very excited about the Existing Building Code and they request the Board’s support for its adoption.

Mr. Doell added that the most significant amendment to the IEBC were in Chapter 10, Historic Preservation. He recommended that the Chapter be duplicated in its entirety and replace Section 3407, Existing Structures in the International Building Code. He stated that doing so would maintain the important provisions pertaining to Historic Preservation while the IEBC is further reviewed.

Mr. Doell also mentioned that Resource A in the Existing Building Code, is a guideline on fire rating on archaic materials and assemblies. He stated that the introduction to Resource A itself states that "Resource A is only a guideline and is not intended to be document for specific adoption, as it is not written in the format or language of ICC International Codes and is not subject to the code development process." He stated that he is opposed to the adoption of this resource because it is not part of the ICC process, and its development did not go through the consensus process required by Resolution 19015. He added that it is not enforceable.

Barbara Koffron stated that she raised concerns about the existing building code to the Technical Subcommittee during their discussions. She added that she was reassured that the Building Official would be evaluating the appropriate use and application of the code. She stated that she supported delaying the adoption of the existing building code until the ICC completes its review and presents a recommendation or interpretation as to its application and use. She added that the building official could determine if it is appropriate to use the existing building code for historic buildings if necessary.

MOTION was made by Barbara Koffron, seconded by Gary Cocoran, to return Agenda Item 7, the 2003 Edition of the International Existing Building Code, to the Technical Subcommittee for further review, discussion and an opinion from the City of Phoenix Law Department. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

A. 2003 Edition of the International Energy Conservation Code as amended in the 2004 International Code Council Supplement (Including Appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public)

Dan Demland, member of the Mayor’s Commission on Disability Issues, requested that the Board review the 2004 edition of ASHRAE 90.1energy standards for commercial buildings. He stated that the 2004 edition was released in December Mr. Demland stated that the current edition of the Energy Conservation Code references the 2001 ASHRAE standards. He explained that the new standard could reduce the cost of lighting up to 25%.

Mr. Horn stated that since the 2004 version of this document was just made public and the Technical Subcommittee has not had a chance to review this document, it should be reviewed by staff and a recommendation be made to the DAB at a later date.

MOTION was made by Steve Elssmann, seconded by Jake Jacobson, accept the 2003 Edition of the International Energy Conservation Code as amended in the 2004 International Code Council Supplement, including appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public and move it to Step 5 of the of the Five-Step Code Adoption Process, along with the recommendation that the 2004 edition of the ASHRAE 90.1 standards be review by the Technical Subcommittee for further consideration. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

A. 2003 Edition of the International Building Code (Including Appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public)

Ron Marts, Telcordia Technologies, Fire Protection Consultant for Qwest Communications, is opposed to this item. Mr. Marts stated that he wanted to discuss Sections 403.2 and 903.2, both exceptions address sprinkler exceptions in the telecommunications industry. He stated that this is the first time that the sprinkler exceptions have been withdrawn from the code. He stated that these sprinkler exceptions have been in the model codes for many, many years and in the ICC codes since the beginning. Mr. Mort asked the Board to reconsider deleting these exceptions from the code. Mr. Mort suggested to put the exceptions back in and underneath add "sprinklers should be required."

Ms. Koffron suggested that the Technical Subcommittee look at the Bret Tarver ordinance along with the exceptions that Mr. Mort brought up.

David Dratnol, Isolatck International, stated that the Commercial Subcommittee went from developing a building code from the City that maintained the level of fire and life safety that is currently afforded by the City’s existing building code to ending with a building code that greatly reduces the level of fire and life safety. He stated that it seems like the Subcommittee is not looking at the facts and is looking at getting a building code that’s in place for the City. He suggested that the City amends the code as it was done in the 5000 process to maintain the level of fire and life safety that’s currently affordable by the existing building code that is used today. NOTE: Mr. Dratnol would like to be invited to all future Technical Subcommittee Meetings.

Darrell Lingk, Director of Safety and Environmental Management, Qwest Communications, stated that Qwest concurs and fully supports the position that Ron Marts has presented to the Board. He encouraged the Board to review the report that Mr. Marts submitted along with the letter that Qwest submitted on behalf of their fire protection engineer. Gregory Cahanin, Cahanin Fire and Code Consulting stated that he supports Elevator Lobbies, Section 707.14.1. Ron Geren, Architect, stated that he noticed a few clerical items in the review of the amendments. Section 903.2.1, Existing Buildings, page 30, he stated that in this section it states "that the existing building code comply with the provisions of 903.2.1", this is referring back to itself and not 9.2.
Mr. Geren continued to list the discrepancies that he found while reviewing the amendments. They are as follows:

Terry Feinberg, Arizona Multi-Housing Association, wanted to thank the Development Advisory Board, the Technical Subcommittee, and City Staff for all their efforts in this process.

Mr. Doell commended City staff and the Board for all their efforts, as this process has been very long and ongoing. He also stated that there are not any requirements in the IBC for special inspections for electrical. These items have been in the code in the past, and needs to address by the Technical Subcommittee to see if the items need to be maintained or if no special are required for plumbing, mechanical, or electrical.

Mr. Doell mentioned Section 1709.1, Structural Observations, saying that there is an editorial change that edits Seismic Design Category C, which happens to be the seismic design category that most masonry and concrete buildings will be in the City of Phoenix. He doesn’t know of any other cities that are adopting the I-Codes in Arizona, is also requiring structural observation. He stated that this could be very costly if it’s put into the code.

Mr. Doell mentioned an amendment regarding Adhered Vaneer. This was amended to allow an exception for R3 occupancies so that work required a special inspection in single family home construction. He stated there is no need for that in this code. In Section 1704.1, Exception 3, accepts R3 occupancies from special inspection requirements across the board. Dan Demland, Co-Chair for the Architectural Accessibility Committee for the Mayor’s Commission on Disability Issues, stated two issues were brought to the committee meeting that have been reviewed that would like to encourage to reviewed at once again by the Technical Subcommittee

Mr. Demland stated currently in sprinklered buildings they way the code is written they do not require an area safe refuge. His committee is asking that all buildings, sprinklered or not, of multi-story statute, carry an area of safe refuge. He stressed the importance of this, as to the many lives it could save and asked that this issued be returned to the Technical Subcommittee. Their subcommittee also would like to ask the Technical Subcommittee to increase the stair width 48". He stated that 48" is not the standard that the model code book has, it has 42". When area of safe refuge is examined, the 48" is necessary to facilitate to take a gurney down. These two issues need to be together.

MOTION was made by Carlo Gegen, seconded by Gary Cocoran, to approve the 2003 Edition of the International Building Code including appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public with the exceptions of all of the code sections stated in agenda item no. 9, which are remanded to the DAB Technical Subcommittee, and move International Building Code to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

A. 2003 Edition of the International Residential Code (Including Appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public)

Steve Curtis, D. R. Horton Continental Services, is in favor of agenda item no. 10.

Rick Doell stated that when he reviewed the special inspection section, he read that R3 uses don’t have to have special inspections. Also, when reviewing the IRC, Mr. Doell read nothing about allowing using adhered veneer. He wants to make sure that the allowance for Adhered Veneer is added into the IRC.

Mr. Doell also has concerns with Appendix H, Patio Covers. He stated that this is not listed under the appendixes under the IRC to be adopted. This is an important item that needs to be added before going to Council.

MOTION was made by Paul Scott, seconded by Carlo Gegen, to approve the 2003 Edition of the International Residential Code including appendices and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public with the exception of Adhered Veneer, which is remanded to the DAB Technical Subcommittee, and move International Residential Code to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Discussion and Possible Action recommending that the following Construction Codes be moved to Step 5 of the Code Adoption Process:

City of Phoenix Building Construction Code, Administrative Provisions

Paul Bentz, ICC, stated that he was at the meeting representing ICC to commend the Board for all their work and let the Board know that they look forward to the partnership between them and the City of Phoenix.

Mr. Doell is concerned with Section 104.1, which talks about the Building Officials authority. He would like to see a clarification in this section for anyone who is doing building code enforcement knows that the Building Official is the person who makes the decision and that they need to respond to that persons decision.

MOTION was made by Pete Hemingway, seconded by Paul Scott, to approve the City of Phoenix Construction Code, Administrative Provisions, with the exception of Section 102.7 and Section 102, which is remanded to the DAB Technical Subcommittee, and move City of Phoenix, Building Construction Code, Administrative Provisions to Step 5 of the Five Step Code Adoption Process.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Adjournment