MARCH 20, 2003
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Gary Coley Mike Colletto Patricia Childs Liz Carabine Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffron Larry Litchfield Scott Mardian Greg Russell Danny Ortega Steve Speer Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff Traci Bangor, City of Phoenix, Fire Department Steve Bunyard, City of Phoenix, DSD Karen Beckley, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Bob Goodhue, City of Phoenix, DSD Derek Horn, City of Phoenix, DSD Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Jon Kolstad, City of Phoenix, EAS Department Joe McElvaney, City of Phoenix, DSD Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD Chris Hartye, City of Phoenix, Council Office Lanny McMahill, City of Phoenix, DSD Vicki Hill, City of Phoenix, Law John Watson, city of Phoenix, Fire
Ex-Officio's Present
Ex-Officio's Absent
Others in Attendance
|
MINUTES OF February 20, 2003:
Pete Hemingway asked the Board to review the meeting minutes of February 20, 2002 for approval.
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chair on page 6 of the minutes of the February 20th meeting, about a third of the way down, Susan Engstrom
and Jayme Bartholomew are both with Building Owners Managers Association of Phoenix.
Pete Hemingway:
So noted.
Ben Barcon:
Mr. Chairman, I’m sure that I would say “to whom”, not “to who”.
Pete Hemingway:
What page was that on?
Ben Barcon:
Mr. Chairman, point of clarification. The agenda says approval of the February 20th meeting minutes.
Our packet contains two sets of meeting minutes, February 20th and March 6th.
Pete Hemingway:
March 6th is item seven. We will approve the public hearing meeting minutes.
MOTION was made by Ben Barcon, to approve the meeting minutes with the appropriate modifications, seconded by Greg Russell, to approve the meeting minutes of February 20, 2003 Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee
Peter Hemingway stated that this subcomittee meeting had been cancelled
Technical Subcommittee:
Working on NFPA
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.
Hillside Subcommittee:
No comment heard.
NFPA Building Code Subcommittees:
Correlating:
Joe McElvaney reported this committee met and moved various items back to the subcommittees.
(Note: Each subcommittee gave their report beginning on page 25)
Discussion/possible action on the Superior Court Decision of the Applebee's Restaurant
4609 E Chandler Boulevard.
ISSUE: To create an accessible bar service counter location that meets all current City of
Phoenix regulations and accessible codes as adopted for accessibility in a bar environment.
Vicki Hill:
Mr. Chair, members of the board, (inaudible) March 6th (inaudible) decision of the building official, Rick Doell
(inaudible).
Pete Hemingway:
We’d kinda like to hear. Directly into that little mic. Yes.
Vicki Hill:
The ….went to a hearing on March 6th. We had another entry on March. The decisions made by the judge on
March 6th to uphold the decisions (inaudible) March 6th to uphold the decisions of the Development Advisory
Board and the building official Mr. Doell. There has not been an entry that indicates I expect that to be
forthcoming (inaudible). The reason we’re waiting for that (inaudible) Applebee’s would have 30 days from
that date to ….the decisions.
Pete Hemingway:
Any questions for Vicki at this time? You do have a summary in your packets today, about halfway through that
says Development Advisory Board Item #5 in case you want to read any of the specifics on what had occurred in
court. Any questions? Thank you, Vicki.
Discussion/Update/possible Action for increasing the Current Code Requirement of 2% of Total
New Dwelling Units to by Typa A.
Andrea Tevlin:
Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to present this issue today.
Let me start by saying that as I have worked very closely on this issue over the past several weeks, I’ve come to recognize what a complex issue it is. For a couple of reasons. For one (inaudible). Secondly, there are many different (inaudible) Different people ….interests pertaining to this issue, and ….consider them all. (Inaudible – roaring sound) It needs to be addressed. I’m hopeful that we can all work together and come up with a needful and effective program on housing.
(A lot of noise – pounding, papers moving, etc. throughout this section)
….background. ….. On February 12, the Mayor’s Commission on Disability Issues…presented a recommendation to
the Transportation Council Subcommittee to increase the required percent of accessible units in multiple
family dwellings within the transit overlay district. … The rationale was based on the …. Issues for
independence for the …. Community to be contributing members to society on housing and transportation….. And
that’s what the basis was.
The subcommittee wants the Development Advisory Board to explore this issue and come back within two weeks, which isn’t a very long period of time. When I returned to the subcommittee on February 26th we had not yet worked on the legal issues regarding focusing increases … specifically in the transit corridor. … Because we thought that there was a clearly defined …citywide, we would ordinarily recommend to the subcommittee that we increase…. 2% … 5% …..directly involved in developments….subcommittee….for your consideration, and the subcommittee asks that you come back to them within 30 days.
They also have recommended that we continue to work with Law and Planning to …specifically within the transit corridor. Either in addition to what the subcommittee…on the citywide requirements, or ….alternative…city requirements. This choice, of course, is up to the policymakers, starting with the subcommittee.
Our preliminary recommendations for the citywide increase…with the …subcommittee, so we are presenting to you today at their direction. And we are scheduled to return to the subcommittee… However, since the … we have had a lot of opportunity to assess the problem, and we have been given the legal document to develop that recommendation. It could apply specifically to the transit corridor using the building code as the mechanism to do that. With a reference in the building code to the transit overlay district.
Since working with the transit corridor, we have developed … numbers that we provided to and for the specific community for our current bus system which is estimated about 85% of all our ridership is … As well as the future ridership we anticipate as a result of the light rail system will project an additional 20,000 riders of light rail, about 10% of those being from the disabled community. Those are probably pretty conservative estimates.
We have also estimated the number of multifamily units that could potentially be constructed within the transit corridor, and the number of accessible units that would be required if we apply a higher percentage than the current 2%. .. If you take the current 2% requirement, 37 new accessible units could be built. At 5% it would result in 93 accessible units. And 8% would result 148 new units in the corridor and at 10% it would result in 185 units being constructed. We also have information on the average income of the disabled community in Arizona. $33,000 versus $43,000 those without facilities who are working, and …. concerns affordability issues if the market rate ….constructed within the corridor.
There’s a last discussion about affordability issues and accessibility issues. (Inaudible sentences)…. On the survey of members which showed very high agency rates in the…throughout the community. About 27% compared to 10% for the rest of their units. And some samples of the numbers. And some argue that the vacancy rate can be attributable to the affordability issue, that many of these units are not affordable to the …levels in the disabled community. But it could also be that we need a better inventory of what units exist. We need to provide that inventory, that information, to those who are in need of accessible housing. And we have approached the Multihousing Association about developing a website or a clearinghouse that would provide this information, provide real time information, to those who need it about what units are available and what amenities are around those units.
This would help the industry as well. And we would hope that we could rent more of these units. Additionally, we do recognize the need for more accessible housing as well. And to respond to this, this is the only thing that the subcommittee asked us to review to, we are working with our housing department to …the housing requirement of 10%. Where the City is involved in financing a new affordable housing project. (Inaudible sentence)
In summary, we have a preliminary recommendation from the subcommittee to improve the citywide requirement for multifamily housing and provide accessible units for 2% of their units. (Inaudible sentence). And this is before you for your consideration.
As well, we are providing information today on how …specifically within the transit corridor. This is an alternative that you might want to consider. If you would ask me what number that should be, because that’s …. I would respond, probably with a range of from 6 to 12 percent. 6 percent would be just like the Federal requirement for public public … which is 5%. We could also argue, on the other hand, the 10%. Perhaps Phoenix should take this opportunity and somehow be a leader in this field and set a really outstanding example for other communities. When you have an opportunity like we do around a new transit system. So we have the ordinance language actually attached to the original Council Report. The Board Meeting. That ordinance language notes … citywide. The very same section of the ordinance, I believe, would be and could be used to address the transit corridors. (Inaudible sentence). So, with that….
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Tevlin at this time? We do have a couple of people who would like
to speak on this issue. So would the Board like to hear from them first before we have further discussion?
Scott Mardian:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear if somebody has actually some data. The question was just not coming up
with a number. Our subcommittee looked at this, and that’s the difficulty. Generally speaking, the
subcommittee was in favor of increasing the percentage, but what that percentage should be is what we
struggled with. We didn’t want to provide just an arbitrary number. We’re waiting for some information so
that we can make a decision.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions right now for Ms. Tevlin before we hear from our other speakers?
We’ll have a couple more people speak, and then they may ask you some more questions.
I have Mr. Terry Feinberg, he’s opposed to this item, and would like to speak.
Terry Feinberg:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not privy to, I have not seen the supplemental report you have received today,
so I guess I will stick with what I was originally going to say which responds to the original documents that
were distributed to. Those documents, the background information and accessible housing recommendations and
draft ordinance that are before you today contain some misleading and inaccurate information.
Since 1991, Federal Fair Housing Law has required that all ground floor units, and all units on higher floors requiring an elevator be handicap accessible. These units must be built to Type B standards, which among other things must have wheelchair accessible routes to and throughout the unit, which includes wider doorways and hallways. And they must also have reinforcement built into the wall to allow for ground wire. Phoenix currently requires 2% of the units, as you know, to be constructed to the higher Type A accessibility standards, which includes wider turning radiuses in kitchens and bathrooms and lower kitchen countertops.
Since 1991, in the City of Phoenix, there have been 27,923 apartment units built in … property …. Units. That does not include smaller properties, condominiums or townhouses. I do not have specifics on that, but if you look at the houses in the city, most of those properties, most of those buildings are two to three stories in height. So it is a reasonable assumption that somewhere between a third and one-half, or 9,215 to 13,962 units are accessible by Federal and State standards. This is significantly more than 623 units claimed in the documents before you. And further, as was pointed out by Ms. Tevlin, there are plenty of vacant units available today.
We did conduct a survey, and this information came before us just a little over a week ago, so we didn’t have time to conduct a detailed census identifying each unit in each property, and each resident. But we did go out to our members and ask them for Type A units built in the City of Phoenix and the response to that showed that only 12% of those units are permanently occupied by a person with a disability, and that the vacancy rate or the remainancy rate of those units was significantly higher than the city average, with approximately one-third of the units either vacant or rented at a significant discount.
And we certainly welcome the opportunity to work with the City and the disabled community to identify these units more specifically and make that list and mark it down to people who can’t afford them. We do understand there are waiting lists for subsidized accessible units, just as there waiting lists for subsidized units that are not built for accessibility standards. The issue is really affordability, not accessibility, and there is no supporting evidence to indicate the need for more vacant accessible units in market-rate multifamily units, especially on a citywide basis. Now you’re being asked to increase citywide from 2 to 5% to incorporate that into the new building code, and as in the reports, to increase it in the transit overlay district. And to a total of 8 to 10%, and that’s on the Type A units. This increased requirement would significantly exceed Federal and State housing requirements and would further impact housing affordability for renters, and could not be justified by an rationale or objective reason. The accessibility subcommittee of the Development Advisory Board, has on the NFPA 5000 has rejected the recommendation of the type we have citywide. 5% of the Type A citywide. The subcommittee also rejected the 10% requirement in the entire transit overlay district. Instead, I believe sent forward a recommendation that the 10% applied, but only within a quarter mile of the transit station.
I would argue that while maybe this could not be supported with facts, and as it has been stated there are no really good statistics as to what percentage would live within the transit corridor, this certainly at least be much more reasonably justified.
Thank you for your time.
Pete Hemingway:
Would you state your title and who you are representing?
Terry Feinberg:
Executive Vice President of the Arizona Multihousing Association. We’re the nonprofit association for the
multihousing industry.
Pete Hemingway:
OK. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Feinberg? Yes.
Mike Colletto:
Andrea said in her statement that it would be approximately a hundred units in the overlay area. Is that your
interpretation of what would take place if we just did the 5% in the overlay area?
Terry Feinberg:
Certainly, mathematically, yes. I have not seen or reviewed any specific plans along the transit corridor.
I don’t know which sites specifically are identified for multifamily units, but 1800 units could be built on
that corridor, so 5% is approximately 100. 10% would be 180. But again, that is Type A units, and the
requirement for 100% Type B accessibility still exists for all ground floor units and all units served by an
elevator.
Mike Colletto:
And the difference would be – between the Type A and the Type B – is that one, you can get through the door,
and the other one you can actually live in and function in? Would that be an accurate?
Terry Feinberg:
No, I believe that’s inaccurate. I would defer to a code expert, but I believe the doorways and hallways are
identical between the two codes. There are some differences between the clear turning radiuses required in
bathrooms and kitchens and in the Type A units the kitchen counters are required to be lower.
Mike Colletto:
Would that not go to livability?
Terry Feinberg:
It could go to livability depending on the individual and the level of their disability.
Mike Colletto:
Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
OK – we have a question.
Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Feinberg, do you know the cost difference between making a Type A and a Type B? Do you have any figures
about that?
Terry Feinberg:
I can turn it around and say it’s the code person from our national association – Ron - not to put you on the
spot, but this is Ron Nickson from the National Multihousing Council who is here with us to speak on another
agenda item. Do you know the cost difference between a Type A and a Type B unit?
Ron Nickson:
I don’t have that information at this time.
Terry Feinberg:
We could try to find that out for you.
Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman, I’m not so sure that it’s a cost issue, as it is the layout of the actual apartment. There’s a
significant difference in the size of the rooms.
Pete Hemingway:
When you say significant difference, can you kind of give us some sense. We’re talking about space, turning
radiuses, and you mentioned lowering counters.
Scott Mardian:
The lowering of the counters does not require any additional space. It does provide – the lowering of the
counters is the primary reason for the marketability issue to the non-disabled population. So, but that does
not affect space. You can build a 700 square foot one bedroom apartment to conventional design and you can
build it to a Type A standard by taking space out of the living area to provide the turning radiuses and
movement that you need. You can’t take space out of the living room, out of the closets, and out of the
bedroom to provide space in the hallways and the bathrooms and the kitchen.
I think from the standpoint of really making the units livable, that additional square footage needs to be added to the unit to maintain the quality of the amenities of the unit within the property to be able to accommodate those existing spaces. And that’s really going to vary project by project and footprint by foot print, and what is available on the site to be able to reconfigure the units, and whether that can still be accommodated without reducing the total unit count on the project. I don’t think you could easily make a blanket statement citywide that it’s going to require “X” square footage or cost “X” number of units, because it really is going to be site specific.
Terry Feinberg:
So theoretically you could have an apartment building with Type a units all within the perimeter walls of a
regular unit and not really have a difference in unit count. It would be a difference in the layout of the
partitions on the inside.
Scott Mardian:
Theoretically you could have that, and theoretically you could end up building fewer units in order to be able
to accommodate the units and have them at the same quality standard as the other units. So it really would be
a site specific developer’s issue as to what the site could accommodate and what they could do. I would say
that the issue of space and what you could do with it is going to much more constrained on infill projects
such as along transit corridor than they would be on a traditional development where space and land is less of
an issue.
Terry Feinberg:
But with a good design you could – you’re not going to lose a unit or two. Basically, if you wanted to build
an apartment building with 20 units of all Type B’s, and 5% Type A’s, you would not have to lose a unit for
rental purposes, so the square footage. Basically the cost would become negligible.
Scott Mardian:
I would say that depends on whether you were analyzing that project as an architectural and engineering
exercise or as a business trying to market and lease apartments. And that in doing it as an architectural
exercise, you might be able to do it, but those units as we’ve seen with the existing stock, those units might
be no longer marketable, so in order to make the units marketable, you might end up having to lose units.
But, theoretically you could absolutely do it without losing units, but that might not make sense in the real
world.
Terry Feinberg:
Thank you.
Larry Litchfield:
You mentioned the countertop issue. How much difference is there in the countertop heights?
Terry Feinberg:
Ron, what’s the difference in the countertop heights?
Greg Russell:
36 to 34 inches…is that right? The countertop in the kitchen is 30 inches long, and it can be adjusted to
between 34 and 36 inches in height.
Ben Barcon:
So we’re talking 2 inches. Personally, I don’t think the countertop is really the issue, and I think
theoretically going back to Mr. Litchfield’s comment, that we could make it work out. But that makes a
difference whether you have an 8 by 10 living room instead of a 10 by 10 or 12 by 12. Do you try and market
those same units to the disabled as well as the non-disabled? Does that happen, or does that not happen?
Terry Feinberg:
Well, that’ certainly what’s happening today. Certainly the ideal situation for the disabled community and the
property owner would be to market those units and have them filled by disabled individuals. But, what we’ve
seen in the marketplace is that, and whether it’s an issue of the disabled community not finding out that the
units are out there and we can talk about doing a better job of that, but the disabled community is not
responding and leasing those units. The cost of those units are still part of the total cost of those projects.
They need to be leased out, so as a secondary position, the units will go to regular market rate customers.
And it’s at that marketplace, especially in a market like we have today, that any property of significant size
has plenty of vacant apartments to choose from, that people are choosing non-Type A units if they haven’t a
need for Type A.
Ben Barcon:
So Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Scott – did you get all the details on dimensions and looking at two-story
high units versus what impact or not that would have on your committee?
Scott Mardian:
We discussed quite a bit. There was nothing on marketability of the difference in sizes. There were comments
based on – everybody likes a bigger shower. Everybody likes wider hallways, but if that answered your
question, there was specifics on when does this apply if there’s second floor, but nothing specific on
marketability. That is pretty much half of the question. Is it marketable? And what is the vacancy rate,
and there is a waiting list, and is it because of affordability. So there are just a lot of unknowns. A lot
of information was lacking, so that we couldn’t come up with a percentage that just wouldn’t be an arbitrary
number.
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chair, addressing the issue of the waiting list. It’s my understanding that the waiting list has been
discussed ….for these units. Is subsidized housing waiting list, not to get into a unit, or are units
available and vacant. But the waiting list pertains to Section 8 HUD assistance, that sort of waiting list.
Which is a different issue.
Pete Hemingway:
Is that your understanding?
Gary Coley:
Yes
Pete Hemingway:
So, in regards to your non-subsidized housing, there is no waiting list and you have vacancies, and the
waiting list exists for subsidized housing.
Terry Feinberg:
And we represent owners and managers and developers of all types of multifamily housing, which includes
subsidized and conventional market rate. And the vacancies exist in the conventional market rate, not in the
subsidized part.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions at this time?
Mr. Ben Hoagland is opposed to this item, but he does not wish to speak. Is that still the case?
Ben Hoagland:
That is correct.
Pete Hemingway:
OK and are you representing any particular organization?
Ben Hoagland:
Institute of Real Estate Management.
Pete Hemingway:
OK. Thank you. Mr. Steve Parady. He wishes to speak and he’s with Parady Gray Architects. And are you
opposed or in favor? Opposed to this item.
Steve Parady:
(Very poor reception of voice)
I may be able to answer a few of the questions… Type A or Type B. As I believe you have already heard it has
to do with the turning radius of the wheelchair. (inaudible sentence) Type B unit ….it has to be redesigned
as a Type A unit. .. you have to increase the size of the kitchen, therefore taking space out of the living
space or out of another room. Same thing occurs in the bathrooms in the….48” square area in front of the
toilet and in front of the ….in the bathroom. …..adjacent bedrooms…depending on the design of the rest of
the room could be up to two feet.
One other thing I’d like to bring up ….which was a major developer of apartments in the City of Phoenix over the last five or six years. And to my knowledge we never actually represented a Type A unit to be used by a wheelchair. (Inaudible sentences).
Mike Colletto:
What’s the typical footprint of a bathroom in the apartments?
Steve Parady:
Typically the footprint of a standard bathroom is a bathtub against the back wall, toilet and extended sink.
When we go to a Type A unit, the water closet needs to be adjacent to two walls so we can have good ramp ___.
We have to completely rework the plumbing in the Type A units. Which goes back to the cost involved.
(inaudible) the tighter you get everything and the more standardized, the better. The cost for the developer.
So any time you have to make that change, not having specific numbers for that cost……The change in the restroom
does – the whole configuration with the fixtures has to change with the Type A.
Mike Colletto:
How many square feet typically do you have in a bathroom?
Steve Parady:
In a bathroom? A standard Type B bathroom is probably ….almost 7 ½ by 8.
Pete Hemingway:
I don’t know if you can answer this, but given the type of projects you work on, and the percentage of units
being Type A, how much do you think, roughly, it adds to the cost of a project? Are we talking about 10% or
in a range of 2%, 3% cost?
Steve Parady:
Inaudible
Pete Hemingway:
You have to get the cost estimate to give to the owner so that he’ll know what the contract is going to be.
Top secret, huh? Any other questions?
Liz Carabine:
I have a question. You said that in your experience with your clients, do you …. To wheelchair users?
I didn’t understand.
Steve Parady:
As far as I know, the apartment complexes have never had to rent them, any Type A units … upgraded them….we’ve
never had anybody come and ask us to do that.
Liz Carabine:
Inaudible
Steve Parady:
I think we were part of that survey, and we were 12% of (inaudible) I guess it goes back to the question
of …..bedroom or bathrooms…what we’re seeing…..
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions? Thank you. Miss Susan Gilstrap. She’s opposed to this item, and she’d like to speak.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a lot to add here to the Arizona Multihousing Association,
but …discussion about the cost of putting a Type A unit versus a Type B. And one of the factors you would
have to consider is that ….lease these units. There is an ongoing loss of revenue over potentially years, so
that cost…construction costs, but we urge this board to reject both recommendations and to insist on getting
hard data, just as the board did request before making a change to the existing ordinance.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions for Susan? I have a question. If the market were different, because I think Terry
alluded to, the market right now being what it is, and interest rates, folks probably looking at single-family
housing as opposed to multifamily housing. I don’t know if you’re in a position to answer this, but if the
market were different, and things that were different in the past, sometimes more lenient – even markets were
balanced, even multihousing were affordable. Given that circumstance, and the market was pushed the other way,
do you think there would be a problem renting them? Because then there would be an overall market need,
people would rent regardless?
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Mr. Chairman, I think before I answer that question…as opposed to actually…
Pete Hemingway:
I guess my question was, the kind of market would dictate, don’t you think, whether people would. Because if
there was a real shortage of housing, in general, even if I had a choice between A and B, I would. I mean,
I understand if I would have a bigger bedroom, but if my choice came down to renting or not.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I am officially representing the Arizona Multihousing Association …. and
all that I can say in response to that I have …..university…from the membership of the association…..And I
think that the association was very much interested in looking …..individuals with a disability….trust fund or
some other source of funding. But certainly the association is willing to look at, and I think we’re going to
have to …..see if we …..what we change in requirements. Especially …..
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions?
Larry Litchfield:
Before you leave, could you tell us what the current vacancy rate is in the apartments with the economy the
way it is today?
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Litchfield, I believe that they are ranging right now in the 10% to 11%.
Larry Litchfield:
What’s been the best economic times – what is the least vacancy rate you remember since 1989?
Suzanne Gilstrap:
About 4% or 5%
Larry Litchfield:
Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions?
Gary Coley:
I’d like to speak to the issue of development… part of managing … real estate constituency. …. contributed in
our administrative and development group….the cost differential between ….the vacant space…so the developers…
and ….people…I don’t think there’s any bias… cost…in comparison to the ongoing cash flow and the cost of
service…
Pete Hemingway:
OK. Any other comments at this time? I believe, if we look at our agenda, and look at the information that
was provided to us as far as backup documentation. The subcommittee has asked us to take an action and get
back to them within 30 days, and they meet prior to us meeting once again, so we need to take some sort of
action or decide to take no action. But I think the subcommittee has requested us to take an action one way
or another.
And Scott, if I understand correctly, your subcommittee is – what was the recommendation of your subcommittee?
Scott Mardian:
We would like you to get back to us and have us come up with some statistics based on the industry so that we
could base it on facts. There was another alternative. Was it Mr. Feinberg? I do have a question.
The architect, Bill_________ had come up with an idea of eliminating the increase to 5% to areas within a quarter mile of the stops. And if you say that you would not oppose that?
Terry Feinberg:
My understanding of that was suggested 10% not 5% within a quarter mile.
Pete Hemingway:
Right now, I think we’re at 5%. To be honest with you, there hasn’t been an official motion made, so there’s
nothing on the table right now.
Terry Feinberg:
I may have the percentage right. Somebody that was actually there would have a better memory than me.
Liz Carabine:
It was 10% within a quarter mile of the stations.
Scott Mardian:
OK, the proposal was 10% within a quarter mile of the stations, so earlier in your talk, did you say you
wouldn’t oppose that?
Terry Feinberg:
I think what I said was it could be more reasonably justified. And as I pointed out this morning, and you
have as well, Scott, that there is not good data out there. And I believe with a fairly significant
applicable bit of time we could actually not just do an informal survey, but do a census of all the units
built, and actually identify every individual who is in every one of those Type A units, and accurately tell
what is in the Type A units that are built in Phoenix citywide. I do believe that those numbers would be
fairly close to what we came up with. But what that does not tell us is in projecting forward to a hugh light
rail transit system that does not exist in the city today, what does today’s citywide average – how does that
relate to a future system to be built?
And my understanding is, and I’m not trying to research this myself, just what the City has told us, is they have not been able to identify any research in other communities that have built light rail systems (San Diego, San Fernando, Portland, San Jose). They’ve not done any research in this area. So my understanding is that there is no information out there that we could use, perspectively, to say once the system is built, X number of people are going to need to live within a radius of either the stations or of the transit corridor. But again, it’s reasonable to project that you’re going to have a higher demand within that area as was pointed out. This is the two things that really make there necessary for the disabled to be an integrated part of the community are housing and transportation. The light rail corridor makes that very easy, and it’s certainly easier within a quarter mile of the station, so I do not believe that ….. I don’t think it can be supported by research. I think it has reasonable acceptance.
Mike Colletto:
Andrea had mentioned, I believe she said the average income of the disabled community was $33,000 a year.
What share of your units would be affordable in that price range, Type A units?
Terry Feinberg:
Give me a second. If that is accurate, and it would be a significant percentage. There would be standard rule
of thumb and policies vary, some by companies, and if you look at more than just income to rent, there is a
rule of thumb. That is an income of three times the monthly rent. So, without a calculator, I figure that’s
somewhere around $900 a month in rent, which would be a significant portion of the units that are available
units that are in the City. Which further makes you wonder why so many of them are vacant. If there are that
many people out there that are in need of housing that can’t afford it.
Mike Colletto:
You’re going right where I want you to go.
Terry Feinberg:
And I can tell you, believe me, that these apartment owners who are sitting on 10 or 11% physical vacancy,
which because of the concessions in the market are 15 to 20% economic vacancy, would love to have people in
those units paying rent. So they’re not leaving them vacant by choice.
Mike Colletto:
So if the $33,000 isn’t an accurate figure, there’s pretty much a complete disconnect between the people that
own them and the people that would like to get into them.
Terry Feinberg:
If that’s true, it is true.
Mike Colletto:
Thank you.
Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chairman, what the subcommittee was asking though, was if you were going to get back to the subcommittee,
we’re expecting some information from the industry and we will try to come up with something factual.
Pete Hemingway:
Before we take action. Given our schedule right now I think April 9th is when the subcommittee is scheduled
to meet, and they’ve asked us to take action prior, and come up with some sort of a recommendation to them
prior to that. So given the time in the board, or we would have to make a recommendation to the subcommittee
prior to that date. I’m just trying to work out. I don’t have a problem getting it back to your subcommittee,
but how do we get it back to the board to get it to the subcommittee.
Ben Barcon:
Mr. Chairman, if I could. You said earlier that we could move to send this back to our subcommittee and that
would be our answer back to THE subcommittee until such time as we could come up with a recommendation. Is
that correct?
Andrea Tevlin:
Well, the Council subcommittee referred it to you all to take action on it as a board, within the 30 day time
period. So I don’t think that.
Pete Hemingway:
I don’t think that is going to satisfy what the subcommittee was asking for.
Andrea Tevlin:
They are looking for a position from this board.
Ben Barcon:
I guess what I’m concerned about though, if we had a short time period, and ….when in fact there may be some ….
someplace, particularly if we had some more time to look at this.
Andrea Tevlin:
It’s possible. I’m sure Mr. Mardian’s operation…data…but you could still be forever and you’re not going to
come up with a perfect rationale for it in five or six or seven. And I also don’t know the difference between
one-quarter mile around the station versus the corridor, but …as well. I just know it’s very, very difficult
to come up with a solid rationale. Particularly given the number of units we’re talking about. You know,
it’s 5%, a difference of 50 units compared to the 2% requirement that’s currently in place. So right now it’s
2%. If you go to 5% it’s 50. So given the small number of units we’re talking about, we can study the
rationale … 6 or 7…. And I can really appreciate what you’re trying to say because I know…as well. But I
just don’t know if you’re able to come up with a perfect solution. (Inaudible sentence)
Pete Hemingway:
You had a question, Mike?
Mike Colletto:
Well, I was just going to say I think you’re saying the full board needs to act on this.
Andrea Tevlin:
Yes.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions?
Patricia Childs:
A point of clarification. So Scott, you’re on the subcommittee that Andrea…Have you met together with the two
subcommittees?
Scott Mardian:
I think that Andrea probably had representatives ….(inaudible)
Patricia Childs:
I understand that your committee – I have met individually with many people in this room, and my assistant,
Shawn Ortiz, was at a subcommittee last Friday because I could not attend.
Scott Mardian:
We’ve had a lot of input. There are just no facts.
Andrea Tevlin:
I have met individually with many people in this room, and my assistant,
Shawn Ortiz, was at a subcommittee last Friday because I could not attend.Inaudible
Pete Hemingway:
No, they have not met.
Patricia Childs:
I sort of…that the two groups are trying to do the same thing.
Pete Hemingway:
We do, but our committee is recommended to the subcommittee our position, and then that subcommittee will take
action based upon our recommendation. Given Scott’s input as far as the area around the stations themselves,
I think there might be an opportunity to come to some sort of a compromise if we agree to a quarter mile
radius within the stations themselves and come up with what we feel is a percentage. And I think we’ll get to
a number that’s somewhere between that number and it almost kind of splits the difference between those
additional 50 units and the 2% where we are now.
Because I believe, and I don’t have the exact number, but there’s somewhere between twelve to fourteen stations, just in Phoenix. Along the tracks I think there’s a total of like 21 or 22 stations, something like that. I don’t know if anybody has that number. But it’s somewhere in the twenties I think, as far as the total station numbers. So I’m thinking Phoenix is in that general area. So that may work out to be a reasonable number given the percentage in there, and that can kind of work that out.
Mike Colletto:
Mr. Chairman, being as this prospective, do we actually know what’s available? In these footprints in the
quarter of a mile around each station?
Pete Hemingway:
No, but we have the court identified for us today. It’s not going to – I don’t know how much it’s going to
change from what we have shown here. It will change some. It will just make it a little bit more
concentrated around the stations, which I think is where people would generally want to be anyway. Right?
Easier access to the stations, the bus, easier access to the transit system.
So, we need to take an action, board.
I missed somebody. Sorry about that. Got one more speaker. Darrell Christianson wishes to speak to the board at this time.
And Darrell, you are in favor or opposed?
Darrel Christainson:
In favor. I’m Darrell Christianson. I’m the director of the Community for the Disabled. …a non-profit
agency that works with disabilities of all kinds. Now if I could, I guess maybe what I’d like to do is to…in
sense look at the big picture. First of all, yesterday we went to… for democracy and choice. And representing
the largest minority in this Country, people with disabilities, we too want choice. Choice in the type of
housing we can live in. And certainly we need to have a paradigm shift here, I believe. In the sense that,
right now we represent 20% of the population. We here in this room who are baby boomers – that number will
increase 35% in the next 40 years. Now, accommodating our housing needs as a third of the population, or at
20% right now, this is an important issue. But I think we missed the big picture here. One is- what costs are
going to be involved? I think it was mentioned earlier by Mr. Litchfield that besides the apartments changed,
it’s how we design them. How we think. We’ve not been designing apartments and housing the way we did 50
years ago in 1953. …everything has changed over 50 years. With the stock that’s being built now
in 03, 04, 05, that’s going to last for another 40-50 years. We need to be a forward thinking community, so
we can trust those….now for the future.
So the cost according to the University of North Carolina…which is nationally recognized, says about $200 per household (this is a single family). So if you look at accessibility issues, whether changing the height of an outlet or changing the height a light switch. These types of features are accessible and many of them are already in many of these units. They may not be to the point of Type A, but we are looking at a number of features that are built in as the natural part of normal business. A natural part of doing business.
So it doesn’t stand out like an eyesore. The impression I’m hearing today is that accessible units stand out like an eyesore and people don’t want to live in those types of places. It’s just for those people. Nobody lives in them….doorknob. …. accessibility. So when you look at this, many of the features are already there. We talk about accessibility, we’re talking about – we play the numbers game – but it’s not necessarily involved with roll-in showers. Some will have a tub with place to transfer. Just like with the Americans With Disabilities Act, with public accommodations. You have accessible motels and hotels, but only a percentage of those have roll-ins. So we’re talking about the level of accessibility here.
(inaudible sentences) Now we have quite different colors. We can decorate with our lavenders, mauves… Then again, the waiting lists are… fair market housing? No. … too many units…you need to separate the two out. …to make this point, that when you are on disability, to afford the $900 - $1000 rent, you have to earn about $37,000 a year. Now I’m not sure, realizing that 48% of the state jobs are in retail and service and farming. …. Those who do not garner 18 or 15 dollars or $37,000 a year has nothing to do with disability. Nothing to do with accessibility…that’s very important. The figures we banter around – they only have the figures of the survey. A self-reported survey, I understand. How the state of housing in 2000 – they could not come up with the proper figures. Essentially they have…but I can tell you that down in Tucson, they have housing … for single family homes, $130,000…So something is working down in Tucson.
Now the paradigm shift … really encourages a lot of you to step outside the box here. If we can look at accessibility at 100% and work our way down from there. Mr. Feinberg made the point that you have two level complex, and the second level is not accessible by elevator. You lopped off 2% right there. That’s fine ... right now the attorney general’s office … 44 sites were surveyed and only one in five met the accessibility standards. …. So 43 and 44 did not … the results. So to say we have to change things … The marketability is there. If you have a complex that is in a neighborhood that is … That’s one problem with management that is open to working people…Because, quite frankly, there is a lot of discrimination just in the renting process. So you may have a number of units that are open. But the attitude is not …perception to true acceptance of real disabilities as tenants. I don’t care how accessible you are. That’s probably a bigger barrier than higher rents was.
So that is the place of education. And we’ve done some work in that area with education of apartment managers and landlords. But again, it’s a choice. Our program enables … whether we work with people … in the valley. Each of the last two years, we have dealt with 660 individuals who … from brain injuries and such. The lion’s share of those folks have no option in housing. So they go back to nursing homes. They go back to nursing homes for a quote, temporary stay. You’re talking 7, 10, 11 years long. Because they don’t have accessible housing that’s affordable. And what does that do? It’s a ripple effect, folks. Because at a minimum on the average, to support someone in a nursing home it’s about $10,000 per year more than having community-based services and provide those… Last year we assisted 55 individuals out of nursing homes. …. 55 individuals come to a savings of over half a million dollars. If we had more accessible affordable housing, citywide with choice … save all the taxpayers a lot of money. Again, the choice is yours. I would encourage the committee to build citywide at whatever percentage you feel is appropriate, but there is the need. We have a number of…. I’ve been working with….since 87, and I can tell you that in the whole period of time, housing, limited housing, accessible housing, is the number one…. Here’s your chance to make a choice and make a real difference.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Any questions?
Ben Barcon:
Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a question for this gentleman. I would like to go back to the last meeting that we
had. Didn’t we identify other means to make this happen other than to put it in the NFPA 5000 vote?
One of the things that I’m going to ask to be corrected in the minutes deals with that. …. And I use the word incentivizing as opposed to requiring the code. … that being done in San Francisco with… results. And I think if you offer incentives, people will take advantage of them, … And that custom checks, bottom line, you get the job done. But requiring people to do something, I think, limits your ability to develop sites. You might end up with sites that don’t want it, because it’s much easier to build the other half a mile in the other direction, and not have to deal with it. Or they could go to Scottsdale, or to Mesa. I think we’re setting ourselves up for economic problems, in a competitive sense, with other cities. I think the City Council has given us the fair housing issue, subsidized housing issue that they won’t deal with and trying to make it a code issue.
The other comment that I would make is that I as a member of this committee would feel really uncomfortable having to vote today on something that I don’t feel I have enough information on. So, given that, it’s unfortunate that - I don’t see how I could vote to increase this to 3 or 5 or 10 without at least studying it, having some numbers that I feel comfortable with. And again I agree that our… a lot of other factors that come into play, and without considering these things, I just don’t feel that I could make a decision that is this important.
Gary Coley:
Within the quarter mile radius, can you allow that 10%? (inaudible) but it’s a step forward.
Patricia Childs
I would like to ask one question of Ms. Tevlin. The 30-day time limit we have – is there- I
have the same concern that Mr. Barcon has. I feel that we’re being asked to make a decision without enough
information or we ran out of time. Is there any plan on your part on that 30 days, can you give us so that
there can be time to get information. The subcommittee can meet and we could decide afterwards. I feel like
we’re being asked to decide without concrete information. The only restraint is the time that you have given
us in terms of that 30 days. So is there any way you can give us longer than 30 days?
Andrea Tevlin:
(Inaudible) Carole’s notes: Would be up to the subcommittee.
Pete Hemingway:
Can we take action as a board, then, to recommend to the subcommittee that we get a 30 day extension or
something to that effect, so that we can give them a more informed recommendation? So I guess we can ask them
for 30 days, otherwise they are going to take action regardless. Thank you.
Danny Ortega:
Mr. Chairman, did I hear correctly that… is waiting for information?
Pete Hemingway:
Well, that’s what I’m saying, but given Scott’s timing and everything in subcommittee meeting April 9th, our
options are, like Patricia is saying, ask for a longer extension, take no action in essence today with the
action that we would then make a recommendation as soon as possible, given that we get more information in the
interim. And as we’ve heard, people offered today, that they are willing to gather that information. ….have
asked for information in past ten days from various folks, and we have not yet received it, so I’m waiting for
them all to deliver this wonderful information to us, and I know your subcommittee had asked for information
also.
Scott Mardian:
Mr. Chairman, I am reasonably assured that we can get some factual information back. You know, there is that
saying that came up in the committee that (inaudible). I feel that we can come back with a number that’s not
an arbitrary number. If the difference is between 50 units and a hundred units going in, both sides want that
those 50 units. One doesn’t want to provide a hundred, and one wants a hundred. So who’s – if it’s only 50
units, let her give up the units. Well, they’re not willing. You can strike all that from the record.
Ben Barcon:
Mr. Chairman, I’m going to ask Scott if he thinks that 30 days is going to be enough time, or do we really
need, given our calendar, at least 60 days to look at this, and make sure that you can come back with some
recommendations to the subcommittee.
Scott Mardian:
I feel that if we’re given 30 days, we’ll be able to get some information that we can make a reasonable
judgement on.
Pete Hemingway:
Go ahead. We’ll entertain a motion.
Ben Barcon:
I would like to make a motion that we send this issue back to the accessibility subcommittee for further
review, and that they come back to this committee within 30 days for recommendation.
Danny Ortega:
I second that motion.
Pete Hemingway:
I have a second from Mr. Ortega.
Is there any further discussion?
Liz Carabine:
I … the committee meeting as well. 30 days for the committee to review – I’ve been attending that committee
for at least 60 days, and the information has been – I don’t feel comfortable with the 30 days would be
resolved. But, this issue was brought to the Development Advisory Board over a year ago. And was said to be
studied, and has been postponed and postponed and postponed. …. How long do people that are looking for
apartments that are accessible need to wait before we can sit at this table and make a decision that will go forth? It’s going to go to City Council anyway, and they are going to make a decision. Are we lacking, if we say we can’t decide within 30 days?
So again, we’re saying we need more time.
Pete Hemingway:
I guess, but given that right now, on the basis of our – any number would be totally arbitrary. That’s not to
say that if the information, we won’t decide that the percentage is higher than what’s being asked today. So,
for something to come to the conclusion that it’s 2,5, 10%, 6, 12 15% is purely a guess. There’s no number –
any correlation to almost anything I think that we’ve heard presented today that would have a correlation to a
reasonable percentage that would be – whether it’s a hundred units, or a hundred and fifty units, or fifty, I
mean, it would be purely arbitrary. I guess I would like to have us be given the 30 days. And I understand
the urgency, and I understand the clock is ticking, but I also understand that in regards to the light rail
corridor. I think the corridor is going to be open in about 2007, and in 30 days for us to make a good sound
decision, I would hope the subcommittee would be willing to give us that, with the understanding that in 30
days at our April board meeting we will make a recommendation to the subcommittee, even if I have to make a
motion one way or the other, and get something moved forward to the subcommittee. So that’s where we are.
Any other discussion?
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chairman, we did make a motion and pass a motion. The motion the committee passed to increase it from 2%
to 10% within a quarter mile radius of the light rail stations. So they already made a motion and approved it,
in that subcommittee. So that motion is almost like a recommendation to this committee already.
Pete Hemingway:
Thanks, Joe.
Male Voice:
These amendments that we have in front of us – it’s got a section in there to increase it?
Joe McElvaney:
Joe McElvaney It should be item number 8, then…. 12.
Let’s see if we can find it. If not,…last week.
Pete Hemingway:
We still have a motion on the floor to move it forward to 30 days back to the subcommittee.
Liz Carabine:
Mr. Chairman, could we have a definite deadline?
Pete Hemingway:
At the next Development Advisory Board meeting we will take action. That may not be exactly 30 days from today,
but.
Male Voice:
Maybe I can amend that motion…
Pete Hemingway:
We have an amendment to that motion. Please restate the motion to read at the next Development Advisory Board
meeting. Somehow, I note that wasn’t quite parliamentary procedure, but we’re getting there. Do we all
understand the motion? We are saying at the next Development Advisory Board meeting we will take action. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor. Any opposed? Thank you.
Motion passed unanimously.
Now we’ll move on to agenda item number 7.
Approval of March 6, NFPA 5000 Public Hearing Minutes
Pete Hemingway:
And I know that during that discussion you were reading that information. That’s the other thick packet.
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chair, I believe the list of attendees of the meeting does not include Joe McElvaney as being a
participant or at the meeting.
Pete Hemingway:
Yes, that would be incorrect. Joe was there.
Gary Coley:
Then if you go to page 3, I believe you have about a third of the way down, me listed as having given the
presentation that Joe made regarding item #4. Then forward to page 4, and about the same place, I believe
item 6 was also Joe’s presentation. Top of page 5, as me, I believe it was Joe, and then Joe… which was
Joe McElvaney as well as the middle of the page, and then further down at the bottom of page 5. And then on
page 22, about a third from the bottom where we’re speaking to an issue – on the second line, on my comment it
says, “Are you exploring and cinemizing,” and I believe that question was are you exploring and to end ….., rather
than making …
Pete Hemingway:
Do we note those changes?
What page was that on, Gary?
Gary Cole:
Page 22, and a third of the way up from the bottom.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Any other amendments, changes, modifications?
Male Voice:
There is a misspelling of one of the staff’s names on the first page.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other changes? Will we entertain a motion?
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chair, I move for adoption of the notes as revised.
Mike Colletto:
Second.
Pete Hemingway:
We have a motion and a second by Mr. Colletto. Do we have any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor. Any opposed? Thank you.
Motion carried unanimously.
At this time we will start with agenda item number 8, the public hearing phase of today’s agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING on the proposed Phoenix Amendments to the 2003 Edition of the Building Construction Code
and Safey Code (National Fire Protection Association NFPA 5000 Building Code Chapters). (Proposed amendments are
available by calling Carole Borrego at (602) 262-6538:
Pete Hemingway:
We have several cards here today, so when I request, as we speak today, if you could limit your comments to
approximately three minutes. If the board does feel that you are getting extended, the board will ask you to
abbreviate your statements. We’ll try to be courteous, and give you the appropriate time to make your
statements, but again, we ask that you be considerate of others.
I also want to remind everyone speaking today, and those in the audience, it was determined by the Phoenix City Council in December of 2000 and reaffirmed in January of 2003 that NFPA 5000 is the model code that best fits the needs of the City of Phoenix. There’s no group that has the power, including this group, to overrule that decision, and that an attempt to change that decision should be heard at the City Council level. At the last Development Advisory Board meeting when the motion to review other codes was not upheld, and this board voted not to move forward in that regard. Again, we are entertaining discussion of specific amendments to the code. Again, we want to commend City staff for their unprecedented and extraordinary effort they have made to date putting these amendments together and entertaining input from the various public entities. We truly feel that this has been an open process, and we’ve had an opportunity to receive tremendous amount of input. The Development Advisory Board, however, does have a responsibility to all the citizens in the City of Phoenix, and we will consider the concerns of the building community, the interests of neighborhoods, and the safety of our citizens and visitors to our city. No special interests can be allowed to govern the decisions of the City staff, City Council, or the Development Advisory Board.
At this time, I would like to read into the meeting minutes comments by Mr. Michael Coultrap. I think he had to leave. He is opposed to this item.
And his comments are: he is concerned as a homeowner, businessman, member of Arizona Multihousing Association, Business Owners and Managers Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, and Arizona Roofing Contractors Association. None of these organizations support the adoption of the NFPA 5000 codes. Please pay close attention to the comments of those who are here representing the interests above. They are also my concerns. I do not support the adoption or recommendation of this code set to or by the City of Phoenix. Respectfully, Mr. Michael A Coultrap.
With that, we will begin going through the cards. And please state what organization you are representing today, and if I have not noted or announced, it if you are opposed or in favor of the agenda item.
And Courtney is opposed to this item.
Ms. Courtney Gilstrap:
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I’ve got one specific amendment that I want to bring up and address.
Not only the amendment, but some issues associated with it. And it is in your package, chapters 3 through 54.
It’s item 25.2.9. This is a prime example of one of the frustrations as a member of the administration
committee and virtually every residential committee that we’ve had since November. This is an item…residential
committee. It was pointed out a couple of times that it should not be… Still needs to be worked on by the
committee. It’s an example of an issue I’ve been watching very closely. If I had not been watching it, it
would be in the text of your first amendments. We’re very frustrated with this proposal. Currently, under
the City’s Uniform Building Code, there is not emergency lighting required when you exit your apartment to the
exterior, be that ground level or stairway down to ground level. This amendment, as proposed, would require
emergency lighting in every apartment, whether you exit ground level, 1st floor, 3rd floor, into the exterior
of the building for 4-plex plus. It’s completely unnecessary. It’s a huge deviation from what we’re
accustomed to. It would require significant changes in what we would have to put into these
apartments-maintenance, potential vandalism.
It shouldn’t even be in the packet we’re looking at today because it’s still requiring action from the residential committee, and the Multihousing Association. It’s going to be coming up with an amendment, as we’ve discussed in previous meetings. But I think it’s a prime example, first of all of going above and beyond what we need to be going on here in this code. It shouldn’t even be in the packet. And I appreciate all that staff has done. I know in the process of killing quite a few trees – we’ve got paper going everywhere, and it’s a hard process to follow. I think that all of us are slowing it down a bit, trying to keep track of these issues, to make sure that they’re not moving in this committee before they should.
With that, I’ll be happy to answer any questions. And the Multihousing Association will have an amendment coming forward to address this, but it does need to be …in the text.
Pete Hemingway:
The residential subcommittee has been studying this and we actually had tabled this, pending the
recommendation from the Multihousing Association, because this was actually an issue (question) that I had in
my mind where emergency lighting, because given Arizona’s climate, we have many apartments that open outdoors
to balconies and such, and … Courtney of Arizona Multihousing Association was going to come back with a
recommendation for our committee. And that has not happened yet as she stated.
Ben Barcon:
I would like to ask Larry for a clarification. Would this pertain to all commercial buildings as well?
Larry Litchfield:
I almost had the same question, because the 5000 requirements have been stricken out where it had the
emergency lighting was only required for more than 12 dwelling units or buildings more than three stories.
And I was going to ask where that came from because that’s really what changes everything. Because if you
kept the 5000 requirements in there, it would be a very limited number of buildings, and we get into taller
buildings or larger number of units.
Ben Barcon:
So again, I would support we strike this at least for now and send it back to these people, hopefully for a
better amendment.
Pete Hemingway:
Right. Joe, you had a comment?
Joe McElvaney:
(inaudible) This amendment came from staff, and there’s concern about apartment complexes. These 25.2.9
deals with apartment complexes, will only affect apartment complexes only. Staff is concerned with dealing
with buildings that are two-story to three-stories when we have our monsoons and power outages how they seek
to get out….
Courtney Gilstrap:
But, Mr. Chairman and Joe: The way that it’s written right now, and staff’s recommendation, it will require
emergency lighting even if I live on the first floor of a four-plex.
Pete Hemingway:
Right. We understand you have a valid concern. So we’d like staff to go back to the residential subcommittee,
and I’m sure Courtney will have a recommended amendment for us at our next meeting.
Gary Coley:
I guess I had a question. I thought we were looking at approved text amendments that had been recommended by
the subcommittees for the board to move forward. Is the mix of things that have and haven’t been approved by
the subcommittees?
Pete Hemingway:
I’ll let staff answer that one.
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chairman, this is the only area that I have seen so far. I apologize for this area. I was up late last
night, again, reading it again. It happened last time, too. We just need to get the appropriate and
delete it.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Mr. Ron Nickson wishes to speak before the board. Mr. Nickson, are you in favor or opposed to
item 8?
Ron Nickson:
Opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a statement that should take just about three minutes.
My name is Ron Nickson. I work for the Joint Legislative Program of the National … Association and the
National Multihousing Council. I’m here today at the request of the Arizona Multihousing Association. I will
also say that although I’m on several of the NFPA technical committees, I do not represent any of them today.
I’m on the technical program, I’m on several of the technical committees and I’ve participated in all of the
committees of the corporations.
I’m in big opposition to the permissive language in the code that makes it unapproachable. But that’s not the issue I’m addressing today. I’m addressing the specific issues dealing with tables 7.22 in the fire resistance rating and Table 7.4… to be modified.
Pete Hemingway:
Just for your information, Joe, Mr. McElvaney, is this the table that was recommended at the latest meeting,
which I understand is in.
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chair, this item came up at the last public hearing – a group of people made a motion – they submitted a
proposal. People have improved it. I brought it to the correlating committee, knowing that it is an issue.
The correlating committee did not vote on it, but they understood the issue. Phoenix Fire Department is for
this motion. …most of the committees on the correlating committee felt…residential asked for it to be put on
hold at this time.
Pete Hemingway:
And my understanding is the recommended table is what City of Phoenix is utilizing right now today.
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chairman, that is correct. These two tables are the current tables we are using right now.
Pete Hemingway:
So what I’m telling you is that that table that was recommended in the NFPA 5000 is actually more permissive
than what the subcommittee has recommended. And what the subcommittee has recommended is that we go back to
what is being utilized today, which is more restrictive than what’s in NFPA 5000.
Ron Nickson:
We are also …changes to sections (inaudible) I’m investigating issues because of a major concern I have about
housing affordability and ability of the housing industry to provide housing for the people of Phoenix.
These changes would make a major change in the code requirements for the NFPA 5000. And it could, in effect,
affect the cost of housing of at least a thousand dollars per unit, and up to two thousand dollars per unit.
It is highly important that the concept of compartments to control the spread of fire be integrated. The sprinkler system can provide a packet of protection for the emergency personnel. However, safety measures can be taken to extremes. Phoenix has already endorsed a concept of sprinkler protection that through national and international statistics have proved to be 85 to 95% effective. And when the system’s monitored, the sprinkler system, they can be effective up to 99%. There is also fire data, that most fires are controlled by the activation of one or two sprinkler heads. Granted, there are exceptions to that, and thus we need also to provide, in addition to the sprinklers, a second means of protection….However the second level of protection, in the national statistics shows that they are only 69% effective. Fire walls do work if they are not penetrated. But they are so easily penetrated by the simple …of putting in a door, that they become an effective second means of protection. And these tables are increasing the fire ratings considerably.
The effectiveness of sprinklers in the limited … of compartments are considered and discussed in great detail during the NFPA 5000 process. The proposal presented to Phoenix you recall were three or four hours here and includes heights and areas that had a balanced approach to fire protection.
We’re represented in the NFPA 5000 code… A special task group was set up to look at these. This task group has studied those issues in great detail. They came up with the task group in the technical committee. Again it was discussed in great detail. And from there it went to the NFPA 5000 technical correlating committee. Again, discussed in great detail, looking at the issues presented to you. And the committee, NFPA 5000, elected not to go to that level. And in the deliberations, all committees also considered the needs of various occupants. Which takes into consideration indeed that the people living in these buildings were also the concerns of the fire fighters and emergency personnel that have to respond. …request that you consider the …fire protection in the NFPA 5000 as it currently is. That issue has been thoroughly discussed by a lot of knowledgeable people. I know the current requirements in the Phoenix … proposal before you, and that you are concerned about the protection of citizens and the fire fighting communities. I would urge quite strongly that they had been responded to in the concepts in the NFPA 5000. They also respond to the needs of the citizens of Phoenix and provided the means for the departments to provide safety fire protection and approval.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Any questions at this time? Ken Ireland. Ken is representing Business Owners and Managers
Association of Phoenix.
Ken Ireland:
I’m Ken Ireland. I’m representing Business Owners and Managers Association of Phoenix as well as I work for a
small group called … Realty Services that owns about 17 medical office buildings in the Phoenix metropolitan
area. I also have been a realty broker in the Phoenix area for about 25 years.
Pete Hemingway:
And you are opposed to this item, or in favor?
Ken Ireland:
Opposed.
I’m going to be very brief this morning or this afternoon. Yesterday afternoon about 3:50 we received through
the Gilstraps, the email of about 250 pages of amendments. Just want to point out that between then and today,
there hasn’t been very much time to review them.
We’ve all heard today, and also in the past several meetings that you all held about the new amendments and changes that have been made to the NFPA 5000. We’re just asking that you push it back for another 30 days for review. We ask that it be put on record that we ask that we continue to slow down the process and look for the errors that are being made.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Mark Morganstein. You’re representing?
Mark Morganstein:
I represent Sky Design Concepts. We’re in favor of the proposals, specifically the introduction of heat and
smoke relief, albeit the sprinkler systems that are showing up in the NFPA 5000. I’ve had the unique
opportunity to see a video that …a company that actually conducted tests in warehouses setting up a burn,
setting up smoke relief, setting up sprinkler systems, different combinations of use. I saw a vivid picture
in my mind of the early sprinkler systems kicking in, and then this warehouse space becoming dark, filled with
steam. And after they notified you, yes, the fire’s out, you still couldn’t see the fire from 30 meters away.
And here you see a fire inspector walking through the smoke, and you couldn’t see him till within 5 or 10 feet.
Our biggest concern is to save our fire fighters and safety personnel, and people who may be in the building.
I still remember this little kid dropping a ball. He crawled out of the building, under the smoke. It’s not
the fire that will typically get you, it’s the going to be the smoke and inhalation. Without smoke relief,
there’s no way to protect these individuals. Thank you for your time.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Terry Feinberg.
Terry Feinberg:
Terry Feinberg Here again, Mr. Chairman, are 250 or 300 pages of amendments. It’s hard to say whether I’m in
support or opposition. But, I guess specifically I would like to speak in opposition to chapter 12 as it’s
presently written.
Following the adoption of accessibility requirements to the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act, the multihousing industry faced the challenges of designing apartment homes to meet the new requirements without any guidelines on how to do so. Because no standards existed, which would enable a building to meet the accessibility requirements and the industry faced an onslaught of investigations and costly litigation. Leading to situations such as, Christianson … pointed out earlier, on the recent attorney general investigations. Believe me, no architect designs a building, or a developer builds a building knowing that they’re gonna be – just like physical structure of the building out of compliance with Federal law.
But finally, in 2001, HUD endorsed the code requirements for accessibility, which is known as Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility. The Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility code clearly communicates in building code … the federal multifamily housing accessibility requirements. Helps insure requirements in condominiums are accessible for people with disabilities. And enables builders and architects to know for sure that they are in compliance with the law. The apartment industry … hired to obtain standards and gain approval building codes that are necessary to provide safe harbor protection to the industry. Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility is the only building code to obtain HUD’s approval. That is why, even though Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility was developed by the organization International Code Council, the NFPA included Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility in section 12 of their code, and I believe it’s referenced in 12.1.2 and 12.20.1. That’s probably meaningless with the stacks in front of you, because section 12 has been completely omitted so you don’t have strikeout … in front of you.
But what you do have in front of you removes Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility from the NFPA 5000 code as it would be adopted by the City of Phoenix and places it instead as a reference code in the NSD. This means the industry can design the Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility, but the City will not enforce it. It will not inspect it, they will not plan review it. In situations, again, such as related earlier to by Darrell will continue throughout the state, and people who need affordable accessible housing will not know whether or not they can get it.
Placing the Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility reference in the NSD will lose the safe harbor protection for architects and builders, and does not ensure that the disabled population will get multifamily homes built to their needs as outlined in the Federal Fair Housing Act. We strongly recommend that it be removed from NSD and be reconstituted into chapter 12 of the code we are going to.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. I’m sure Mr. Mardian has a comment.
Scott Mardian:
Mr. Chairman … the statement was made that if it’s moved to NSD then the City won’t inspect it or enforce it.
Is that correct?
Rick Doell:
That’s not entirely true. The plans reflect compliance with this document. We’re inspecting according to the
approved plan. So, in effect, we are inspecting to this, we are reviewing to it, but we haven’t adopted it,
and by not adopting it, we are not mandated to stick within its requirements. Yet, some of the requirements
that were in this particular code that we’re proposing, are less than that which in Code Requirements for
Housing Accessibility, but still complies with Fair Housing, and we can expect to go those standards.
Scott Mardian:
So, the solution was made that the abuses will continue that the attorney general …signified. I’m hearing two
different conclusions. Is there some way to?
Terry Feinberg:
If I may, I never did use the term abuse, and as I did explain, given the millions of dollars that go into
development in the apartment community. No one is intentionally designing those communities knowing that they
are in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The problems are, when it comes down to interpretation as to what
the requirements of the act are, and the only safe harbor that exists in this country are Code Requirements
for Housing Accessibility. So by reference it is true that an architect could design a building believing
that they are complying with Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility, and the City will approve those
plans as part of it, but because the City is not reviewing the plans to Code Requirements for Housing
Accessibility, the liability becomes 100% on the architect and on the owner, and there is not oversight
from the City saying this plan needs Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility requirements.
Rick Doell:
The oversight by the City would ensure that the plans that were submitted to us and the construction that was
made is in substantial compliance with the code we have put in place or proposed to put in place that meets
the minimum requirements or in some cases higher requirements, and the Fair Housing Act requires….
Terry Feinberg:
If I may, I beg to differ from the standpoint that the only code that HUD has accepted is Code Requirements
for Housing Accessibility. They have not accepted the proposed code. They have not accepted any other code
that exists in this country, so you cannot say that the code you have proposed in chapter 12 meets the
accessibility requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Rick Doell:
I’m not saying it’s a safe harbor. I’m just saying that what we have proposed in this code in our opinion,
meets the minimum requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The other
safe harbor that the Fair Housing Act refers to is the International Code Council American National Standards
Institute 8117.1, 1998, which is referenced in this document. There is other safe harbor other than the Code
Requirements for Housing Accessibility document, unless I’m mistaken.
Pete Hemingway:
Did you have anything else, Scott, before we.
Scott Mardian:
No, I apologize for using a word…
Terry Feinberg:
Mr. Chairman, I am not the building code expert, and Mr. Nickson has much more expertise, so he could probably
address the safe harbor provisions in a much more informed manner.
Pete Hemingway:
OK, Mr. Nickson.
Ron Nickson:
I just want to address the issue concerning the A17 standard that was brought up. Yes the A17 standard is
listed as a safe harbor for compliance for Fair Housing, but it only contains the technical requirements on
how to build the unit in compliance. It does not contain the scoping requirements as to when and where they
have to be applied, so it’s only a partial document, to do that.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions from the board? I know this is an area of concern, so we’ll have that subcommittee look
at that once again. Thank you. Mr. Rick Thornberry with AAMA Smoke Vent Task Group. Hope I got all that
right.
Rick Thornberry:
Mr. Chair. Thank you. My name’s Rick Thornberry, Code Consortium AMIA representing the AAMA Smoke Vent Task
Group. They are manufacturers of smoke vents. And as you heard earlier, Mr. Morganstein talked a little bit
about smoke and defense, and we had submitted these to the last meeting of the commercial subcommittee for
their consideration, and at that time we didn’t have enough time to talk about them. We wished to talk about
them today, but we did not have a quorum. We did talk about some things, but they couldn’t take action this
morning.
What I wanted to do was bring them to your attention at this time, and mainly to get them out in front of the public, to get any feedback from the members here. In essence, what we’re doing is proposing to reintroduce to the NFPA 5000 the smoke and defense requirement that we presently have in the City of Phoenix in the Uniform Building Code. At this point in time, the NFPA 5000 does not contain virtually any requirements on smoke and defense in any type of occupancy other than a few selected cases of the high … content occupancies. So we think that’s an issue that’s a very potent issue to the City of Phoenix, especially from a proper protection from a fire fighter’s safety perspective. This smoke and defense allow the fire department to safely vent the buildings of public smoke of people in a fire condition even if the sprinklers did perform effectively. And do it in a manner that’s the safest that can be done, without having to put them at risk on top of a burning building for a long period of time, trying to cut holes in roofs, which in some cases, are very difficult to try to cut holes into. So this provides a mechanism to do that.
I would also point out that these requirements are also presently contained in the International Building Code. So I think, certainly, we would want to have at least the same level of fire safety as that code, as well as the same level of fire safety that you’ve maintained over the last couple of years that you’ve adopted the Uniform Building Code.
Pete Hemingway:
OK. Thank you. Any questions for Rick at this time? The Chapters he’s referring to is Chapter 27 and 29 and
30 and 34.
Mr. Carlo Gegen from Rolf Jensen and Associates.
Carlo Gegen:
I am in favor of the motion. I just wanted to take a moment. I’ve been involved in the review and amendment
process involved in various subcommittees. I just wanted to give support that I think it’s been a positive
process as I think we’re moving forward. In the next few weeks I think we’ll be able to wrap it up and move
forward with it. And just wanted to thank the board members and committee members for participating in this
process.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you.
Karla Armstrong. Karla is in favor of this item, and Karla can I ask who you are representing?
Karla Armstrong:
STI. Solid Tech International. I just want to say that I am is support of the work of the commercial
subcommittee that was proposed by the … (inaudible)
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you.
Mr. Russ Farmer at 14420 S. 31st in Gilbert. He was in favor of this item. (Not present)
Barry Boehmer. Barry’s in favor of this item. And Barry, you are representing?
Barry Boehmer:
I work for Isolatek International; we are a passive protection company. I am in favor of the approval to keep the
height and area tables the same as they are in Uniform Building Code. This is a very important measure that’s
in this proposal to keep it the same. If it’s not, you’re going to be allowed to build very, very large
buildings, as they’re building right now in Salt Lake City that have zero passive protection to the structural
steel. So if you have any other questions about this, again, I’m in the book. It’s a very very important
amendment in this whole process.
Mike Colletto:
Rick, do you know exactly what’s he’s talking about with this table?
Rick Thornberry:
Right, the 7.22. The proposal that his group made.
Mike Colletto:
I had a question. You’re talking about unprotected steel members? In a fire situation, under a fire load,
unprotected steel is my understanding, will weaken very rapidly.
Barry Boehmer:
Yes, at a thousand degrees structural steel begins to lose its …
Mike Colletto:
In a typical fire, in a short period of time, we’ve got a thousand degrees in the room, provided there’s no
sprinkler system, or the sprinkler system is operating correctly. Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Dino Rossi. Dino is in favor of this item.
Dino Rossi:
I’m Dino Rossi. I’m a plumbing contractor in Arizona and I am for this motion, and I think this should
proceed ahead and get some closure to it. It’s time, and all the amendments and second-guessing, questions,
can later be brought forth in another setting. In a cooperative type manner, working with the City and with
you folks. And we can move things forward.
Scott Mardian:
Mr. Chairman, this gentleman is volunteering to participate in the process.
Dino Rossi:
I’m a small company, I took time from my day to come here. So everyone does important things, but there has
to come a time it has to end so people can get on with life.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you, we appreciate that.
Sara Yerkes.
Sara Yerkes:
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I’m Sara Yerkes, and I’m here representing the International
Code Council. I’d like to go on record opposing item 9 adoption of the amendment NFPA 5000 based on
the International Code Council previously stated concern about the experiments, the …of the… and the exclusion
of the International Code Council …and it was based on the citizen interpretation of the … resolution. And it
was based on the position that the government…census process is not being American National Standards
Institute credited…
Pete Hemingway:
I’m one item ahead. I’m sorry. I got the wrong card. You get to come back, Sara.
Carl Triphahn.
Carl Triphahn:
My name is Carl Triphahn. I’m the executive director of ________ Piping Industry profits educaton fund, city
non-profit contractor association some fifty years old based in Phoenix. I’d like to thank the committee for
the opportunities that have been provided us to participate in the amendment process. In my 35 years of
participating here in the City of Phoenix in code development, in my collective memory I cannot remember
having these types of opportunities provided to comment on and participate in policy. This is unprecedented.
I will also tell you that this process is not being … in other cities this would…code development. Phoenix is
taking the lead. It’s commendable. I would like to thank all of you who have donated personal time from your
families, businesses, and charities, to participate on this to allow us the opportunity to come down and do
this. Please try to move this forward as quickly as possible.
The other issue I think is that this code can be, because Phoenix is assuring that this is a process that allows public hearings. Facilities can be amended. It can change. That’s what this committee is for. … So all will remain …until it’s perfect. It can change as we move forward. It’s time to move it forward. Let’s do that and take it to Council.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you.
Jesse Wyatt.
Jesse Wyatt:
Thank you. My name is Jesse Wyatt. I’m a structural engineer here in Phoenix in private practice. But I’m
here today on behalf of the Arizona Cement Association. Mr. Kim Wilson, the head of our association, couldn’t
be here and asked me to come and speak for that group. Actually, it’s kind of a homecoming, because I worked
for the Portland Cement Association years ago, and up until about 20 years ago, …I had been on all the code
advisory board committees. I worked with the high rise … for many years, and so I have a good deal of
background.
I’m here to speak in favor of the amendment. Especially in the …for Fire Safety, and specifically I’d like to address the tables in the code….and fire assisted construction. We discussed these more than 20 years ago, and I still very strongly feel we need the passive fire resistance ability to protect the public, also to protect the fire fighters themselves. Sprinklers do have an effect, but they are still …a …system. (Inaudible) About three years ago, they recalled all the …off the market because of a defect. And it’s not a perfect system, although generally it does…. (inaudible)
So, I think it’s not in closing further restrictions, it’s just keeping the system that you had up till now.
Pete Hemingway:
Any questions? Thank you.
Rick Thornberry
Rick Thornberry:
I’m putting on another hat. This is the Alliance for Fire Safety hat. Bill Koffel is right here. Bill is
going to respond to…
What I wanted to do is, first off, you won’t need the handouts for what I have to tell you right now. That will give you time to pass them out.
We are definitely in support of the amendments that have been brought forth through the subcommittee, in chapter 7 of the two pages that you have discussed previously on the fire resistance on the height and areas as well as the…translate that…NFPA 5000. (Inaudible – paper shuffling) Chapter 33 in the high rise provisions that roll back inductions in the fire resistance till it is consistent in the Uniform Building Code as well.
So that’s where we need passive fire protection. It’s important. And we certainly support the …subcommittee is about to do. And we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process and bring up information to you, and see that the code maintains a good level (inaudible).
The handouts that you are getting. One is a single page document, and that is the document on issues that are, again, still under consideration by the commercial subcommittee. I highlighted in a bubble the conceptions that were dealing with, which are the ones that …fire resistance ratings that we heard about in the last hearing, and our concern here that it will be considered in a little more detail in the next commercial subcommittee meeting. Where we would have a quorum to take action. We believe we’ve narrowed it down to really, the corridors related to chapters 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26 and 27. And when you look at those, those include such occupancies as assembly, educational, schools, residential, institutional occupancies, …the highlight…the occupancy more at risk when they’re in the building. And our concern is again, trading off the one hour core fire resistance ratings for automatic sprinkler installation. Which is presently not allowed for by your code for these occupancies under the Uniform Building Code.
And the other fact that I did do, is a follow-up. I gave you a work in progress last time when automatic sprinkler trade-offs in the NFPA 5000. This is the latest version of that, which…still a work in progress. But it is…information right now, which I think will be helpful. And I think when you start looking at it you will see some of the trade-offs. Would also impact what you do with corridors including the fact that with increased travel, this is significantly (inaudible). You’re allowed increased dead ends, as much as 50% or more in length that you could have. And that could be in a corridor as well. And you’re allowed to increase the flammability of interior finishings in the corridor with the sprinkler, so there’s a couple unexpected perks in the trade-offs, and that’s why we went to the effort to try to identify it so we could begin to understand what potentially this allows to be relaxed in the code and how that compounds. As you mentioned earlier, the …design we think is a very important concept that needs to be maintained in this code, and I would point out that a good combination of both good active protection and passive protection because neither is foolproof. And together, … and things are going to go right.
I would also point out that in the NFPA 5000 there’s a very important statement made in section 441 called multiple safeguards. And that’s on page 68 if you happened to bring your code with you. And it states that the design of every building and structure intended to be …shall be such that the lines for property protection and safety for life does not depend solely on the… safeguard. And additional safeguards shall be provided for property protection by safety. In case any simple safeguard is ineffective, due to inappropriate action, building failure, or system failure. And this is the general chapter, which sets goals and objectives for the code. This is the issue we are opposing. (inaudible) Simple safeguard. And this is where we are coming from. The issues requesting to this point, and we support those changes, and we are still hoping to have some success in getting some recognition that corridors need to maintain a one-hour fire resistance.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you.
Gary Coley:
Would I be correct in assuming that if we’re designing to the highest compartmentalization schedule we can and
the highest sprinkler standard that we can, that the resulting cost will benefit both sides? I’m assuming
that from what I heard that basically… industry is part of your alliance?
Rick Thornberry:
Yes, they are.
Gary Coley:
Having participated through Business Owners and Managers Association in both the International Code Council
code development and Business Owners and Managers Association as a member as well in the NFPA 5000, one of the
tenets of both of those is the technology of … we could build better buildings with better technology, and
also increase safety and reduce costs. I think we’re moving in different directions. To find the most costly
of one and put it together with the most costly of the other. Frankly, as a consumer, because we build those
buildings and pay for them, the only ones, again, that seem to benefit from this are those that are getting
checks from the building construction.
Rick Thornberry:
Well, that is your perspective. Some people would say that the people who are getting the benefit are the
ones that are putting in the sprinkler systems. Your city thought that you needed additional protection
above and beyond what you already had in the Uniform Building Code, which is the best of the codes out there
prior to …NFPA 5000. You chose NFPA 5000.
Gary Coley:
I guess coming from a fire sprinkler family I lean toward that concept. In all the statistics I’ve seen
between some of the years I’ve been in the industry is that the success rate of active systems is higher than
people cutting through doors and cutting through walls that aren’t monitored, and basically rendering some of
those compartmentalization’s that moot that process.
Rick Thornberry:
If I could respond?
Mr. Koffel can supplement what I’m about to tell you, because Mr. Koffel is involved in doing some analyses of sprinkler performance. And we want to understand how successful the things are and there’s a lot of statistics out there, so it’s not easy to get through it all and decide on what’s what. But based on the latest available information we got from the NFPA, it appears on our analysis, which has been confirmed by the NFPA staff that sprinklers failed about 106 sprinkler building fires. And that’s probably a real recent statistic. The data is not conclusive on how well the departmentation is, but that’s where you should be hearing. Mr. Nickson mentioned 69%. I’ve heard higher. It’s a difficult one, because our fire data is not that precise.
Pete Hemingway:
So you’re saying that one in six sprinkler systems in operation today would fail.
Rick Thornberry:
National statistic – they’ll fail in a fire in a spinkler building you can expect one in six to fail. And
Mr. Koffel can give you more information on that. That’s the data that we collected. That’ not saying the
sprinklers aren’t good. They’re good, and you try real hard to supervise them, inspect them, maintain them.
They’ll be better. That’s the national average.
But we’re not necessarily talking about compartmentation in all these cases with high area tables. …. built in passive protection structural elements. You’re not making it out of concrete or coating the steel with carbon materials or encasing it in …board or something like that. So there’s those issues as well. The corridors, yes, they are contributed to compartmentation.
Scott Mardian:
Mr. Chairman. Would Barbara or Joe have any idea what it is for the City or for the State of Arizona.
Barbara Koffron:
I’ve never heard any statistics that will enforce…from the production. We talk about sprinkler buildings we
talk about the fact that there has never been a multi…that’s ..and vehicles, and not multi – three people,
which I find astounding. (inaudible) I’ve never heard one to six failures, and certainly we don’t have …like
that in the City of Phoenix. We have (inaudible) … buildings falling down have taken the sprinkler system
with it. You want to count that as failure, …
There’s a number of things that contribute to failures nationwide. In snow country, frozen systems in those types of things. (inaudible)That does not affect our record in Phoenix. We have an excellent record in Phoenix. A sprinkler system will collapse because somebody has not kept the stoppers clear, and the ring ... sprinkler system and things like that will happen.
Gary Coley:
My point being that all of this goes to the issue of economic development. At some point, fire life safety
can be compromised… cost ability fails in comparison to human life cost. At the same time, once again, being
an advocate of the … approach and the advances that the industry … allows to make the different type in area
of advances…and I certainly don’t want to be in a position when people aren’t building buildings in the City
of Phoenix because the cost was too great.
Pete Hemingway:
Any further questions? Thank you.
Bill Koffel:
Bill Koffel, Koffel Associates, also representing on this side, the Alliance for Fire Safety. My initial
comment, and they I’ll try to respond to some of the subsequent questions and discussion.
We’ve heard some previous testimony today relative to table 722 and 741. I’m not going to repeat everything I said at the last meeting, but as you recall I chaired a task group that was responsible for chapter 7 of the NFPA 5000. As I stated at the last meeting, throughout the public proposal period, the committee was working to develop an alternative method to regulate building height and area. So in essence any proposals that were submitted that introduced an International Code Council height and area table, a BCMC height and area table, a UVC height and area table, were basically rejected because they were not consistent with the philosophy that was being considered by the committee at the time.
It was at the very last task group meeting that occurred the day before the last committee meeting during public comment period, after which the task group came to a decision that they were not yet ready to advance the alternative method. And we had some public comments before us, and we chose the public comment that basically took the IBC height and area table and we passed and voted, and subsequently the committee voted to insert that in the NFPA 5000 with some modifications, primarily those that were different height limits that were in NFPA 101. So I don’t know that it would be fair to say that the Uniform Building Code height and area table was given serious or significant consideration during the development of the NFPA 5000.
Now, relative to some of the other comments. Again, I’m not sure we want to portray what is before you today as taking the highest sprinkler performance or level that we can and the highest compartmentation that we can. In my mind, the highest compartmentation requirements would be to assume that there is no sprinkler system. And to assume that the building has to withstand total burnout of whatever this package might be in the building. I don’t think this package does that.
Likewise, I don’t think this package states the highest sprinkler performance. You know, we do recognize and allow a variety of different sprinkler systems. We’re not requiring all sprinkler systems to be NFPA 13 systems, and looking at certain design criteria in an updated NFPA 13. We’re recognizing a minimum design criteria in an NFPA 13.
We are also reminded of the discussion two weeks ago. Was that should a developer, should a designer choose to look at, or want to pursue an alternative height and area approach. NFPA 5000 does allow that. It allows it through the equivalency process. But more importantly, it allows it through chapter 5, which is a performance-based approach. Now while one might look at a two or three-story apartment complex and say the economics aren’t going to justify it with our individual building. When I started looking at a complex that has 10, 12, 15 buildings, it potentially becomes more economical. When I look at a developer who is building multiple complexes of the same similar design it becomes more attractive. So I think the performance approach does offer an alternative to those that might want to see some other approach to height and area.
With regard to the sprinkler performance: I, like Barbara, was extremely surprised when the Alliance first started to talk in terms of numbers of failures of one in six systems. And let me quickly explain how that number is derived. There is an NFPA data report on the experience in the United States of sprinkler buildings. There is a data point in that report that says X number of fires occur in buildings when the fire is of a magnitude that the system should have activated, but it did not. And that is basically where the one in six number comes from.
Now, I’m not going to tell you that the number is perfect. It’s the best number we have. It’s based on the fire data collection system. As Barbara has indicated, maybe not all – that is a national experience, and there may be some unique experiences in terms of plan review, inspection, preventive maintenance, supervision, whatever, in an individual jurisdiction. But if I look at the national average, yes there are some failures. I discussed this issue at quite length with the Alliance. We looked at that number. I then went back to NFPA. I contacted Dr. Paul, who is their fire data specialist. And he confirmed, that yes, there is some value, whether it be one in six or some number, yes there is a value that we are experiencing sprinkler system performance failures in the United States. I don’t know if that answers that question, but it’s the best I can offer.
Pete Hemingway:
Any further questions? Thank you.
Darin Hughes with Trend Homes. And Darin is opposed to this item.
Darin Hughes:
Mr. Chairman, my name is Darin Hughes, and I’m with Trend Homes and Classic Communities, which is a
multifamily builder as well.
I just want to speak on the issue of these charts, and to point out that the way that this chapter is written … it does not have a contingency for the construction type decrease. So in the NFPA book, table 7.4.1 it allows for when you have sprinklered buildings, to decrease the construction or non-graded by one hour that this new chapter does not have that same concession. Because it’s the same chart as in the Uniform Building Code. But in the Uniform Building Code there’s a separate code section. So I’d just like to point that out that it isn’t the same as the Uniform Building Code.
I’d also like to point out that the area and height increases to do those calculations are different in this than in the first of the Uniform Building Code. And to just say that these types of errors are being omitted because of the pace that we are going. Thanks.
Pete Hemingway:
Any questions?
Rick Doell:
Mr. Chair, I’m just a little confused on his comment. You’re referring to
Darin Hughes:
Page 92?
Rick Doell:
Table 7.2.2 Correct?
Darin Hughes:
7.4.1 – Height and area requirements. The current table in the NFPA 5000 code book has two columns. One for
sprinklered buildings and one for non-sprinklered buildings.
This new table does not have that. This was taken from the Uniform Building Code. The Uniform Building Code does have the separate code section that allows you to decrease the construction.
Pete Hemingway:
This is sprinkler versus non-sprinkler?
Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chair, when the subcommittee looked into that, we realized that all commercial buildings in Phoenix are
sprinklered. So there was no need to have the two columns, because the requirements are already there.
Barbara Koffron:
Some of the 6.2.2 you did get the increases for ...
Larry Litchfield:
I’d like to just point out, on that, in regards to the gentleman before. He says that they do allow various
degrees of types of sprinkler systems to be installed. Not the most restrictive. Whereas in this section,
the sprinkler increase has been eliminated for residential, and has been taken from the 13R which is less
restrictive, and is place up at the NFPA 13 level. So maybe a recommendation to make allowance for
residential houses.
Barbara Koffron:
Mr. Chair in regard to the area increases. Our system 13R and 13B new systems are designed for life safety,
and not property protection. So Phoenix has traditionally not given height increases for anything but
a 13 system.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you.
Sharon Webber
Sharon Webber:
My name is Sharon Webber. I’ m with the organization that is Hilti. And I just wanted to say that I’m in
support of the amendments that are submitted by the Alliance for Fire Safety. Particularly the two tables
that everyone has been talking about. And just to reiterate what’s already been said in regards to the
sprinklers and whatnot.
It’s not a matter of looking at changes that will prevent people from wanting to build here in Phoenix. These are tables that they are already building to right now, so it’s really not a variance what exists currently. Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you.
Ted Cramer.
Mike Barrett with Scottsdale Plumbing. Both Ted with Scottsdale Plumbing was in favor of this item.
Mr. Mike Barrett of Scottsdale Plumbing is in favor of this item. Dwayne Merrifield is also in favor of this
item. Ben Hoglund is opposed to this item.
Sharon Bonesteel. And Sharon is with American Institute of Architects and she’s opposed to this item.
Sharon Bonesteel:
Good Afternoon. My name is Sharon Bonesteel. I am a member of American Institute of Architects. I am a
practicing architect licensed in both California and Arizona. I’m here opposed to the NFPA 5000 as a whole,
but I will do my best to cover specifics. To give you an idea, some of my clients include California Microwave,
___ Freight, Semantek. Companies that exist in many states.
I really cannot recommend to my clients that they consider locating in Phoenix if in fact, we proceed and recommend the adoption of this code. It’s not financially sound for them to do so, when there are multiple jurisdictions within Arizona who have sought to follow a common code, and a code that allows them to build with the least amount of money all over the United States. I think that when I, as a business owner, a small business owner. When I look at my cost to train staff, I’d see no reason to train them for a code that’s used in one city. If you were dealing with a few minor minutes that addressed specific local conditions that is appropriate. We must retain the local control to be able to address issues that are specific to our city. But when you reach the point that you have here, where the amendment package is larger than the code itself, I really start to ask if this is really not on some other agenda other than dealing with the best interests of the public.
And as the chairman requested, you asked that we stick to a particular item. I’ll address 1.7.1.5, unlawful use for occupancy. You don’t have to flash to it. It’s not that critical. It basically addresses the fact that if the Building Official determines there to be some sort of non-compliance, he can issue a stop work order and give you 30 days to correct the situation. Now, I’ve heard so much literature yakking about the fact that NFPA is a consensus code, and it involves everybody. It’s so good.
But I’m going to tell you who it hasn’t addressed. It hasn’t addressed the poor. The poor who can’t afford to buy a membership in NFPA or afford to travel to the hearings to vote to protect their interests. Now, who protects their interests at that level? If you look at a complaint that was filed by the League of California Cities National Coalition of Taxpayers and _____, against the NFPA for their recent findings on 1710, they found that they didn’t follow proper procedure. They did not have balanced participation in their committees. It was a money issue. So the code was representing the people with money.
Now, if you look at that from two angles, you got a problem. The developers with money who are going to look at building a building here versus building it in Goodyear or Queen Creek or Glendale. They are not going to want to spend the extra money. They’re not going to bring in projects, it’s not going to make it work, it’s not going to build the tax base, it’s not going to give the City money to run and take care of its people.
If you went with a code that we worked with the system when adopted, and as an architect, we came out, and we said, “Come on, guys. Let’s get together and have this code consistent.” You would be allowing workers moving from city to city to place where work is available without retraining. So, I guess my question is, who is truly representing those people who are unable to pay the memberships? When you look at this section of the code it says 30 days, and after 30 days, get out. There isn’t any method here that addresses appropriate compliance, appropriate notification, appropriate time frames directly related to the specific violation at hand. So I urge you to consider the fact that as jurisdictions must represent all of their residents, we must also represent the poor. And I don’t think this does.
Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chair, before she leaves. The question to Mr. Doell is basically the section, which she is referring to,
is identical to what is in the code currently, is it not?
Rick Doell
It’s been that way for a long time, yes.
Sharon Bonesteel:
I looked specifically at the IBC, and section 105 as it addressed violations. There is no specific time frame
noted there. It does, however, address a time appropriate to the violation.
Rick Doell:
There is currently the Phoenix Construction Code. That’s what I am referring to.
The Phoenix Construction Code, from which most of our legal department makes recommendations. What we did here was just bring forward what we’d done in the past. There’s nothing new.
Sharon Bonesteel:
I guess if you want to address it from that direction, I’m saying that what is in here as 30 days is
inappropriate as a flat base quantity for a violation. 5 days may be appropriate, or 90 days may be
appropriate. If you specifically modify this section of the code, to address equipment, as well as buildings
and facilities. Well, a piece of equipment may not be a life safety item. It may be a monetary item to a
poor person, in terms of using two or three paychecks to get the money to fix the piece of equipment. They
may be willing to live without turning off their water heater or something like that for 90 days, because they
just don’t have the money to fix it. But there’s no provision in this specific section that allows you to go
to anything more or anything less than 30 days.
Rick Doell:
I don’t know that this is the appropriate place to debate the administrative portion though we have the elite
based upon certain conditions. But if it’s an unsafe condition, our mandate is to cease and desist …
Sharon Bonesteel:
That is correct, and in some cases the cease and desist order must include something that will happen
immediately. The way this section is written, it is strictly 30 days. It doesn’t address making it less.
It doesn’t address making it more.
My point, primarily, is that this says and I quote, reading directly from your document, “Within a 30 day period after receipt of notice of __________, such building apart therefore shall be made compliant with the requirements of this code.” It goes on to cite two other sections of the code, which deal with emergency situations. It does not address in any manner whatsoever allowing additional time for those areas, which are not immediately a life safety issue. It may be something that a poor person is incapable of paying for in a 30-day period. Even with good intent.
Rick Doell:
I would suggest that the … sit down and discuss it. But there’s an appeal section in here that allows you to
do just that. There’s also another section that talks about violations and the remedies, and what you have to
do to go through certain things to do that. It’s not suggesting that section – the whole document
together – you have to see the whole picture. You’re finding things that are missing, and they are the same
things that have been missing for the last 15 years. So we’d like to fix that. But we have passed this
document to our attorneys, because this is our legal, our administrative part. We need to have that as
protecting the city. We don’t want end up with a legal situation…
Sharon Bonesteel:
And I believe my legitimate concern is that that section of the code specifically identifies 30 days, and that
perhaps what you ought to do is modify that one section to be. –
Pete Hemingway:
I think he’s saying that we can always do an amendment or change the policy or procedure to address that.
(inaudible)
Sharon Bonesteel:
And what I see as, and this is just one example of where the poor individuals of the city …
Pete Hemingway:
Do you have a business card? You do have a card up here. And that’s your address and phone number where you
can be reached. OK. Mr. Tracy Finley
Tracy Finley:
Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
Pete Hemingway:
Tracy is opposed to item #8.
Tracy Finley:
My name is Tracy Finley. I’m with Shea Homes, and I’m also an active member of the residential subgroup.
Just a couple of clarification items, if we could just take a second. Section 38.7, in your supplemental
packet. The small thin packet. Page 8 of 10.
In our residential subgroup, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we have created a checklist (inaudible) we’ve been resolving and working through it. I just have a little bit of a concern because I’ve noted seven or eight proposals that we have approved. In our meeting minutes we have voted on, they are approved, they should be in this document today. And they are not in this document today. If you’d like, I can list and go over them separately with the particular exceptions.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. McElvaney, I’m sure you can get those from Tracy. I’m sorry – I know you worked so well on them. So I
don’t know if you want to go through them again.
Tracy Finley:
I’m just going to ask you a question. We’re going to go on from this point to item #9, and potentially take
action to accept the amendments. How do we do … they are there, but they’re not there?
Pete Hemingway:
We’ll have to discuss that at Item #9, but we may have to come up with some way of addressing that on #9.
I agree there are some concerns as far as what we have here today.
Tracy Finley:
Well, with some of the items – very important items … taking the time to reveal … so that list that you have
there … Joe does have a list. Would you like the latest checklist listings? I’ll just run through them.
(Inaudible) There was a proposal from artistic … we’ve already approved that. (Inaudible)
Section 22.2.2.5 – we modified the single family home with a second story of over 2,000 square feet.
We modified that to say 2,500 square feet.<