October 16, 2003
| Members Present
Mike Colletto Herb Hacker Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffron Scott Mardian Herman Orcutt Danny Ortega Greg Russell Kenneth Roth Steve Speer Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson
Members Absent
|
Staff Traci Bangor, City of Phoenix, DSD Karen Beckley, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Chaun Hill, City of Phoenix, Streets Lionel Lyons, City of Phoenix, DSD Director Bill McComas, City of Phoenix, DSD Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD John Parks, City of Phoenix, DSD Cindy Stotler, City of Phoenix, DSD John Watson, Phoenix Fire Randy Weaver, City of Phoenix, DSD
Ex-Officio's Present
Ex-Officio's Absent
Others in Attendance
|
Approval of September 18, 2003 Minutes
Motion was made by Julie Stiak, seconded by Barbara Koffron, to approve the meeting minutes of September 18, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Orcutt stated that he received an e-mail from an architect in Phoenix who was concerned with detectable warning issues.
Mr. Rick Doell stated that he was referring to truncated domes on curb cuts. He Mr. Orcutt suggested that this item be
placed on the agenda for November 2003.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Process and Procedures Subcommittee:
Mr. Doell stated that the Process and Procedures Subcommittee did not meet in October.
Fiscal and Performance:
Ms. Julie Stiak stated that the Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee did not meet in October.
Water Services Subcommittee:
Scott Mardian stated that there was nothing new to report on the Water and Wastewater Manual, as it's still under revision
at this time.
NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code:
Mr. Doell stated that nothing has moved forward since the last Developoment Advisory Board Meeting
Hillside:
Mr. John Parks stated that the Hillside Subcommittee did not met. He reported that the City Council did approve the
subdivision portion of the Hillside Text Amendment. A lot of work went into this amendment. It's been adopted and will
be in effect in 30 days.
Technical:
Mike Colletto statedthat this subcommittee did not meet in October.
Fence Permitting Ad Hoc Subcommittee:
This subcommittee did not meet due to lack of a quorum.
DISCUSSION/UPDATE/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT:
Ms. Cindy Stotler, DSD, stated that the development economy has recovered. She distributed copies of the Operational
Statistics Report, along with the Fund Balance Report to the board. She stated that after three months, revenue started
to skyrocket. Civil and residential permits began to pick up and brought the revenue up much higher than was estimated.
At the same time, the expenditures came in about a million dollars lower than estimated, which was due the general economy
and the state and the city.
Ms. Stotler stated that there was a 28% increase in single-family permits. The trend seems to be continuing into this fiscal year as well. Residential inspections are up approximately $120,000 per year. Commercial has been down over the past couple of years. Large projects such as hospitals, Mayo Clinic, Civic Plaza, & TGEN, just to name a few, make valuation increase.
Ms. Stotler presented a power point presentation to the Board and continued to explain the financial status of the department.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM HERMAN::
Mr. Orcutt made an announcement that Patrick Ravenstein, Neighborhood Services Department, will be replacing Joe Parma;
Michael Hamblin, Law, will be replacing Don Jones; and Michelle Dodd, Planning Department will be replacing Sandy Zwick
as ex-officio members for City departments.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE RIO SALADO BEYOND THE BACKS AREA DRAFT PLAN:
Ms. Susan Sargent, Planning Department, did a short presentation on this item. She distributed a summary of Beyond the
Banks Area Plan Recommendations. Ms. Sargent stated that planning for this project started about two years ago. This
area is from Interstate 17, South to Broadway Road, between 19th Avenue and 32nd Street. This is over seven square miles
of the planning area. The purpose of this plan is to compliment the Rio Salado Project. The Rio Salado Project is under
way and is a 100 million-dollar investment, which has been shared between the City and the US Army Core of Engineers,
along with the Maricopa County Flood Control District.
The City's investment has been of such magnitude, that City Council felt it was necessary to move forward with the plan in order to project the area around the Rio Salado Project, the area within the Banks. This would also expand opportunities for future investment in the area beyond the banks.
Ms. Sargent stated that the planning effort of this project is multi-departmental and it is also involved working with the Rio Salado Advisory Committee, which consists of 25 members. Council appointed them and they consist of business community residents of Central City Village and South Mountain Village, along with interested members of the community. They meet four times per year. Over 30 meetings have been held thus far with a lot of community input. She continued to explain all of the revisions that the area will have once this project is completed.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE STREET CLOSURE FOR LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS:
Randy Weaver, Development Services Department, made a brief presentation on the Street Closure Policy and distributed paperwork
regarding this issue. He is requesting that the Board recommend moving this forward to City Council.
Motion was made by Ken Roth, seconded by Julie Stiak, to approve the Street Closure Policy for Local Residential Streets and send on to the City Council for their consideration. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action on the motion made a the September 18, 2003 DAB meeting:
"That the Board puts back to City Council a request for redirection on the consensus status for the NFPA 5000 amendment
process, and also for consideration of the financial implications that the Board has heard from constituents through the
process and that this be completed in a 60-day period."
Herman Orcutt
We have some cards here that people that want to speak. I'm going to ask Lionel to come up and say a few words, if he cares to.
We were handed two letters. I would request that somebody in the audience who put a card in to speak to give us some
background on those letters.
Lionel Lyons
Mr. Chair, all of you in the DAB approved a motion at your last meeting, from a staff perspective, kind of leaves us in
a quandary, in terms of where to go with this. The direction from the City Council was for you to give them direction in
this process. But according to you motion, the way I read it you're asking for the City Council to reconsider what
they're doing and give you direction on what you've done is right or wrong.
I'm here with the staff, we're here to facilitate any specific questions. We started this process of trying to break down what this actually means in terms of a motion. Traditionally when we take a motion on to a subcommittee or to the City Council, we need a motion that says, "we are presenting this to you and the DAB has voted no against it but here's the staff recommendation that we are passing along." This right here was so ambiguous from a staff perspective that based on your 60-days that you've outlined there, to be very honest with you, the past 30-days or so nothing much as been done. There is no where to take this right now.
I would honestly say to you though, and as I always do, I look at things in a very positive side. There is a little bit of ambiguity in this motion, is a further realization as we talked before that there has been numerous issues raised as it relates to NFPA 5000, as you and I know it, in terms of the issue of what does it mean in terms of a fiscal impact.
Secondly, as you are all aware, in the July 2003 meeting we had a group from the AMA and others who came before you as well. They asked you, the DAB, to consider and or reconsider some other items more fully in your subcommittee process that they thought would have better enhanced the process that we've gone through. Similar to having the homebuilders and others at the table who have worked very actively with us through this process. Unfortunately through this process, members of the AMA and others, were here but not fully involved and engaged from a technical aspect.
There are some issues, that no matter what your motion or direction is, as the director of the department, I will say to you that fundamentally and fully that the City Council members are going to want certain questions addressed. That question is "What is the Fiscal Impact of the NPFA to the I-Code or I-Code NFPA?" The second element of it is that no matter what we do in this process, whether you go with NFPA 5000 or do absolutely nothing, in the end we still need a new updated building code. There are some issues that have been raised by the AMA and the Multi-Housing Association and others in this process that I think, needs to be fully addressed.
I am appealing to you as a professional staff person. On behalf of the department that you, through your subcommittee process and your correlating committee process, that you give staff one clear direction to work and to fully address, and to look at the best that we can, the issues that were included in the letter of July 7, 2003 that came from Joe, Suzanne, and others in that process. You all voted that say that we felt that the process is closed and we didn't really need to consider that any more. Staff had done some preliminary work in that project coming back to you.
I've had another meeting with that group today, as well as the City Manager's office, this morning. They're very clear in terms of the issues of concern about the Fiscal impact and the second element of that is how this impacts the industry and an opportunity for them to sit down with staff and individuals of your community to see if we can find a way to address some of those issues.
I would say to you quite frankly to you as I prepare to try and take your motion to move it to the next level, which is a Public Safety Subcommittee, which would be the next logical step, the ambiguity here does not allow me anything of substance to take anywhere. This is really fallen on deaf ear. No matter what you do, we as professional staff people have to have an updated code in Phoenix. I need some clarity in that process but secondly I encourage you to direct us. I ask to you put your process in place with your subcommittees and your technical and your correlating committee to sit down and to fully work with the group of Janet, Joe, and the technical people to see if we can find someway to potentially address their concerns in a reasonable time frame.
We still have time right now, because I would honestly say to you based on the inability to come back with clarity to the City Council, they are not prepared to go any further with this motion or the subcommittee with this motion so I would encourage you, if you can, think about the recommendations that I suggested in terms of addressing their issues. Secondly, appoint a committee to fully look at and assess, to the best of your knowledge, the fiscal impact of this. Thirdly, give staff some direction to work with the committee and hopefully we can come back with it in a set time frame. If that is the end of December or the end or the first of January, we're open and receptive to working with them to do that.
Herman Orcutt
I got the sense from the discussion the last time and the majority of the people here that I think they're saying we want
to step back a step back further than that. That yes, we've looked at one code and we've done a very exhausting job of
looking at that will probably continue to. Is that really the main issue? We might be looking at the wrong code.
Certainly we should be looking at two codes, the other code that is really the dominant code in the United States today.
I think that's the issue that we're talking here.
Lionel Lyons
Let me address that question for you. That is an issue that's on the table, but that's not an issue from that perspective
and from my professional judgement in our legal (inaudible) that you and I have the authority to make that decision.
That is the decision that can be made only by the City Council.
One, in 1997 when City Council directed us to go into this and subsequently in 2000 open and consensus. NFPA 5000, based on the recommendation of our Legal Department, says that NFPA 5000 meets those criteria.
What I would suggest to you in this process, that's a whole other dog for a whole other fight. Firstly, in order to address the issue here, I think we have an obligation to do the due diligence to address the issues that I brought up before. Secondly, with that being finalized, then we have the opportunity to take it to the next step, which is Step 5, allow the Public Safety Subcommittee and/or the City Council subsequently, then for you to raise those issues. Maybe in that process the subcommittee and/or the City Council will redirect us as professional staff people to go back and do that side by side comparison that some are suggesting that we do.
Herman Orcutt
I appreciate that. I guess the way I see, as an advisory committee, we're saying, "let's stop right now and throw the
ball back and raise that issue."
Ken Roth
In an effort to maybe to move this on and certainly answer some of Mr. Lyon's concerns about it, I've got a proposal
I'd like to pass around and at least discuss. It talks about the issues that were raised the last time, certainly on a
more clear basis, so if I could pass this sheet around. I'll be glad to read it. Maybe this answers certainly your
concerns, I think it would answers concerns of the DAB. If I may.
Pete Heningway
Mr. Chairman, what action can we take today that would modify what we did at the last meeting. Can we do something today
to modify the 60-day period or do we have to wait until that expires before we take another action. We did take action,
basically saying that we're going to wait 60-days. Does Legal need to advise us what we can and what we can't do before
we start getting into an extended discussion about what the Board can take action on given what we did at the last meeting.
That's what I'd like to know before we start.
Mike Colletto
Well it ducktails into that and basically when you cut right to the chase with the resolution that Council adopted in 97',
what other code meets the open consensus standard that we can look at? That's the baseline. Name the other code that
meets the open consensus standard that we can evaluate. Unless the City Council reverses their position.
Ken Roth
That's the basis of this suggested document is I don't believe that the Council today would have the same position as the
Council in 97'. So maybe six years ago, a different time a different era, maybe they perceived that there would be two or
three consensus codes and their isn't. There's one code that we have tried to message to make it work.
So I think this would certainly give Council the opportunity to address what in fact they want, what's available out there, and whether they try to live with one code and only one code.
Pete Hemingway
Ken, in reading through this in your last paragraph, you're suggesting that the International Building Code is a consensus
code, including a National Building Code or …..
Ken Roth
Well again if you want to read through this whole thing, and certainly clarify some of the issues, at least give them the
opportunity to accept other codes that might work, whether it's a consensus code or not. Then the Council can decide
whether they want to live with the verbiage of a consensus code in the perimeters that it only permits us to look at.
Pete Hemingway
Right, but according to what the Council said in 97' is that we're looking at consensus codes. Based on that and this
whole process that we've gone through, we have to take an action and send it to Council what we have before us.
This is like totally separate. We're going down a whole new kind of path, introducing a whole new separate item.
We're not dealing with the item before us and moving this code that they've given us and moving it to Council and having
them take that. We're opening up a whole new item.
Lionel Lyons
Mr. Chair, along that line, similar at the last meeting, I said to you all as professional staff people here around the
table, fundamentally whether you go with one code or the other, I mean we're going to do the staff due diligence and work
for you.
What I need from you is some direction to go to Step with no vote of confidence that's what we present. The other alternative that I suggested to you in this process is not matter what step we go to next, prior to going to that step, there is still some work that needs to be done in this process. We may find in this process that some of the issues that are being raised, there are some things that maybe we can do to better message this.
On the other hand the fundamental questions that the subcommittee and/or the City Council will be asking you and I, you and I will be in no better position to answer that question even if you voted right now to send it to the City Council with a vote up or a vote down. I'm suggesting that the subcommittee go back and the Fiscal Subcommittee and do some work and take a look at what is the fiscal impact. If you talk to one side with the I-Code, you say it costs me $5,000 more, if you're with NFPA I'm hearing people say it's about the same, if you're with this third group out there, it's about $4.00 less.
In this whole process, somewhere in here, we've got to figure out how we get to the root of something, because that's going to be a question. Secondly, as a part of this process we've made sure that we've been very, very clear in our desire to sit down with the individual groups to address the issues and concern.
This group is back at the table again. I met with them again this morning and said to my staff and others, "if it's ok with you, we are willing to sit down with them to see what we can do to deal with the issues in terms of fire walls, fire walls issues, and separation issues and things of that nature and we will come back and present something to you as a result of that."
Ken Roth
Two things. I don't know how you take into the fiscal impact. A developer deciding to develop because their favorite
architect does a better job with codes in all of the other surrounding communities. We have the fiscal impact of the
developers, whether they develop in Phoenix, which is a number that you can't firmly put a grasp on and also the fact that
other cities, all of the other cities around us, will have one code and we'll be out of step. Again, I think it's
certainly in the best interest of Phoenix to be in step with all of our partners here.
Lionel Lyons
You're point is very well taken. I have never knocked that. But that's not your decision or my decision, that is the
decision of the City Council. I am asking you and your Board to clearly, either allow me time to work with the group,
secondly give me some very clear sense of direction to take to the subcommittee and subsequently the subcommittee can
recommend to the City Council and you can present that at that time. I don't have the authority.
When this decision was made and you go back to 97', Rick I think you have a packet of information that you can share with everyone, (Rick Doell stated that this information is in everyone's packet) which speaks to you in your packet the various resolutions and what the City Council's direction were in this process.
Many of you individually and some of you connectivity, have talked with the City Council people about your concerns. Many of them have heard your concerns and some of them probably have some degree of receptivity to your concern. However, until you give them something to work with more specifically they can't make that decision. I can't make that decision.
Ken Roth
Can we take a minute, maybe you can read this and see maybe if you'd be happy with this. If you would like, I'd be happy
to read it to everybody here.
Rick Doell
Mr. Chair, this is not on the agenda and cannot be discussed. This particular, this resolution has to be on it's own
agenda item and publicly noticed before we can discuss it. Mike Hamblin can correct me on this.
This not the agenda item. The agenda item is the discussion of the motion made at the last meeting for clarification. There are two questions within that agenda item that need to have clarification. Putting the consensus status has been questioned by this Board, that could be discussed. The consideration of financial implications, that could be discussed. To bring forward an entirely new item without it being publicly known is not appropriate. Again, I'll defer to our attorney, but I'll assume that is correct.
Mike Hamblin
This is a change from what happened last month and it has to be listed separately on the agenda.
Scott Mardian
Two questions. One is, somebody asked earlier, do we have to wait the 60-days or not, I'd like to know that.
Second of all, the last month, no body brought the resolution ahead of time. They just introduced it based on possible
action. (end of tape, inaudible)
Pete Hemingway
Somebody told me that if somebody voted in the affirmative on the motion, that they could ask for the motion to be
reconsidered as it previously was and I don't know if that's true or not. If that's the case, then I guess we could then
change the 60-day time frame to maybe shorten it or reconsider the motion, but I know the originator, Mr. Fries, is not
here today, so I don't know. Do I need to go back to him to see if he would want to reconsider it, and that they duly
seconded it, that they would have to be in agreement that we could bring it back? If not, we cannot even take
action on it.
Herman Orcutt
I guess that question is for Michael, really.
Michael Hamblin
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Pete Hemingway
On the last meeting we said that we'd have to complete a 60-day period where we would ask for the subcommittee from
City Council to come back with some recommendation to us and based on what we just heard from Lionel, I think, basically
it's going to sit for this entire 60-days. My question is, can we, as a Board, somehow change the 60-day period, which is
I guess in essence what we would be doing or modify this in some way to send it up to Council in another format or
something. Can we do that today, given that we put the 60-day period in there?
Michael Hamblin
Yes, you can change that.
Pete Hemingway
So we can change it. So we as a Board can change it or does it require the people who made the motion.
Michael Hamblin
No, it doesn't have to be the same people, just as long as it's this Board.
Pete Hemingway
Ok
Herman Orcutt
Ok, so then the follow-up question is from Mr. Mardin. Can we change this to essentially to an amended motion, I guess or
a different motion?
Scott Mardian
Last month, Michael brought a motion and made it and we voted on it. Today, Ken is bringing a motion and being told that
we can't move, we can't vote on it. I don't see any difference between last month and this month. I'm not saying there
isn't a difference. I just don't see the difference. I'd like to understand.
Rick Doell
I think it lies in the actual agenda item as it's posted.
Scott Mardian
Oh no, not again.
Rick Doell
The wording of the agenda item on September 18th is different than this agenda item. I'm going to defer to the attorney.
Ken Roth
To relate back to Mr. Hemingway, I would consider striking the word consensus on the second line of the last paragraph,
so that gives the Council the opportunity to review all the codes that are our there or consider all codes.
Steve Speer
Maybe I need some clarification. I don't understand why we would be allowing the Council to do anything. It seems to me
that the Council has given us a direction and asked us to do some review for them and make a recommendation to them.
Either we think this is a good thing or not a good thing. Rather than this advisory board saying to the Council, "we're
going to allow you to consider other codes." They made a decision. They sent thing to us and said, "hey, review this
code, right now we think is the only one that fits so tell us if you like it or if you don't like."
It seems to me that all we accomplished the last meeting was avoiding making a decision. Avoiding either saying yeah, we think it's a good thing or no, we think it's a bad thing. Why would we not simply say, "we either think it's a good thing or we think it's a bad thing?" Here you go Council, we looked at it, we spent hundreds of hours on it, literally, reviewing it in detail. We think it's a good thing or a bad thing that's all.
The Council they can say, "well, thank you very much, we'll take your recommendation into consideration." And they will either move on it or don't move on it, accept them or don't accept them. But they'll take whatever action they take.
Rather than us, dancing around trying to avoid making a decision because some people don't like the code that we spent all of our time looking at. I don't think that's our decision. I think the Council said, "here we want you to look at this." If the Council wants us to look at other things, I think they're capable of telling us to do so. They haven't, they asked for a recommendation on the NFPA 5000, I think we should be big enough to make a recommendation up or down on the NFPA 5000 and then let the Council take their action.
Lionel Lyons
Mr. Chair, one last comment that I'll make here. I will say to you as the professional staff person who would be taking
this to the subcommittee and that is on behalf of you. The likelihood of me taking this to anyone at the next step, no
matter what you do, vote it down or vote it up, prior to January 2004, is going to be slim to none anyway.
The reality of it is, we have a new Mayor that has been elected. We have new people in this process. I would say to you, and I harbor back to the same thing that I say, there are still some fundamental issues that I think that because, I don't want anyone to ever perceive. This Five-Step Process, this open and consensus process that we've been working on, has really been designed to make sure that we hear all the issues and concerns and try to address that. I don't want anyone to ever go back and say that we slammed dunked this down someone's throat. I am saying to you because I probably will not present this to a subcommittee or the City Council anyway prior to the new Mayor being on board, that we still have a window of opportunity there. This gives us, staff, and your committee a next two or three months to sit down and see if there's flexibility to work through some of the issues that are outstanding.
Even when we work through the fiscal issues and the structural issues, I would hasten to say that you will still fundamentally have some people for this issue and some people against this issue. No one will be able to accuse you and this Board and others of not having done the due diligence, and the staff having done the work that we needed to do.
Herman Orcutt
I appreciate that but we're looking at a thing here of scale. One level of scale, we're talking about one code at
another level. We're an advisory board, we're suppose to look at, I think, the best interest of this department and this
city. We may have a different eye view of that. I'm not at all criticizing what the department has done as far as the
subcommittees work. I think it's been excellent. It's been very complete and very thorough. To me that's not the issue.
Lionel Lyons
Mr. Chair, there is one thing that I want you to keep in mind in this process. I was in a meeting this morning and
somebody asked the one question. If you take the NFPA name off of the table, just take the name out. Take IC code out.
In the end, I still need an updated local building code. I still need to make sure that everybody in this room feels like
we have done our staff due diligence to sit down. Whether they reject that or not, or whether they go with another code.
In the end I have an obligation to the citizens of this community to come back with an updated code that works for you and
this community. In the end the very questions that will be pushed back to us, either way, we're going to have to address
that question either today or we're going to have to deal with it six months from now.
I'm saying to you, we have the momentum, we have the time to sit down and address that. We can come back with you, you can make a final decision for us to then to take it to the subcommittee and the City Council and allow them to tell us where do we go. Up or down or they just give us some direction. But in the end, the staff people here working for you, we need some kind of direction and we have an obligation to you to do our due diligence and to make sure we hear the concerns as well.
Ken Roth
I think with that, even if Mr. Speers suggestion, if we wanted to say that we don't approve it, we can't even take that
under consideration today, because that's . . . .
Michael Hamblin
I just heard Lionel say that it's we've got time to work on this because it's not going to be heard.
Ken Roth
But I mean we couldn't even make that motion today to nix the whole NFPA 5000 because it was not on the agenda.
So I guess my motion would be to continue this item with different language that we can reconsider possibly the motion
itself and whether we want to . . . again so that the verbiage on this notice is compliant with the fact that we could
either adopt this proposal or any other proposal.
Pete Hemingway
Let me ask another question then. Given what Lionel just said and given what we have before us, is it even possible to
move to Step 5 today with some sort of yeah or nea or either recommendation to City Council under this agenda item, or
agenda item 9, 8 and 9 are somewhat tied together.
Ken Roth
Can we discuss this in any other way except the motion that was there or not?
Michael Hamblin
You can only discuss in the way that is set forth in the agenda. If you want to go beyond that, I would suggest that you
continue it 30 days until the next board meeting. Change it however the board wants it.
Ken Roth
You mean the language on the hearing itself?
Michael Hamblin
On the agenda. You can say to reconsider, or to do anything you want with regards to the meeting a month ago. With
regards to this meeting, you can only do what's stated here on the agenda.
Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman, does it say possible action?
Michael Hamblin
Yes, on the DAB the process for the code amendments.
Scott Mardian
Let me ask the Building Official. You said that there might have been a difference month versus this month.
Rick Doell
There was a definite difference.
Scott Mardian
Ok, so last months, did it say something, tell me what it said so that I'll know the difference between that and possible
action.
Rick Doell
Mike can read that for you.
Mike Hamblin
Item 6, Discussion/Information/Possible Action on recommendation for adoption of the amended National Fire Protection
Association 5000, 2003 Edition, as a Construction Code of the City of Phoenix and advancing to Step-Five of the Five-Step
Process
Rick Doell
Mr. Chair, if I may, the intent of the agenda item no. 9 is to discuss the question that came up during that motion about
the consensus status of the process. There has been a challenge to the fact that the process that we had does not meet
the intent of the original resolution for a consensus code and that was to have a discussion on that issue. Neither
agenda item was to have a discussion on that issue. Neither agenda item was intended to go back to what we did
almost 2½ years ago and try to send this back to Council. It seems that like once a year during this process, we have
made a motion to send this code back to Council.
What is really a task at hand is we were given direction by City Council, City Staff, to look at this code, it shows up through the Public Safety Subcommittee, basically the minutes, that we are to propose amendment. Those amendments are to be overseen by the Development Advisory Board through a subcommittee process. Through the process it was approved by Council called the Five-Step Code Adoption Process, which was mated to the resolution, which talked about adopting consensus code. If you look at the documentation that was provided for you, I would suggest that you probably look at this whole item again next month, look at the history of what you've already as a board, and then decide on where you want to go.
At this point in time, we've finished the assignment Council gave us as City staff. We've brought it to DAB. DAB has made their recommendations to it. You have a finished product for this particular task. So what we see as City staff, is your responsibility at this point is to tell us what you feel about the finished product.
As Lionel was stating, you have options. You can say yes, we support the code, go to Step-Five, we want to see the adoption. You can say no, we don't support the code, but it has to go to Step-Five for Council to consider your advice. You're an advisory board. You have to give Council advice.
What you've done to Council is dictate to them. That's completely opposite of what the Board was set up to do.
Greg Russell
Well I think that if we want to dictate to the City Council, then we've better become the City Council. I don't think
that we have that authority to do that. We have to be elected to do that. They directed us to do a job and thus far as
I see it, we have not done that job.
Rick Doell
Nothing precludes as a board from setting up a subcommittee to look at the options for code adoptions then make
recommendations to City Council.
Steve Speer
This Five-Step Process that we've been following, didn't review and recommendation adoption of this.
Rick Doell
This board approved that.
Steve Speer
We approved it, we sent it to City Council, they took our advice, and they adopted the process that we advised them to
adopt. Now we've been following this process that we adopted and said that we should go by, then we said well, "Step-Five,
we don't want to go there." Don't want to talk about Step-Five. I don't understand that.
Lionel Lyons
Mr. Chair, one of the things that I think has been unfortunate in this process and as the leader of the department,
I've tried to make sure that staff has been as open and objective in working with everyone. One of the challenges when
they talk about the AMA and others and why I'm appealing to your for the additional time to set your work within,
when the appeal was made to come back to you, fundamentally, within the elements of the code adoptions and amendments that
have been submitted to you by staff. Individuals that have said no or have raised concern about no, haven't raised
concern about no (inaudible) against NFPA 5000. They've raised no based on how the perceived impact of that impacts a
segment of their industry.
What I'm saying to you in this process is that what we really want to do in some ways is to allow us some time to see if we can work through some of those fundamental differences. In the end you still may end up being exactly where you are. But at some point and time when we go before the City Council and the Public Safety Subcommittee, I think it's our responsibility to have made sure that we have looked at those issues more detail.
In addition to that, your group has done a tremendous amount of work that you all should be applauded for in this process. I don't want all the good work that has been done to be thrown out of the window, no matter which direction we go. In the end, we're still going to need to address some of those issues in our updated code.
Mike Colletto
Lionel, are you and the DAB staff want to have time to work with them.
Lionel Lyons
I am saying to you, my staff and I are very much open and receptive to working with them. I think it's the right thing to
do. I think it is in alignment with the open and consensus process. I think at the same time it allows us to really
fundamentally look at it and address it, if we possibly can, but it will require the input and support of you all to
really be able to sit down and look at the fiscal impact.
When we met with the group back in July and August, I know that Rick and Joe McElvaney and others had started to talk with Barbara and others about some of the fire safety issues as it relates to walls separations, as it relates to close proximity of one building to the other, and that process. I think there a degree of reception from city staff to sit down and to figure out what we can do. Maybe there's some kind of overlay that we have to address as it relates to these infill projects that are taking place in the core of downtown. As we deal with issues of light-rail and others, that ultimately is designed to have increased in density in downtown. How do we address those issues? I think staff is prepared to sit down with Barbara and her staff and the technical people on you committees to see if there's a way that we can address those issues.
Herman Orcutt
I appreciate those issues. I also think that there's a fundamental concern about NFPA 5000. This is a brand new code and
we being guinea pigs to test it out. I feel like if we just say, "alright, go ahead, let's move it on through," then we
really have given really not our best advice, if indeed that's the pleasure of the board.
Herman Orcutt
As a board, can't we move it to Step-Five with whatever provisions we want to move on so we can get an action to give the
City Council, whether it be that look at another code, or whether it be that they open up to look as something else.
Right now, according to this, we can't do anything until the next meeting.
Herb Hacker
We're mudding the waters. I'm not very clear of what the City Council meant by a consensus code. The most specific thing
that I heard today was where the City's Legal Department rendered an opinion was that the NFPA 5000 was the only consensus
code, was in the definition or the intent of the City Council. My question is, what was the City Council intent by the
word consent?
Julie Stiak
That was in the original document that Lionel gave us. It's attachment D.
Herb Hacker
Which I've seen for the first time today.
Julie Stiak
Oh, because it's new to the board. That's where it was derived from ANSI.
Scott Mardian
Mr. Chariman, can we agree on for next month we will have settled what we can, what we are going to vote on. Can we spend
ten minutes trying to at least establish that. So when somebody brings the motion whether it's to recommend it or to do
something else, that it's something that we can move forward.
Herman Orcutt
Sure
Scott Mardian
The Development Services Director has asked us to give staff; staff has put enough energy into this thing. I believe we
need to spend as much time as it takes, but that's the staff's request. We ought to move on that. We ought to come up
with some kind of solution so that when there's a motion comes next month we can vote on it.
Herman Orcutt
What I've heard is that staff is looking for two things. One, to move forward with Step-Five. Two, to give our
recommendation on whether we like the code or not basically. Does everybody pretty much agree with that.
Julie Stiak
I also heard the fiscal impact and we have two memos before us from significant entities here present that have also
mentioned financial impact. Why can't we use the next 30 days to have just a brief subcommittee run through a few
computer models of the current building code and the new proposed NFPA, modified NFPA. Then that we have some data to say.
I know that the general contractors are here, but your memos are very compelling that you're very concerned about the
financial impact. I took notes when Lionel was speaking and that's what's he's asking for, is at least does it have a
fiscal impact. Because we know this is going to cost a lot more money, well let's run a few models.
Pete Hemingway
You know, Julie, I think since last November we've heard fiscal impact and it's been like . . . we've heard fiscal impact
for 11 months and I agree with you but we asked for that 11 months ago from these same groups, and now we get letters like
this, which I agree, are compelling but they never contain any specifics, no body has ever said or made a comparison, and
we've been sitting here 11 months. I agree there should be a fiscal, but we've been asking for this, maybe because we're
at the 11th hour and all of a sudden in people are going to get motivated. Even then, like Ken said, there's going to be
unique situations that, I agree, we could get some that say we save money or we could get examples that say it costs more
money. If we want to go through that process, I'm all in favor of it. But in the next 30 days, I think
we're saying that in 30 days we've got to come to the table and say this is where we're going. If we want to make step.
Julie Stiak
Well maybe we do, and we've got computer models, and if we've been hearing this loud and clear, and I also beg to differ.
Day one this Board questioned that the open consensus standard only was NFPA. So people need to realize that day one this
Board went through significant dialogue about that, so this is not a new issue.
I'm very willing to try and get something approved. I heard that if we can just use the next 30 days to try to figure out and try to get some of these groups and just sit down and talk about financial impact of the proposed modified NFPA 5000 versus current code. Development Services is very willing to then also continue the dialogue on some of these issues; fire wall and what not, and that by the time the new City Council is in place in January we will have something to bring forth to them by January, is what I'm hearing.
Ken Roth
We're still not taking the fiscal impact on the City of Phoenix for whether developers develop here because it's a
different building code and all of the associated people that are in the development industry. The architects, engineers,
every body else now that's going to have two sets of codes in the City. To me the most important one is that the City of
Phoenix is still out of step with every other community in the valley.
Pete Hemingway
I think you, Ken, I think you'll never get to that. We could talk about that one all day, that's just a philosophical,
that projection, hypothetical truth.
Ken Roth
That's not true at all. It's real simple to adopt the same code as every other city.
Pete Hemingway
No, no, no. That's your easy solution.
Danny Ortega
Mr. Chairman, may I say something please? I've been ready to vote on this for a long time and I hear all the arguments
that we've had in the last few months and the last few weeks. I'd like to make a motion that at the end of 30 days we
either vote yea or nea. We've been pretty well informed of all the issues. We've been going through all the processes.
We've been in subcommittees. We've heard the community come to us with all the problems or address the problems that
we need to look at. I'm ready to vote. I'm tired of this. We're starting to go against ourselves here and I don't
like that. I want to make a decision. I've had my mind made up for quite a while now and I've heard everybody. I still
can still say yea or nea one way or another. I think that at the end of 30 days, we should do something. Give them
something to work with or say stay with the same code. We need to vote on it. I'd like to see it done at the next meeting.
I'd like to make a motion that we vote at the next meeting to make this a possibility.
Ken Roth
The language has to be changed on if we're going to hear it in 30 days.
Danny Ortega
We need to vote on it whether we're going to accept it or not to accept it.
Ken Roth
But I want to make sure that in 30 days we're not going to be ham strung on the particular verbiage on the agenda.
Herman Orcutt
I don't see a lot of disagreement. I think everybody has agreed on the fact that we need to do that next month.
Herb Haacker
If we don't get it done next month, we better get it done in December.
Herman Orcutt
I think we can do it next month. I think everybody has had enough.
Now what do we need?
Barbara Koffron
You can just do it as a future agenda item. I would say that you could go ahead and reestablish what you had the
previous month that same language so that you can discuss it. If some body has a bunch of "where as'" they can put that
on the agenda item. I do agree that City staff needs to convene a group to look at this issue. Certainly the Fire
Department can be there to help with that. We need to go back to where we were. If DSD staff can sit down and put some
bullet points together and notify us of how we're going to manage that fiscal impact study, invite some folks to the table,
we can do that.
Rick Doell
It's impossible for City staff to come up with a fiscal impact statement on this. We are not design builders. We don't
have access to the programs that the estimators use out there. This was discussed as an item; it's also in your packet,
last September about the fiscal impact. There was a lengthily discussion, at the end of the discussion there was no motion
made. It wasn't considered a year ago to go anywhere. The chair at that time was Peter, but Herman was nice enough in
that meeting that he would research that information.
What this speaks to is that you need to consider sending the question to a subcommittee to study. Let that subcommittee study it. That's a separate issue than whether or not we go ahead with Step-Five or never go anywhere with this thing.
That's a real concern to the community. The Development Advisory Board is here to consider those issues.
Barbara Koffron
Will that be another agenda item for next month?
Rick Doell
That can actually come off of this agenda item here. That's the intent of agenda items 8 and 9, is to address the two
items of importance that the motion caused and if you need to address it further, take it to a subcommittee. That way, as
a Board, have a recommendation from that subcommittee to this Board, what consensus is, did we meet the process and the
intent of that resolution, and what's the financial impact.
Lionel Lyons
If the intent of the motion that's on the floor is to come back in 30 days from now and render a decision, based on all
the information that you already know, that won't be a hard thing to do. You just come back however you vote. But if the
intent is to come back and to make a more informed decision based on the fiscal impact, one thing would be clear, you're
going to need your subcommittee in place. You're going to need the due diligence of you all as the experts to sit down
and do it.
Secondly, if the intent has a fiscal impact as well as a potential item that were being raised by the AMA and being able to sit down with your experts, as well as staff, to do that, it won't happen in 30 days. It might be able to happen in December. No matter how quick you do it, staff will not take whatever recommendation you have to a subcommittee anyway prior to January. I just wanted to make sure this is laid out and you think about what you want to do in this process.
Herman Orcutt
How about volunteers to do that?
Ken Roth
I still have a challenge. I'm looking at Step-One, it said review codes, plural, for compliance. The unfortunate issue
is that we only have one code that may comply. We're not happy with the one code that may comply.
Pete Hemingway
Nobody said that.
Ken Roth
I'm reading right here on your attachment B, Step One.
Pete Hemingway
Right, but you said we're not happy, we have to take action one way or another.
Mike Colletto
It wasn't one code it was multiple codes. Mechanical code, Electrical code, Plumbing Code, Fire Code, all of those have
been submitted.
Ken Roth
Well we're obviously not happy campers here.
Steve Speer
We haven't taken a vote.
Ken Roth
I stand back.
Scott Mardian
The Director has asked us, the Building Official has asked us, the Director has clarified has clarified. If we come with
a motion next month or several motions, is there some time period that these groups that will want to make a motion can
get them in there so that we can see them ahead of time so we'll know what the options are we're going to be voting.
Rick, is that possible to, is there a deadline for things for a motion so that the groups that are interested can get them
in so we can see them ahead of time.
Rick Doell
The motions occur during the open meeting, they can't occur behind the scenes. You need to bring your motion here.
You can prepare your motion individually and then bring them here. But you cannot prepare them and pass them around prior
to the meeting.
Mike Colletto
If you remember, we did the motion to end the amendments at a public meeting that was called a general public meeting,
not just our Board meeting. That's when we declared the motion to cease the amendments. I remember that was in May or
June.
Rick Doell
April
Scott Mardian
There needs to be someway for us to know how many motions there are so we know whether we want to vote on A or 2 or 3.
Pete Hemingway
I think Mr. Chairman has plan we need to enact here.
Herman Orcutt
My thought is, and I see this as a very difficult task, is to find out the financial implications of these two codes.
Pete Hemingway
I don't think it's possible in 30 days. Realistically to come up now 3 weeks to put a committee together or a
subcommittee and hopefully research it like Lionel says by the end of the year. I don't know if that's realistically
possible. But if that's what we're going to set up, let's set up that subcommittee to study it.
Understand that in the November meeting we're going to take an action one way or another.
Mike Colletto
Quite frankly, Peter has been asking for this for a long time, the financial impacts. It's fallen on deaf ears and he's
got nothing back. I think it's incumbent upon those that are saying that there's financial impact, Mr. Pruit and others
to demonstrate that. Let him put up side by side comparison and have them demonstrate where it's going to cost and not
cost. I mean their the ones making the charge. Let them substantiate it.
Steve Speer
The point that bothers me is that it's the 11½ hour or far beyond. We've been at this since last November, hundreds of
hours of committee meetings and now, with all due respect the people write the letters now, did they attend any of those
meetings and propose any of those concerns at that time? Or do we get all the way through to October a year later.
Mike Colletto
From my perspective as the Correlating Chairman, we gave folks gave folks that were unhappy at least three bites at the
apple if not more. They had some of the same firewall questions up there at least two or three times. That board
unanimously voted to reject that every time. The same members sitting around this table. So, they put that to bed.
Then we're back here again. The last meeting there was an epiphany that took place.
Herman Orcutt
How about, let's focus on the cost thing. Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee, you're on it, you're on it, Michael Fries
is on it, I think Patricia Childs is on it. Would you be willing to take that on? Michael is the chairman of it now and
he's not here, but would you be willing to take that on?
Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman, we would be willing to, but you have to be prepared that we're going to come back and say that we couldn't
find any information. Even the Accessibility Subcommittee tried to ask the industry to come back with something and they
were unable to.
Herman Orcutt
Can we try it one more time?
Scott Mardian
I'm not saying we won't, I'm just saying the Board has to be prepared for the answer
Herman Orcutt
Well, let's try it and we'll put out a call to all the industry people to submit the information they have.
Scott Mardian
So if your interested in being on the subcommittee you need to get a hold of Herman or myself through e-mail and we'll try
and set up a meeting as quickly as we possibly can.
Herman Orcutt
Following Danny's comments is that I think that next month we need to say, not to tell the City Council what to do, but
tell them what we think. Tell them our advice. Is that fair for everyone?
Ok, I've got a bunch of cards here. In light of this discussion, does anybody need to speak or do you want to wait until next time?
Dan Demland
Thank you Mr. Chairman and the Board. Many of you are probably tired of seeing my face and hearing my voice. My name is
Dan Demland, I'm a registered architect in the state of Arizona and practice here in Phoenix.
I've had very enlightening thoughts just this afternoon and I must come before this Board for everyone who's heard me to beg your forgiveness. Apparently I must have offended many people while I'm here, because many of the things that I've just heard in the last light that was discussed, I've testified to. I've given the evidence way back as early as the beginning of this year about the cost impacts. Apparently, those words went unheeded or I was seeing as not being to valid with my words, just being an architect. So in order to hopefully to get ears back open back open, please if I've offended anyone from my testimony over the last 12 months, reading the minutes or on this Board, please forgive me, and once again, hear what I have to testify to.
My background is specialization is in code implementation and accessibility. These are the amendments that we have written for this code. When I hold up the Code it is as thick, not thicker, than the codebook itself. I don't need to get into the technical issues. All I need to do is step back and say, this code was not ready for publication, let alone implementation. Otherwise we wouldn't be writing a book as thick to make it work for this great city. Technical information does not need to be given at this time. That needs to be weighed. That has to be weighed. If we have to write a book as thick as the book itself.
Cost impacts. I testified weigh back at the beginning of the year of tremendous cost impacts. No one apparently heard.
Pete Hemingway
I think we did hear. I think if I recall you took one situation where you told us the number of water closets that was
the only one specific thing that you talked about. I'm not disagreeing here.
Herman Orcutt
Let's stop this here right now. Let me recommend that you provide the subcommittee with the information you've got.
We can bring it forward.
Dan Demland
The point is that a lot of the stuff is being looked at again and again now at the 11th hour and I have to agree with the
consensus of this Board. Next month let's vote this up or down. Do we pass it to the Council as an advice or as a
professional community can we support it or not. My position is, no we cannot. My testimony through the year has
indicated that I have great concerns over the remodeling industry and it's impacts.
The cost impacts. Plumbing, or course, as Mr. Hemingway just pointed out. There are evidence that we have issues that need to be looked at. Next month, let's just say yes or no, pass it to the Council, let the Council decide. But I would urge, in the light of this evidence alone, unless you, as you are ready to cast your vote, a way to say to the City, I have no problem with buying a book with the last half of every chapter was left out. I have to say we cannot support this code for that fact alone. Thank you very much.
Herman Orcutt
Thank you.
Herb Hacker
One quick question. I think what everybody is asking for through City Council in terms of economical or fiscal estimates,
is what would be the impact on this City. When you work with a developer and when I work with a developer, his question
is, "is this $100 or $1,000 or $1,000,000 item?" I think that's what the City Council wants to know. Is that a 5 million
or 1 hundred million or a 1 billion dollar impact to the City.
Dan Demland
My estimate in the three cost models that I've done has shown an increase between 40 and 70 percent under the NPFA 5000
for a code that in the October 2002 report of AIA is technically equal to the other national recognized codes. That
cannot be overlooked.
Greg Russell
I think what we need from you though, is testimony to the subcommittee that shows what we have in effect now versus the
I-code. Between those two, which means the amended code and the I-code, if there's a difference there, what that
difference is specifically not platitudes of X many percent, specifics. Without those specifics, I personally don't want
to hear them. I've heard enough platitudes in the two months here that I'm really tired of.
Dan Demland
With all do respect, some explicates is the increases of over 1,2000 square feet allotted to restrooms. I've showed
plumbing calculations with this.
Herman Orcutt
I've got to take my prerogative here and ask that we stop this debate now. We could go on here all night, I think.
Carole has a list here that, if you'd like to participate in this subcommittee, please sign up.
George Rivers
I'm here on behalf of the SPCMA and because of the way the committee is going to go I'm not going to read or overrun my
handout that I gave you. I did provide you with a handout and two supporting documents from ANSI. I would like for you
to read those over regarding the consensus code.
Herman Orcutt
Yes, sir.
Rick Thornberry
My name is Rick Thornberry, and I represent the Alliance for Fire Safety. Unfortunately, I didn't make the last meeting,
I read the meeting. There has been a lot of rehash already.
I've been involved in this process since the beginning of the year. I guess my concern that I want to make sure that everybody understands is how is this fiscal impact study is done and what it needs. To me what I've been hearing, people are saying that is a cost difference between NFPA 5000 and the IBC, but I haven't heard anything about what you do when you amend your code and then you do the cost analysis. How do you compare that to the IBC? Because you've developed amendments for the NPFA 5000 code. I will assure you that if you look at the IBC, you're going to come up with a lot of the same amendments that you did for the NFPA 5000 code. So I don't know how you can make this comparison, because it's going to be an apples and oranges comparison. The only one I heard that makes sense, is to do the analysis of your present code, with all your amendments, which by the way are pretty thick, everybody, they're pretty thick. Versus then NFPA 5000 with the amendments package that you have at this point. At least you can get a base level there.
If you're going to try and say that you're going to compare to the other comminutes that have adopted the IBC with virtually no technical amendments, you're not going to get a comparison of what you're doing to your present code situation. Quite frankly, those jurisdictions that have adopted the IBC without any technical amendments have lowered the level of life safety and fire safety in their community. That's already been proven.
I would point out that the state of California recently decided to adopt the NFPA 5000 code. When they looked at it they said yea, we're going to make a lot of amendments, and they're going to make a lot of amendments that you've already made. I can assure you of that. I talked to the state Fire Marshal personally. He's made that statement. He's made it in public. The California Mayor's Commission that adopts the code has made it in public, that they will have to make a lot of the technical amendments to the NFPA 5000 and will assure that they retain the same level of fire life safety that they have now, which is based on the 97' UBC. Just as your code is.
You're going to be faced with that issue. You're going to be faced with an issue of how much safety do you want for your community. I think that's the real issue, because that's where the costs are. A lot of the costs.
Now I've heard about plumbing. I have no idea was plumbing is involved in now because I'm a Fire Protection Engineer. I think that when you're looking at this, you've got to make sure you understand what you're looking at and what you're going to make your comparisons to.
Herman Orcutt
Anyone else.
Suzanne Gilstrap
Can I just ask for clarification from what you're considering? I think I heard that there's going to be a subcommittee
made to look at the economic impact, but that you're also going to consider whether you even want to forward this code to
the City or not.
Herman Orcutt
What we're going to consider next month is whether we're going to recommend the NFPA with all the amendments or not.
Greg Russell
Basically the way I see it is if whether we're going to endorse the amendments and press this forward or not. One way is
to say, these are the amendments that we've come up with, we agree with them. The other one is to say these are the
amendments that we've come up with, but we disagree with them. Is that not appropriate.
Herman Orcutt
We've made all these amendments but we don't agree with the code.
Greg Russell
Basically we have two ways to look at it. These are the amendments that we've come up with, we endorse them going forward.
The other one is to say these are the amendments that we've come up with, but we don't endorse them going forward because we don't think it's the right thing to do. I think that's what the A and B scenario here. The third item we talked about is what the physical impact, the monetary impact of the whole thing is. That's a separate issue at this stage. That's the way that I see the whole thing on the table.
Herman Orcutt
If your second option is that, we don't agree with the amendments, we don't agree with the code.
Ken Roth
We don't agree with the whole concept.
Herman Orcutt
Does everybody agree with that?
Ken Roth
When we talk fiscal impact I need a clarification, Mr. Lyons, are we talking on how the city, what is your concept of
fiscal impact.
It is to really look at the code in detail. There are some who've made analogies that certain elements of the actual code as amended that is being recommended, it's going to cost them more from a construction point of view.
It gives a detailed out from the people who are in the industry who do this kind of work to be able to tell us one way or another, based on our existing code and based on the code that we're recommending. In some instances where people say we've had a number of examples and I think staff has shared them with you, as it relates to the NFPA 5000.
There are some that have made an appeal over the past six months, eight months or a year for building code modification. The Orpheum Lofts, TGEN, and others where people have been able to come in and fundamentally say by going through this process and working with the Fire Department and our staff in this, that they were able to save a half-million dollars. Whereas using our existing code, it would have cost them more.
What I'm saying to you is that when you think about this, there's six in one hand and half dozen in the other and in this process the goal is to look at the exiting code and see what degree of flexibility, what degree of cost based that people will say based on using those cost, what would be the cost differential. To be able to try to provide you that information for you to make your decision.
Herman Orcutt
It's going to be a challenge. I think we've worked that item pretty good. Would everyone agree?
Rick Doell
Mr. Chair, actually both items 8 and 9 were worked pretty good.
I think the only thing outstanding from 9 is that if there is still a level of uncertainty or discomfort with our process that we went through as meeting the intent of the resolution, it may be that we need to have another subcommittee look at that, but that's through the Boards discretion.
Herman Orcutt
Does anyone have a problem with that?
Danny Ortega
I think we've had enough meetings, committees, and I think we need to vote, period.
Herman Orcutt
Thank you.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action on the DAB Process for the Code Amendments, which include the NFPA 5000:
(Information covered in Agenda Item No. 8)
Mr. Orcutt asked the Board if November 5, 2003 was a good date for the next DAB Retreat. Mr. Doell suggested that the dated be changed so that City staff can adequately prepare for that meeting and asked if the Board can postpone the retreat until the beginning of 2004. The Board members concurred with this change.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Doell, P.E.
Deputy Director, Building Official
Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, Secretary III
Last Modified on 11/24/2003 13:08:53