Those are all items that have to do with a table that tells you, based on the construction type what and now (inaudible) quality is construction met. How much area are you allowed to have in the building. I think what we have here is something pretty extraordinary, because the two model codes, the NFPA 5000 and the IBC.

The IBC is the evolution of the UBC, SPECI, or whatever is the other code. The table is kind of the cornerstone. Architecturally, this is the meaning code. This is where you find out the character of the building, the way it's going to be, and out much it's going to cost you. These charts have been around for a long time in the codes. Now what has happened, since those three codes have merged and evolved, they have become less restrictive than they were in the past. This kind of thing doesn't happen. In the NPFA 5000, their standards are almost identical with regards to these items.

A couple of these other items are if you are allowed to have a certain increases in height and area when the (inaudible) sprinkler system. That's what all of these involve, I won't get into all the details.

I think what we have is a situation with the codes that have been progressive. Saying that fire resistance requirements have changed sprinkler system safety has increased. Enough to the point where they were two codes, not just one have decided to make very similar height and area requirements.

What has happened through this process is those have been taken away in the (inaudible). I would just urge the Board to not approve those particular items.

Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chair, so it's clear you're talking about the amendment package, height and area terms, not the actual code.

Jim Ternosky:
Yes

Pete Hemingway:
Any further questions for Mr. Ternosky? I know you're a part of the process, just so everyone is aware, these items were previously raised and I think they did, you may want to correct me if I'm wrong, but it did go through each one of the subcommittees and was raised at the Correlating Subcommittee level. I think that is why there in the amended portions of the code.

That was informational for everybody. I wasn't arguing with you one way or the other.

Jim Ternosky:
I just wanted to point out the impact that this has on development, particularly multi-family dwellings downtown. I think the (inaudible) see the NFPA 5000 in regards to these tables themselves with the (inaudible) effect that encourages voting this type of development. I think that's a missed opportunity instead of back to more restrictions and not as good of a situation to encourage the development of downtown.

Larry Litchfield:
If I can ask that those four items that you mentioned, if they went away, would you support the amended package?

Jim Ternosky:
Like I said, I would like to have more time to review the entire package.

Larry Litchfield:
Those four items are the key.

Jim Ternosky:
I think they are critical.

Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Mr. Brian Cassidy, is opposed to this item.

Brian Cassidy:
My name is Brian Cassidy. I am a practicing Architect here in Phoenix, with CCBG Architects. I am also the elected president of the American Institute of Architects for this year.

Like a lot of people, who spoke here today, we would to see some extension for the review process here and just for a couple of reasons.

It's a pretty healthy document that that ends in their own right with the practicing Architects in this community; the construction community and development community, including the in-house building review people.

The NFPA Code originally written has never been enforced anywhere, so it's unfamiliar with everybody to being with. The amendments are lengthy and the process of having as written code amended and having to compare them side by side, it's a time consuming process to review it.

We would just like to ask you to at least extend this a 60-day additional period. As I said earlier, we will make sure that our membership is distributed copies.

Pete Hemingway:
I heard that you have been fairly responsive. Any idea on the sentiment as far as numbers? I'm trying to get a sense. Are we talking about five people reviewing them or I mean you guys are pretty wide . . .

Brian Cassidy:
I would say that 50 to 100 people have a strong interest out of our membership alone.

Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Ms. Courtney Gilstrap, she's opposed to this item and she wishes to speak.

Courtney Gilstrap:
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I probably don't need to reiterate, but I would agree with those previous statements that we would like to see a little longer review time.

Personally since I've sat on the Residential Subcommittee and the Administration Subcommittee, I have not been able to get the entire document, due to having followed this and other business. I do have some issues and concerns and I have found some mistakes and would like the opportunity to sit back down with staff to go back through it and make sure that it's taken care of accordingly. I haven't even touched on the Administration Chapter yet, which is quite extensive.

Another point I would like to bring forward to put on Public Record. Rick Doell sent me an e-mail to let me know that this has been taken care of. Although, Gilstrap and Associates does represent the International Code Council, we were not representing them in the community level, the International Code. For the record I'd like to clear up that misunderstanding.

Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. We have Mr. Rick Thornberry, the Alliance of Fire Safety. He is in favor of this item and he does wish to speak.

Rick Thornberry:
Good afternoon. I'm Rick Thornbery with the Code Consortium representing the Alliance for Fire Safety and I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'll be the first one in support of this, so hopefully we can change the tone here.

I came basically to be here to answer any questions who have responded and comments that need response depending on (inaudible). We've been participating in this code for several months now and we feel that we've been given more than a fair chance to present our views (inaudible) and we're very supportive of where you are today with your amendment package. We think that you're going to have a very good and safe code for your community. We've addressed many concerns that we've brought forward to the Commercial Subcommittee and will end up maintaining your fire life safety measures.

I think I do need to respond briefly to some of the comments regarding the heights and areas. His concerns of things were very significant relating to the NFPA 5000. Quite frankly we were the ones who brought that information to you. If you recall, one of these meetings at City Hall where it's kind of noisy because of the traffic in the background, I think we had a pretty good discussion there about it. There has also been extensive discussion in the Subcommittee meeting and some of it even made it to the Correlating Subcommittee.

I think it's been discussed at length. The main point to make here is that basically with this kind of package we're maintaining what you have already have (inaudible). So you're not making it any more restrictive, you're not making anything less restrictive than basically bringing forward that level of fire life safety to relation to basic construction of the building in your community with these amendments. If you don't bring these amendments forward, they will definitely lower bars in providing the level of fire life safety in comparing the building based on the requirements for (inaudible), which the gentlemen said before (inaudible).

So we're very supportive of what you're doing and thing that's very important. A good example to make to you in this evaluation is that if you were going to be simply adopting a new edition of the UBC, this would be finished and you would continue on with the height and area table in the UBC. However, if somebody came to you with an height and area table that looked like that in the NFPA 5000, I would think that he would want some technical justification for why there (inaudible) that height and area which (inaudible) fire resistance fire protection requirements of the code.

What's been told to you and what they represent to you is that the ICC is very similar to you, and quite frankly they do. In fact, the NFPA 5000 table is basically taken from the ICC actual building code. I happen to be on the task group, you heard from Bill Koppel before, who is the chairman of the task group. I happen to be on that same task group as Mr. Koppel when we did that. If you recall, it's coincidental that matches the IBC Code, because that is the only table out there that was available at the time when we ran out of time trying to evaluate what to do in NFPA 5000 to address heights and areas.

We have done extensive study trying to develop a new concept for heights and areas and just basically (inaudible). We couldn't get there and in the last minute we had to do something, so we pulled basically the height and area table from the IBC so there was really no technical for rational justification other than that. That the encomplilation of, what we call the lowest common denominator falls on premodel codes. You end up less safe than all of the model codes that you have in the IBC and NFPA 5000.

Pete Hemingway:
Do we have any questions at this time? Ok, thank you.

We have a couple of more cards. Mr. Tracy Finley, he's opposed to this item. He's indicated that he does not wish to speak.

We have Mr. Rus Brock and he's also opposed to this item and he also does not wish to speak.

Rus Brock:
Yes, I do wish to speak.

I'm Rus Brock with the Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona. I'm opposed to moving this code forward. I have participated in the code development meetings for the Residential Subcommittees since it's beginning. We have implemented that with some 20 plus revisions that gets to very close to building the same house that we build today. What it can't do is take a set of plans from Surprise, Mesa, or Queen Creek or any of the other cities that have already adopted the I-Code and bring them to Phoenix.

So my opposition is now about needing more time to review it, although I have not yet distributed to our entire membership (inaudible) Tracy Finley, Steve Curtis and the other folks that sat in and represented the homebuilders. We'll give it out to the rest of our membership for a look.

I actually just think it's the wrong code for Phoenix. When we were at the table to (inaudible) defensive (inaudible) approach to supporting this as the correct code. I am (inaudible) to doing it over and have been from the beginning and will be.

Pete Hemingway:
Ok, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Brock. That's all the discussion items that we have on item no. 8, and with that we'd like to open it up for Board discussion at this time. We do have a motion on the table.

Ken Roth:
The question is what detrimental affect would it have to extend this so that they can do some additional review?

Pete Hemingway:
As far as I know, there would be a real detrimental think at this time. Extended it would probably allow the community more time to review the amendments and see what potential impact. It might be more from a revision, to make sure things fit together. We don't have anything that needs to be resolved at the Correlating Subcommittee. Any items that are raised at this time, we would then refer to the Correlating Subcommittee for resolution unless they needed at that level to be moved back to a subcommittee level.

I anticipate that if we extended any additional comments or concerns would be directed to Mr. Joe McElvaney. He would then incorporate them and then move them forward to the Correlating Subcommittee.

Up until this time, everything has kind of cumulated at the Correlating Subcommittee where we have major issues that needed to be resolved. I would recommend that we would go back to the Correlating Subcommittee with those issues, have them consider it, and then move it forward back to the Board.

Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chair, I think having heard a lot of the….the amendments are fairly lengthy in review and most of the people that are testifying today indicated they need more time. I think more time would be in order.

There's a number of things happening, I think, there are some projects that will be coming in, in the near future trying to use the 5000. There are some advantages of using a newer code versus and older code that is more current, whatever code that is. Those, I think, will continue and that way there may be some opportunities for the code to be used, actually through the modification process. This has been used in a number of other buildings, even under the UBC code. For example the Mayo Hospital's modification was submitted and approved to use the NFPA Life Safety Code on that hospital.

Maybe during the summer would be a good time for some of those things to take place and for the various organizations to get more time to review the document and the amendments. NFPA has a continual process and there may be some other changes coming up in the next few months that might be instrumental to look at.

Whether it be appropriate to add an amendment to your motion or to put a time frame on your motion, but yet to allow an additional review time. I would say through the summer, which would, be September 1st or something like that. With vacations and everything you're going to loose another month in there and some of the organizations don't meet during the summer months. If we push this out until September 15th, which would be sometime around our next meeting, I mean the September meeting.

Pete Hemingway:
Exactly

Larry Litchfield:
This would allow a continual process of the digestion of the amendments. The Correlating Subcommittee would be meet on a regular ad hoc basis whenever there are changes that they need to look at. Like you said, reassignment or maybe send them back to the various subcommittees on the technical issues and allow a good digestion of the amendments that have take place. This would also allow a couple of the projects that are coming forward that want to use the 5000 because of the advantages of using the 5000 for their particular uses. Allow those to take place so staff can get a chance to review and apply the code on those particular projects and let staff also make some… there may some other amendments as the actual application of those codes. That would allow a little bit of a digestion process, a little bit of a cooling off process, and allow maybe another level of comfort to be gained in the actual use of this code and the application of the code during the summer.

If that's appropriate I'd like to offer an amendment to put a time frame on your motion that we actually revisit this motion in September at the September meeting and allow a digestion of the amendments during the summer months.

Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Colletto

Mike Colletto:
Let it be said to not rush into judgement. I will concur with Larry's September meeting. What I would like to remind everybody is we, a couple of months ago, we deferred action. With a defer action again, so we have given you almost plenty of time to marshal their arguments. I still think it's fairly clear that we will not change many minds by September 15th. I don't think the positions will change. With that, I accept Larry's amendment.

Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Russell is that alright?

Greg Russell:
I accept, too.

Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Russell and Mr. Colletto have accepted the recommendation of Mr. Litchfield. Any other further discussion from the Board members?

Just to let you know right now, if we were to accept the September 15th time frame, our September meeting is September 19th, so it will be after that date. That would coincide with, I think, with the intent of your recommendation.

Herman Orcutt:
Mr. Chairman, is the motion then to essentially defer to until the September meeting?

Pete Hemingway:
Basically that is what we're looking at and then at that time we would be taking action. Staff has a question.

Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chair, since you guys have voted that we cannot accept new amendments, the only comments that we're going to get, from my understanding is editorial clarification on this package that everybody has now, and that's it. No new amendments will be voted on at this time. Is that my understanding?

Pete Hemingway:
Is it my understanding that staff can entertain new amendments?

Rick Doell:
Mr. Chairman, that would mean that we would be opening up the process again and we would have to open up all the subcommittees again. If that's the wish of the Board, that's the wish of the Board.

Pete Hemingway:
Further discussion?

Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chair, I think that my amendment was to only consider those amendments that are on the table at this time to allow that review and application of those amendments not to create some more.

Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Mardian

Scott Mardian:
Mr. Chairman, if in September we say go ahead, and an issue comes up with a code, it would just be handled in that same way. So the staff, I would assume, would just take comments just like they would if it happened after September and review things that just aren't working out. I don't see a problem with that.

Rick Doell:
Mr. Chair, can we get a clarification of the actual motion?

Pete Hemingway:
Do you want to state it Mike?

Mike Colletto:
My concept of the motion is that we
RESTATEMENT OF THE MOTION
defer Item No. 8, which states, "Discussion/Possible Action on recommendation for the Adoption of the Amended National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 5000, 2003 Edition as the Construction Code of the City of Phoenix and Advancing to the Step 5 of the Five-Step Process" until the September 2003 meeting of the Development Advisory Board. In the interim, people will be able to talk about editing, clarifications, etc.

Pete Hemingway:
In essence this agenda item won't appear until the September 2003 meeting. In that time, staff will have the opportunity to have projects, hopefully go through at least part of the process and be review and at that time we'll have a report from staff, as far as the status and where things are moving forward.

Any further discussion?

Patricia Childs:
I have a question. Can we get some feelings of the people that said no today and want this declined. We're going to give them extra time. Can we get have a commitment on their part to come to the table ready to make a decision?

Pete Hemingway:
I guess what I'm understanding is, on the September meeting we'll be moving forward and taking action and that gives everyone ample time to have input into the process. I think that's being fair.

Any further discussion?

MOTION VOTE
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion as restated by Mr. Colletto and seconded by Mr. Russell. All in favor, none opposed.

DISCUSSION/INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION (BTR) MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF SPRINKLER AND FIRE ALARM PLANS. (THIS ITEM IS THE REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE BTR REGULATION OR RULING OF THE SUBMITTAL OF SPRINKLER AND FIRE ALARM PLANS):
Mr. Litchfield stated that there seems to be a disparity about how various cities in the valley are handling the submittal and process of sprinkler and fire alarm plans. Mr. Litchfield requested this to be on the agenda to get staff input as to what the process and procedures are for the City of Phoenix. He provided the BTR policy statement as to how they think the plan submittal for sprinkler are to be done for the Boards review.

Mr. McElvaney stated that currently the sprinkler contractor fire alarm contractor submits, what he calls, strap drawings to the Fire Department for review. They review those drawings and calculations that are related to them. Staff does not go into the design details of the plans. Based on the policy that was distributed to the Board, it implies that a registered needs to certain things for fire alarms and sprinklers. Mr. McElvaney suggested that maybe the Architects and Engineers can do additional up front work to meet this need. He suggested that the Fire Department could require stamped drawings up front.

Mr. Litchfield requested that staff reviews this item and come back to the Board with a recommendation of how they would meet the BTR's policy statement. There appears to be a potential liability for the City, which he is concerned about. He continued to say that if the plans are not being submitted per the state regulations or policy statement and the City is accepting them, and subsequently issuing permits on it and something were to occur after the fact, there seems to be a potential liability. To avoid any potential liability, this is primarily the nature of his inquiry. Mr. Litchfield wants to make sure that the City is adhering to the policies of the State and that they are accepting plans for both sprinkler and fire alarms with a policy that meets those guidelines.

Mr. McElvaney stated that it's not Development Services responsibility for this type of plan review. He stated that he will take this issue to the Fire Safety Advisory Board, which is the oversight of the Fire Department, and go from there. The Development Services Department has confirmed that we want a sprinkler system and the Fire Department will follow it.

Mr. Hemingway stated if the Board was to take action they could recommend to the Fire Safety Advisory Board that plans are sealed by a professional registrant in order to be submitted. Mr. McElvaney stated that parts of the plans need to be sealed and parts do not. If the policy was followed, this is what he would be asking.

Mr. Litchfield inquired if it would be appropriate to develop a written policy. Mr. McElvaney stated that this will be deferred to the Fire Department for their review.

Mr. Hemingway stated that Mr. Frank Martinez and Mr. John Mata, who completed public comment cards are both in favor of this item and did not wish to speak at this time.

Mr. Scott Mardian asked if this would change how or when the drawings are submitted and if this would delay this process. Mr. Orcutt stated that there are two ways that the cities around the valley handle this. One is that a set of plans are submitted and stamped by a registrant that says that they are installing a sprinkler system and will comply with NFPA. Then through the course of construction the contractor brings forth a sprinkler contractor and they develop a set of plans submitted to the fire department and they're approved and it's done. Mr. Litchfield stated that these are shop drawings. Mr. Orcutt continued to say that the other way a completed set of sprinkler drawings is submitted included with plans. Mr. Litchfield stated that there is a way of submitting the engineering plans that are signed and sealed up front, just as it's currently being done. They may need a bit more information on them than they do currently. Possibly a design criteria that is set up. A lot of cities are doing it different ways. Mr. Litchfield stated that his hope is that Phoenix comes up with the appropriate policy that fits their needs so that they're covered from a liability point of view.

Mr. Michael Fries stated that everyone in the area is used to a certain way and this may cause a problem if the policy is changed. He also mentioned that if you have a full set of drawings there is better coordination. Whatever direction the City decides to follow there has to be a stamped registrant for certain sized projects.

Mr Litchfield that this would be a much better approach to have this worked out at the subcommittee level and come back to the Board for a decision.

A motion was made by Michael Fries, seconded by Larry Litchfield, that this issue would be an appropriate subject for the Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire Safety, and Energy Subcommittee to obtain if we want the group to work with the Fire Safety Advisory Board to develop a policy that Development Services can work. Motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Hemingway asked Mr. McElvaney to arrange to meet with the Fire Safety Advisory Board and discuss this issue to streamline this process.

DISCUSSION/INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX STORM WATER POLICY AND STANDARDS MANUAL:
Mr. Ralph Goodall, Civil Engineer, Street Transportation Department, stated that the City of Phoenix Storm Water Policy and Standards Manual is very close to finalization. He stated that he has been working on the many aspects of the manual, including the drainage software and the redesign of the Maricopa County Flood Control District Hydraulics Manual, which will be a part of the storm water design package. Mr. Goodall has worked with many people over the past years to refine this manual including staff from the Street Transportation, Development Services, Engineering and Architectural Services, Parks Department, and the Planning Department. He also has work with many Engineers from the Flood Control District, many local consulting Engineers, The Arizona Consulting Engineers Council, Local Chapter of the American Public Works Association, Central Arizona Homebuilders Association, and the DAB Technical Subcommittee. He expressed his thanks for all of their contributions and time.

In May of 2002, the first draft of this manual was posted on the City's website for public review and comment. This posting remained on-line and open for comments for ten months. During that time, Mr. Goodall, responded to many comments and worked with all the previously mentioned groups to refine the manual. On March 7, 2003, the final draft manual was posted to the City website. This posting indicated that it would be open for public review and comment for 30 days. During this time he received many comments from local engineering consulting firms and the Homebuilders Association. Mr. Goodall has been working with Mr. Rus Brock, Homebuilders Association, and his review committee trying to clarify several of the standards that have issues and questions about some of the standards that were written. The sessions have been very effective and he believes that the manual is very close to consensus and completion of the drainage policy and standards.

Mr. Goodall stated that over the next few weeks he will be working with the Homebuilders Association and their review committee to complete the standards clarifications and he anticipates to returning to the DAB in June to report that the manual is essentially complete. At that time, he would like to request endorsement from the DAB.

Mr. Goodall mentioned that Chapter 5 of the manual, City Codes, will be the only portion of the manual that will not be completed at that time. The various city codes that currently relate to storm water drainage cannot be changed until all the new policies and standards have been fully worked out. Anticipating endorsement by the DAB, they will then begin the task of redrafting the various city codes to refer to the new drainage manual. This will be worked on over the summer and will bring the new proposed revisions to the City Council for approval sometime this fall. At that point, Chapter 5 will be completed.

This manual is a designed to be a living document with the ability to grow and change and the city grows and changes. Mr. Hemingway thanked Mr. Goodall for all his tireless efforts in working with this manual. He stated that this has been on going for the past 6-years and he had an opportunity to sit with the discussion committee with the Homebuilders Association.

Mr. Orcutt asked if any of the DAB Subcommittee's worked on this. Mr. Hemingway stated that a Technical subcommittee was formulated to address this. This Subcommittee was formed with the assistance of Mr. Carnell Thurman. Mr. Hemingway and Mr. Thurman did have some input in this manual.

Mr. Wilson asked if this Subcommittee has met since that time and wouldn't this be coming forward as a recommendation from that Subcommittee. Mr. Hemingway stated that he would like to meet for one additional meeting as a follow-up. The Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for May 21st at 2:30 p.m. to review the document and bring it to closure.

Mr. Wilson extended his appreciation to the time, Mr.Goodall, has invested in putting this draft together.

Mr. Hemingway stated that the Board will be tabling this item to the June 2003 DAB meeting and will take action on it at that time.

CONTINUING ITEM NO. 4/SUBCOMMITTEE REORTS:
Mr. Hemingway stated that he overlooked a Subcommittee report by the Water Services Subcommittee.

Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Mardian agreed to chair this subcommittee. Mr. Mardian stated that some staff from the Water Department are involved in this subcommittee. He mentioned that this was more of an introductory meeting for the group. They discussed what their goals were going to be.

The subcommittee did discuss an issue from the county on meter placement. No action was taken on this issue. Mr. Wison stated that this issue covered courtyard or cluster type developments having to do with mandates of the County Health Department criteria. Mr. Wilson mentioned that the Water Services Department does have a new design manual, which will be forthcoming with direct water and sewer system design.

Mr. Wilson stated that the members include:

CALL TO THE PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
Mr. Rick Doell stated that DSD staff met with some neighborhood activists and based upon that meeting requested that they attend this DAB meeting to plead their case. He stated that since none of them showed up at this meeting, he would like to speak in their behalf.

Mr. Doell mentioned that they are concerned with the lack of fence permits. There are fences being built with right-of-ways, in other residence's yards. They requested that the Board to consider the fence permits. Mr. Doell stated that this is being done with the code adoption, but the adoption of the code will be done in the future. He suggested that it might be in the best interest to pursue the fence permitting issue.

Mr. Hemingway requested that this be added to the next DAB agenda.

Mr. Hemingway would like to have an action item on the next agenda to consider to present Mr. Gary Coley with a commendation in consideration that Mr. Coley was the first chairperson of the DAB.

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Larry Litchfield, to adjourn the May 15, 2003, DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously. seconded

Thank you.

Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

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

Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, Secretary III

c:

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

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

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