DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD/FIRE SAFETY BOARD

Amendment to the Fire Prevention Code

Amendment to the Phoenix Construction Code

Sprinkler Ordinance

March 8, 2002

Modify Section 904.1.1 of the Phoenix Construction Code to read:
(See attached Exhibit "B", page 14)

Mr. Pete Hemingway, DAB Chairperson, convened the hearing at 2:05 p.m.

Pete Hemingway:
I'd like to call the meeting to order. If anyone has any comments cards, if you could bring them forward at this time. We have some, but if you have any others that you can bring forward at this time.

Hopefully everyone has signed in. If you're in the audience, please make sure you sign in over at the table with Carole or Joanne. Board Members, also if you can make sure you sign in on the sign-in sheet we would appreciate it.

I'd like to call the meeting to order. If anyone has any comments cards, if you could bring them forward at this time. We have some, but if you have any others that you can bring forward at this time.

Hopefully everyone has signed in. If you're in the audience, please make sure you sign in over at the table with Carole or Joanne. Board Members, also if you can make sure you sign in on the sign-in sheet we would appreciate it.

With that, I'd like to call the meeting to order of the Development Services Advisory Board. We are honored today to have the Fire Safety Advisory Board, also, participating with us in the meeting.

With that, I'll turn it over to Steve, their Chairperson.

Steve Sheldon
I'd like to thank everyone for coming today. This is somewhat a monumental occasion. It's the first time that the Fire Safety Advisory Board and the Development Advisory Board has met. This is breaking new ground.

With that we'll call the Fire Safety Advisory Board to order.

Pete Hemingway
To get things going, Steve's going to give a little brief history on what we're reviewing today and the revisions that we're looking at adopting or considering today for public input. Following that, I'll have a couple of letters that I'm going to present for reading that we did receive, that has comments, and following that then we'll have review of the public comment cards. With that, Steve…..

Steve Sheldon
Thanks Pete.

On March 14, 2001 the Southwest Supermarket Fire started. On that date, the Phoenix Fire Department lost a Firefighter due to fire in that structure, Bret Tarver.

Shortly, thereafter, the Fire Department and the Fire Safety Advisory Board essentially looked at that as a wake up call. They asked the Fire Safety Advisory Board to discuss what we felt as a Board was appropriate for the City of Phoenix to go down the path to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.

The Fire Safety Advisory Board developed a subcommittee through volunteers. That subcommittee met first on July 30, 2001. Present for that meeting was myself, Rob Fletcher, Kevin Rou, representing Boumont, Mike Ross, also representing Boumont, Gary Coley, representing Boumont and the Development Advisory Board, Larry Litchfield, Schirmer Engineering, also representing the Development Advisory Board. Other contributors to that meeting were Carlo Heagan, and Barbara Koffron of the Fire Department.

We somewhat re-thought through what was going on and we reviewed ordinances that were out in the valley as to what other communities were doing productively with respect to fire sprinkler systems in buildings.

We reviewed twelve specific ordinance languages: Mesa, Central Yavapai, Scottsdale, Goodyear, Tempe, Gilbert, Chandler, Glendale, Peoria, Surprise, Apache Junction, and Phoenix. Through that review, we found that those areas could probably be broken into four groups, in respect to how they responded to or how they enforced the installation of sprinkler systems.

The first group, which we would consider the most restrictive or the most proactive, would be Scottsdale. Their ordinance, in essence, says that, "… all new buildings greater than zero square feet, regardless of occupancy, will be provided with sprinklers…" They are in a league of their own in respect to proactively.

The next group, which could be summarized as a group whose ordinances require that "…sprinklers that's in occupancies, other than residential, all in construction zero square feet and greater…" That group is Mesa, Goodyear, Gilbert, Chandler, and Peoria. The next group in looking down the list in somewhat proactively, is Tempe and Glendale. These municipalities require sprinklers essentially in all new construction greater than 5,000 square feet.

Lastly, among the lowest level of the spectrum, in respect to sprinkler requirements, is Surprise, Apache Junction, and Phoenix. All of these municipalities do not require any modifications to the code and in essence require sprinklers very specific to the occupancy type as to following the building code. The occupancy that is omitted would be in business, and certain tiers within the A's, F's, and M's.

First and foremost, we looked and said Phoenix is on the bottom and we're grouped with Surprise with Apache Junction. What does that tell us about what we're doing as a community to protect against fire, ideally, with respect to how we view life safety measures?

We determined as a group that some sort of change was in order. With that we looked at all of the sprinkler ordinances out there. We tried to take what we felt was the best of all of the ordinances, with respect to simplicity, with respect to life saving features, and with respect to how responsive they are to building a business community.

We used Scottsdale in a language bottle, however, we carved out the R3 occupancy of less than 5,000 square feet as required sprinklers. So again, that was somewhat of our base model with Scottsdale to be simplistic in the language that was pretty straight forward in the R3 occupancy for the single family homes. The language that we centrally moved forward with, and at that time was July 30, 2001, was to require sprinklers in all occupancies, with the exception of U and R3, greater than 5,000 square feet.

We met again as a subcommittee on August 16, 2001, and at that meeting was myself, Ron Fletcher, Rus Brock, representing the Homebuilders Association, Larry Litchfield, DAB, Courtney Gilstrap, Gilstrap Associates, representing Multi-Housing Association, and Barbara Koffron, Phoenix Fire Department. All of our meetings were obviously open to the public and we got some great input, great representation from many of the organizations affected by this type of language.

During our August 16th meeting, we centrally modified the language and we debated as to how the various concepts and intentions were going to be received and implemented and we modified the language, but in essence the intent did not change. We walked away with what we thought was pretty clear cut language and we went to the Fire Safety Advisory Board on October 4, 2001 with that language for their discussion and adoption.

As a Fire Safety Advisory Board we discussed, debated, modified, and adopted the language. Again, all of our modifications were predominately related to clean things up, the intent of the language did not change.

Lastly, through the process, we met again in December 2001, had further discussion, and realized at the Fire Safety Advisory Board the importance and necessity of having the Development Advisory Board involved in the process. After our vote to adopt and support the language we forwarded this to the Development Advisory Board.

The Development Advisory Board met twice with this language on their agenda. All of the Board meetings are public meetings. We had representation from the public and again provided more tweaking, as discussions continued.

I think that brings us to where we're at today. If I'm missing anything anyone can speak up and bring me up to speed. If there are any points of clarification, let me know. Everyone, I believe, has the language in front of them. The green sheets "Proposed Amendment to Fire Prevention Code of the City of Phoenix, dated February 25, 2002.

Unless there is a need for me to read through, clarify, or discuss where this language sits now, I'll turn it over back to Peter for initiation of public comment.

Pete Hemingway
Thank You, Steve,

I'd like to read two letters into the records at this time. This is from the Voice of Arizona Apartment Industry, the Arizona Multi-Housing Association. This letter was addressed to Ms. Barbara Koffron of the Phoenix Fire Department. The reason of the letter is the ordinance change on sprinkler requirements. The letter states:
Dear Barbara:
Thank you for meeting with me, Courtney, and Joe Meyer, of Grey Development to further discuss the Arizona Multi-Housing Association's concerns regarding the proposed City of Phoenix ordinance change on sprinkler requirements.

Your explanation asked for a movement of separation wall that would trigger a retrofit requirement appeared to address concerns raised by AMA members. We do, however, want to see clarification of this matter in the city's policy statement and further explanation regarding the issue of adding new phases to an existing to apartment community development. With these clarifications in the policy statement, the Arizona Multi-Housing Association will support the retrofit provisions contained in the proposed ordinance change.

The AMA supports the mandatory sprinkler requirement for new apartment construction, as we discussed our expectation is that sprinkler requirements for new projects will be phased in so as to create unanticipated hardships for projects that are in the pipeline.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,
Susan B. Gilstrap
AMA Government Affairs Consultant

The next letter we received from the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). This letter is addressed to Pete Hemingway. It reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Hemingway:

On behalf of the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA International, with 75,000 members, I would like to express our support for the current efforts underway in Phoenix to enact a special ordinance to require automatic fire sprinklers in all new commercial and larger residential buildings and require retrofit or sprinklers in some existing buildings that undergo major additions or renovation.

By enacting such an ordinance, Phoenix will join hundreds of other communities that desire to provide a higher level of protection for their citizens, their emergency responders, and preserve and enhance building safety. The NFPA was established over a hundred years ago as an open consensus inclusive association for all people who share the goal of eliminating the ravages of uncontrolled fires through the development of scientifically based codes and standards.

In carrying out this mission, NFPA has become the national leader in collecting data on other nations fire experience. Over decades, one remarkable statistic continues to remain constant, properly designed, installed, and maintained automatic fire sprinkler systems are more than 95% effective in controlling fires and protecting buildings. No other single fire protection feature can even begin to compare to the safety record of sprinklers.

Today our nations fire departments respond to approximately 2 million fires per year, with over 500,000 of these being current structures. Tragically, annual fire losses every year claim about 4,000 civilian lives with more than 100 fire fighters lost. In addition, 24,000 civilians receive fire-related injuries every year. The personal losses cannot be measured, but the actual property losses in the US have climbed to approximately 11 billion dollars per year. NFPA records over many years indicate fire losses in buildings protected by automatic fire sprinklers are often confined to the room for area of origin, resulting in only a fraction of the loss which may occur in a similar non-sprinklered facility.

One of the continuing tragedies in America are the high percentage of fire and fire deaths that occurs in places where people live. Consistently statistics show each year, approximately 72% of all structure fires occur in these residential places, where people feel most protected.

The proposed ordinance will provide sprinkler protection for many citizens who have dared never to enjoy this level of fire and life safety. For these reasons, the NFPA urges the city to proceed with the adoption of the proposed ordinance. While there is some modest added costs initially, the dividends are enjoyed for years with the protection of people and built environment in which we all live.

Respectively submitted,
Robert Miller
NFPA Western Region, Manager

Any more cards, if not, at this time we will begin the public comment process. When you address us, please give us your name and address for the record. We have a microphone over here and please limit your comments to 3 minutes if at all possible.

With that I'd like to begin with Mr. Paul McClurg

Paul McClurg
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Paul McClurg. My address if 4928 East Hillary Drive, Scottsdale, AZ

I'm here on behalf of my employer. I work for Richmond American Homes. The 5,000 square foot for single family, we're talking about approximately 4,200 square foot livable area. We feel that we are opposed to making this a part of a standard requirement because of the additional expense across the board. Not only the initial systeml, but then there is the other issue of what meter sizing and things like that that are not calculated into the initial cost that we increase the water services in the home.

We understand the need for safety, we don't disagree that in multi-family, there are developments where occupancy egress, and things like that are an issue. We support that fire sprinklers are a great item there. As far as single family homes, we are concerned that if we put a threshold in of 5,000 square feet, are we coming back and then going to put it into all homes.

From our standpoint, we would prefer that the home be designed with a system, but make an option to the buyer that they have their choice. We're just trying to help keep the economy accordingly.

Thank You

Pete Hemingway
Next we have Mr. Mike Bair

Mike Bair
Mike Bair, 6337 West Briles Road, Glendale, AZ 85310
I really don't have anything to say, other than I approve>

Pete Hemingway
Ok, Thank You.

Mr. Rus Brock

Rus Brock
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Rus Brock. My address is 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 180, Phoenix, AZ, and I'm representing the Homebuilders Association.

As you know I've sat in many of the Development Advisory Board meetings and have followed this issue. I have read through the material provided by the department relative to fire alarms in both . . . . I have two points that I wanted to make obvious.

I wanted to point out that the five strategies recommended from this report is that fire sprinklers is the third most important strategy. I just would like the Development Advisory Board to ensure themselves before proceeding with approval of this that they've satisfied themselves that we're doing enough and spending enough money on strategy one and strategy two before we begin looking at strategy three.

Presumably one and two have a much better payback, in terms of reduced fires and losses and . . .Secondly, although this report addresses single family 1 and 2 family dwellings, it's very had to get a play where we're truly having a problem with 5,000 square . . . I suspect with the volume of houses across the entire United States and its age, from the east cost, I'm sure it's 150 years old.

I guess what's missing here, is are we truly solving the problem that needs to be solved by putting sprinklers in 5,000 square foot homes. I can't help but wonder that if a fire explodes it's so much greater than other elements. This is maybe not the most productive way to reduce fire losses.

The other item, as I was comparing the city analysis, I compared the other city programs and I just wanted to point out that the three cities that do require sprinklers; Scottsdale, all single family homes, and Goodyear holds about 5,000 square feet. We did voluntarily agree, the third city is the City of Peoria, and we did sit with the fire chief there and agreed that those homes, the geographic area of Peoria, agreed made sense was the Northwest corner of Peoria where they live … roads during certain parts of the year where some of them aren't all weather crossings, they had a real concern if they could respond in time. We voluntarily agreed with the City of Peoria, that due to the geography and the inadequate road system, that it didn't make sense to sprinkle large homes.

When you say sprinkling large single-family homes is all-predominant and you can say the entire valley. Again, would we solve . . .. .

Pete Hemingway
Thank you, Rus

I'd like to call upon Mr. Robert Cantwell, Phoenix Fire Department

Robert Cantwell
Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert Cantwell, I'm the Executive Assistant Fire Chief and also the Fire Marshal here in the City of Phoenix.

I would just like to say that the Fire Department fully supports this ordinance. The letter from NFPA stands for itself. Fire sprinklers have an extraordinary record for protecting property and lives in this country for a hundred years. We feel strongly that the residential component is an important part of this ordinance can be . . . of that size. Generally they are more difficult from the fire-fighting standpoint . . . they are more cut up, more life safety hazard in those buildings and to speak on Mr. Brock's comments. I think that every home that we have here in the valley, particularly this area, was at one time a new home. They tend to get old and having them sprinklered we wouldn't have had the problems if . . .

Again, I'd just like to urge the Board to pass this ordinance.

Pete Hemingway
At this time we'd like to open up questions. I'll turn this over to Steve.
Do your members have any questions or comments?

Steve Sheldon
Questions, Comment Gentlemen?

George would you like to touch on the insurance issues. I know that your really didn't prepare for that.

George Kelchner
No I didn't, but 95% of the fires in industry are controlled by hazard loss. The other interesting thought is that the average sprinkler system, cause one sprinkler head to omit anywhere from 10 gallons a minute to 20 to 25 gallons per minute, etc. The average sprinkler systems . . . No, I think that we've gone over everything there is to go over.

Steve Sheldon
I'd like to make a couple of comments myself, and that is in reference to what we've heard. I think that the issue referencing the NFPA letter, is there a problem? I don't know. What would you qualify as a problem? Is one house or one death a non problem. I think the NFPA letter tells us that there is certainly fires going on out there are killing people. Is it of epidemic proportion? Probably not. But again, as far as what you'd consider a problem, that's pretty relative. If I have a fire in my house or I had a death, somebody close to me due to a fire, I certainly . . . in my perspective.

Also, in perspective to affordable housing. Again, the ordinance is written kicks in at residential places at 5,000 square feet. As we're finding out, this includes attached garages that may bring it down to 4,400 -4,200 square foot livable space. I think that we would all, or hope that we would all agree that a 5,000 square foot home or even a 4,200 square foot home certainly pushes my balance for affordable housing. I don't think that this is an issue of brining this down to the zero square foot level, where we might get into pricing certain people out of the smaller housing market.

This is a point of record also. I had asked the Development Services Department to run a report on R3 permits that were issued. The report for only 2,000 rentals . . . asked them to give me three years. They ran me a report on all R3 building permits issued from October 1, 2001 to February 22, 2002. During that time period, 1,925 permits were issued. Out of those permits, 75 were for greater than 5,000 square foot homes. That's 4% of the permits that are issued out there. So, again, a point of note, is far as this affordable housing, I see that this has a limited impact and if there is a problem . . .

No Name
Did I hear that the City of Scottsdale began this sprinkler ordinance in 1987, and 1986 and they have not have had any ...

Steve Sheldon
The City of Scottsdale does have a ten-year report. Does anybody want to speak on that? Does anybody have that ten-year report by memory?

Barbara Koffron
Not to memory, but I do have it here if anybody would like to look at it. It started January 1, 1985 and ends through January . . .During that time we had a totally of 109 working fires in structures, 65 of those were commercial, 26 of those were in multi-family, and 18 in single family. There was not that many lives lost. This is a mixture of sprinklered and unsprinklered . . . There is a number of interesting items in the report.

I might add to that I live in the City of Phoenix and I just had a home built, and I did sprinkler it. My home is certainly not the size that we're talking about. It's 3,400 under roof, 2,100 livable. For my sprinkler system it costs .59 cents per square foot. This is not a . . . requirement. Joe McElvaney, also lives in the City of Phoenix and also had his done at .58 cents a square foot. This is not an undue hardship.

Pete Hemingway
If we have no moe from the Fire Safety Advisory Board. I'd like to open it up for statements or questions from the Development Advisory Board.

John Augustine
I have two questions. What was the criteria for the exceptions? It seems barns are excepted, small buildings that people are in also are excepted. In just a minute I could think of several buildings that are hardly occupied that would be required to be sprinklered, but I'm not on these exceptions.

And the other thing is, and I'm sorry, maybe somebody said it, but I have a hard time with 5,000 square feet and not under, because if the letter was correct, and if I understand it, there are more fires in under 5,000 square feet than over 5,000 square feet.

Pete Hemingway
Steve or Barbara, you want to address that. Do you have any discussion, comment on that?

Steve Sheldon
As far as retrofits, if you're asking where does the retrofit language came from, the retrofit language is a compilation of a number of ordinance language quite honestly. Some areas that some of the retrofits, we felt, were inadequate in respect to how it is explained and strength of the language and other ordinances out there that are retrofits given anything. Any addition that you do in some of these ordinances, you're going to put sprinklers in. There is one particular ordinance that the town of Goodyear has no retrofit relief, whatsoever. It's not clear as to how one would go about addressing retrofitting. It appears that you can do anything to a structure . . . so again it was appropriate and necessary to make it clear as to what the intent was.

You had another question.

John Augustine
I didn't quite get the first one.

Pete Hemingway
Did you have some specific type buildings, John.

John Augustine
Yea, if you build a barn, you're ok. If you build a garage, you're not ok. What is the difference between a barn and a garage? I'm trying to figure out how this list came about.

John Sheldon
Ya know what, I'm sorry, my apologies. I was addressing the retrofit language. I was thinking one thing and saying another. I was addressing the retrofit language… totally irrelevant to what you asked. The exceptions?

John Augustine
Yes

Steve Sheldon
Verbatim, one of the ordinance languages, I believe it was Scottsdale. Then there were two exceptions that we took out in the subcommittee meeting. One being the U occupancy, it was taken out during the Technical Subcommittee. Barbara, there was item 10 that we took out.

Barbara Koffron
The item 10 that disappeared one of the exceptions in the . . . with the one and two family dwellings. . . . the exceptions came from the Scottsdale ordinance. The change actually, when we took the UL occupancies out of the language in the Technical Subcommittee, we could have deleted some of these . . . hopefully for clarification because perhaps when you're looking at UL occupancies utility and garages.

As it was pointed out in one meeting, item 6 could really disappear all together. The garages because that's totally. . . but where the language came from, it was from Scottsdale, it was probably a compilation of people . . .

With regard to the 5,000 square feet, affordable housing would become an issue and therefore, . . .

Gary Coley
I think what John's asking is a philosophical question and what we're answering with is technical answers. We dealt with this in the meetings when we discussed this. As I recall the division came down to one, economics. I guess we could ask Rus, if the code said, every house that's built has to be fire sprinklered, how many home builders would be here today opposed to it. The numbers are significant.

Those of us who believe in fire sprinkler systems, should every building have a system? The answer is Yes. Economically, are we are the point where we can make this fly without a fight, maybe not.

I think that's the philosophical answer, that would the fire department rather have every building sprinklered, absolutely, that's where we started from. If we wanted 8,000 people that are trying to sell their house to retrofit their home, this probably wouldn't pass. So it's better to get what we can get. As time passes and technology advances, continue to get improvements as best as you can.

Larry Litchfield
I think John also asked, interpreting what he said, "Does a garage have to be or can a garage be exempt." This would fall under item 6, where it says storage buildings or garages that are 1,000 square feet of less, this does not have to be sprinklered under item 6.

John Augustine
If you had a regular garage and wanted to build a barn, then one would be exempt and one would not be.

Gary Coley
In the second part of the philosophical issue was, what are we trying to protect? Are we trying to protect the property or are we most concerned about lives? I think that ties hand in hand with the first comment about economics. As far as property is concerned, economics is an issue, when we're talking about lives, it's a different issue. The scope of what the committee came up with here is it is more important to protect the lives of occupants, tenants, and fire fighters in most normal hazardous conditions as opposed to the ones in a barn. Life and property became the division line.

One more point. The only comment that I've gotten from our commercial industry really relates to item no. 5. Everything new is going to be sprinklered, anything big is going to be sprinklered, any big change you make is going to be sprinklered, that is pretty much where we are today, without this change. The questions that I have gotten in the last few weeks relate to retrofit, item 5, the building undergoes a change of occupancy or a new certificate of occupancy is required.

There is some confusion in the commercial community because different cities call things different names. It is a change of use certificate, it is a certificate of occupancy, and that clarification needs to be made for the small user, retail center that's made out of block, basically noncombustible and was built 20 years ago and isn't sprinklered. If I have a 15,000 foot user and it changes from a shoe store to a clothing store, am I going to have to retrofit my entire little 15,000 square foot retail strip center. I can't afford it. That is where the confusion is. If you go to Gilbert, it's called one thing. If you're in Phoenix, it's another.

Herman Orcutt
Do you know what the interpretation takes in that case?

Gary Coley
It's my understanding that you normally have to have a new certificate of occupancy if there are structural changes or there is a change in the roof categories. If I go from a shoe store to a charter school, or something like that. That's the part that is unclear.

Larry Litchfield
We can probably ask Mr. McElvaney to clarify this. But basically the building code has occupancy classifications in terms of major categories, the R's, M's, S's, the U's and so forth. Those are the occupancy classifications. The uses are the subgroups thereof. You could have a retail store that's a shoe store. That is a U. So you could have a retail store that's another use, but it's not occupancy. They're all the same occupancies.

The way this is worded and the intent of it was when there is a change in occupancy, going from one occupancy, let's say a residential R1 to a B office. Something of that nature. That type of change of use would invoke the sprinkler requirement.

Joe McElvaney
If they were to change from a mercantile type facility to a movie theater, then you need a sprinkler. If we do major structural changes inside, this requires a new C of O, then you need a new sprinkler.

Gary Coley
I just wanted that in the record.

Pete Hemingway
Ok, thank you.

Herman Orcutt
Just a comment. It seems to me like if your house if .58 cents a square foot, that's not much money really for a sprinkler system. I think the biggest impact will be the small commercial buildings. The very small commercial buildings.

Ben Barcon
Joe, could you clarify a statement that Rus made. He said that the water meters would be impacted. Is that true for sprinkler systems.

Joe McElvaney
It depends on the sprinkler system itself. The sprinkler system is a hydraulic calculation. Any type of method you design it with, the type of pipe you use, the way the pipes are calculating back, the meter also applies. You will only need one tap, so you will still have your same domestic pipe that you will have out front. That meter may have to increase, or it may not.

Gary Coley
What is the typical cost if I've got a 5/8 tap and I have to move it.

Joe McElvaney
There is a policy with the Fire Department and Water Department about meters and increasing pipes… Barbara correct me if I'm wrong.

Barbara Koffron
I don't know. I did mine and I did not have to upgrade my meter.

Gary Coley
Joe and I worked on an R3 group kind of thing that did require an upsize and as I recall the cost was total under $300.

Barbara Koffron
One of the things too, is when you're in larger homes, you have additional bathrooms and have other things that are going to require a meter increase perhaps. Once you have 3 or 4 bathrooms . . .

Mike Blair
Typically for a single family house that's on 24 gallons . . . The meters usually you have enough flow rate . . .

Larry Litchfield
There is a term called fixture units that's in the Plumbing Code that referred it back to the Building Code. When you get up to a 5,000 square foot home, you probably have 3 baths, a sink, maybe a bar sink, etc. and your' going to be well over the 5 fixture units and that's generally when your meter size will go up. There is already hydraulics built into the Plumbing Code and the Building Code. When you have a house that size, the flow you need for the fire fighting and sprinkler protection is going to be well within that size of the meter you need just to flush the toilets in the house.

Don Esperson
Let me ask a question. The way I read this, you can build a 5,000 square foot home, build 1,000 square foot care garage, detached on that property and you wouldn't have to sprinkler that. Is that correct?

Pete Hemingway
With no more questions or comments, Steve would you like to entertain a motion from your committee.

Steve Sheldon Yes. I'd like to open this up to Motion to adopt the proposed language as presented

George Kelchner
So moved

Don Esparson
Seconded

Steve Sheldon
So we have a motion to adopt the language that is in front of us. All those in favor in behalf of the Fire Safety Advisory Board respond by saying I.

ALL IN FAVOR
NO OPPOSITION

Pete Hemingway
At this time I'd like to entertain a motion.

Herman Orcutt
Mr. Chairman, I would to make a motion that we adopt and advise the City Council to accept these amendments to the Fire Prevention Code, including accepting retrofits as stated. I do have some concern, but I think in the long run this is something that they can do.

Gary Coley
Second

Don Jones
Mr. Chairman, just to clarify tht motion, to include the Buidling Code into this motion as well

Herman Orcutt
Agreed

Gary Coley
Agreed

Larry Litchfield
Would it be apopropriate to call this the Bre Tarver legislation.

Larry Litchfield
I'd like to make a change to the motion to make recommendations to City Council to change this to the Bret Tarver ordinance.

Herman Orcutt
Seconded.

Pete Hemingway
Hence force that the Development Advisory Board call this the Bret Tarver ordinance.

ALL IN FAVOR
NONE OPPOSED.

Steve Sheldon
I think that is a great idea. Thank You Larry for bringing that up. That is a very appropriate title for the intention of what we're doing here today.

We need to go through that motion to accept that language change to the Bret Tarver Ordinance. Motion made by Charlie Ory, and Seconded by Ron??? ALL IN FAVOR
NONE OPPOSED.

Peter Hemingway
This necessitates this change in the ordinance requires us to make a minor adjustment. In addition to changing our Fire Ordinance, Section 904.1.1, and for that we'll have Joe directly come forth and give us a little history.

Joe McElvaney
This clarification will add information to us for our Building Plan Reviewers and to the Developers who usually have the Building Code book in their hands.

Pete Hemingway
I think we all have a copy of that. We have not received any comment cards on this change in the ordinance. With that I'll turn it over to the Fire Safety Advisory Board for consideration. It's just the Development Advisory Board who will be voting on this.

Gary Coley
Mr. Chairperson, I'd recommend a motion to insert this in the language. Seconded by Herman Orcutt, that we accept the proposed amendment to the Phoenix Construction Code. Any questions?

ALL IN FAVOR
NONE OPPOSED

Pete Hemingway
I want to thank everyone at this time. We'd like to have a call to the public. I want to thank everyone for their attendance today. I want to particularly thank Phoenix Staff, they did a great job in putting this together, Carole, Joanne, Rick Doell in his absence, Joe, and Karen. I want to thank the Fire Safety Advisory Board for their work in putting this all together. With that I'd like to entertain a motion for adjournment.

ALL IN FAVOR
NONE OPPOSED

Steve Sheldon
The Fire Safety Advisory Borard motioned to adjourn.

ALL IN FAVOR
NONE OPPOSED

Hearing adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

 
Karen Beckley, Management Assistant II
for Rick Doell, P.E.
Deputy Director, Building Official

Respectfully submitted:

Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, Secretary III

EXHIBIT "A"

CITY OF PHOENIX
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FIRE PREVENTION CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX

February 25, 2002 The following proposed language would modify section 1003.2.2 of the Phoenix Fire Code to read as follows:

1003.2.2 An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all levels of all new Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, R-1, R-4, and S occupancies of more than zero square feet and throughout all R-3 occupancies of more than 5,000 square feet. The calculated area shall include all livable space and the area of any attached garage.

Such systems shall be in accordance with UBC Standard 9-1 for Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, and S, occupancies, UBC Standard 9-3 for residential occupancies four stories or less, and NFPA 13D, 1999 edition for single family dwellings. See also UBC 904.1.3.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Detached gazebos and ramadas for residential and public use.
2. Independent buildings such as restrooms or snack shops 400 square feet or less that are associated with golf courses, parks and similar uses.
3. Detached non-combustible carports or shade canopies .
4. Guardhouses that are less than 300 square feet in size used to control access to or within residential and/or commercial developments.
5. Detached equipment or storage buildings for commercial use not exceeding 250 square feet.
6. Detached residential storage buildings or garages that are non-inhabitable not exceeding 1,000 square feet.
7. Barns and agricultural buildings for private, residential, non-commercial use, not exceeding 3,000 square feet.
8. Detached non-combustible canopies used exclusively for automotive, motor fuel-dispensing stations for private passenger vehicles not exceeding 5,000 square feet.
9. Manufactured (Mobile) homes built on a permanent chassis designed and built as a dwelling unit and recreational vehicles that were not site built and are portable in nature.

1003.2.2.1 Retrofit

Existing buildings are required to comply with the provisions of 1003.2.2 when any of the following apply:

1. Building additions that equal 50% or more of the existing building floor area, or exceeds 10,000 square feet; whichever is greater.
2. Two or more building permits related to increased square footage are issued within any three year period.
3. One or more additions are made to an R-3 occupancy and the new total area of the building is greater than 5,000 square feet.
4. Building remodels are made that require structural changes affecting the primary structural system of the existing building.
5. The building undergoes a change of occupancy or a new Certificate of Occupancy is required.

EXHIBIT "B"

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION CODE

SECTION 904.1.1

SECTION 904- FIRE-EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS

904.1 Installation Requirements with Sprinkler Ordinance

904.1.1 GENERAL .
Fire-extinguishing systems required in this code shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of this section and in accordance with the latest edition of the Fire Prevention Code of the City of Phoenix.

Reason: The change in the City of Phoenix Building Code language is needed to facilitate the enforcement of the new requirements of the amendment to the Fire Prevention Code of the City of Phoenix.

This amendment provides new requirements for the installation of sprinkler systems in existing and new construction. When adopted, the requirement of the new code section, if not referenced in the building code, may not be brought to the attention of the applicant prior to Fire Department Review.

In order to provide better customer service to the applicant, DSD is requesting that the Board accepts this building code amendment request and include it at the Public Hearing scheduled for the review of the proposed change to the Fire Prevention Code.

Last Modified