Pete Hemingway:
Do want to inform everyone today as you’re speaking that you want to keep the topics pretty germane to what
we’re discussing today. A brief history. In December of 2000 Phoenix City Council moved and reaffirmed that
January 2000 NFPA 5000 is a model code that they would like to utilize in the City of Phoenix.
The DAB is here to hear questions, critiques, suggestions in regard to the amendments and we don’t have the
power to overrule the decision made at the City Council level. If you would like to make that appeal we
highly recommend that you do so to the City Council. This meeting has been convened to specifically discuss
the amendments associated with the NFPA 5000. We will ask you to refrain from getting into a detailed debate
of this code versus the value of another code. That’s not what we’re here to decide today. I would like to
commend, and say that City staff has made an unprecedented and extraordinary effort to obtain comments from
stakeholders. They have been diligent in their efforts. I would like to commend Mr. McElvaney in particular.
I know he’s been losing a few hours of sleep trying to get us all on board and up to speed. I must say, the
City of Phoenix has done a tremendous effort in adopting this code, and trying to allow interested parties to
comment and have input. Hopefully, we’ll have additional comments that are germane and pertinent to the
amendments that we are reviewing. Hopefully you will pick up the packages that reflect some of the efforts
that have already gone to recommend the amendment. At this time, the DAB, as a board, has the responsibility,
and we will consider the concerns of the building community, the interest of neighborhoods, and the safety of
our citizens and visitors to our city. No special interests can be allowed to govern the decisions of the City
staff, City Council, or the DAB. So with that having been said, I think everybody has the gist of where we’re
headed today. With that, we will begin with Mr. Wayne Caplin, who is opposed to this item. Mr. Caplan.
Wayne Caplin:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. My name is Wayne Caplin. I represent the Arizona Multi-Housing
Association, the statewide trade organization for the apartment and rental housing industry. Our members who
are developers, owners, managers and taxpayers of more than 2003 rental units strongly feel that adoption of
NFPA 5000 at this time is premature. As we have said earlier in oral testimony this committee and the City
Council have an obligation to the citizens to consider other legitimate options to NFPA 5000.
Steve Speer:
Excuse me, Mr. Caplin, Mr. Litchfield. We are talking not on the adoption of the code. We are only dealing
with the amendment today, sir.
Wayne Caplin:
I understand, but I was wanting for the record.
Steve Speer:
I call a point of order because you are speaking out of order.
Steve Caplin:
OK
Steve Speer:
So please contain your comments to the topic at hand.
Pete Hemingway:
We have on which to speak Miss Suzanne Gilstrap. Suzanne, before you get started, are you opposed or in favor
of this item?
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Opposed.
Pete Hemingway:
OK, that didn’t shock me. I understand. OK, Suzanne. Thank you.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Mr. Chairman, member of the committee. My name is Suzanne Gilstrap. I represent the Arizona Multi-Housing
Association. I also represent the International Code Council. I have been very active and participatory in
this process, and I have to admit I’m a little confused as to what’s going on here today. And if you’ll excuse
my shortcoming here, it appears that – are we on item 8 or item 9?
Pete Hemingway:
Item 8 right now.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Are you only going to be taking testimony on what’s in here, or are you going to be acting?
Pete Hemingway:
If the board so moves right now it is a possible action item, and 9, so the board can take action today to
move the process forward. And that’s strictly up to the board members. I won’t say if we will or we won’t.
That’s up to the board. But on item 8 we are taking comments specific to amendments or any changes to
amendments you would like to see to the proposed NFPA 5000 Building Code.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Well, I, as you know, I have been actively participating on the accessibility subcommittee and that
subcommittee still has not given final approval. It has been my understanding from the beginning that we were
going to give target approval, if you will, but not give final approval until we had gone through the entire
document. So I’m wondering why you are looking at it today for consideration.
Pete Hemingway:
What we are looking at it today is if you have any technical – right now, you’ve been part of the process, and
we appreciate that. But there may be other members, in the public outside, in the meetings (there have been
several ongoing) that have other recommendations or amendments to the code that they would like to see us as
subcommittees review. Part of my goal today is that we want to get that public input started so that we don’t
have the subcommittees - if there is a conflict in an accessibility issue, we’d like to have you look at that
now versus later, to get that issue resolved. So that when we do present it, this is an ongoing document.
Steve Speer:
I know for a fact that there’s two people in the audience that had motions that failed at committees who want
to bring things forward.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
I suppose since I chair that committee now, I should speak to where we stand on those issues. At the last
committee meeting on accessibility there was a motion made to go from 2% to 5% per American National Standards
Institute units throughout the City. That motion failed. The Arizona Housing Association was in opposition to
it. We had done polling of our membership.
And as we mentioned earlier, we represent about 202 thousand units statewide. And on very short notice, we
got a response from approximately 9500 units, and of those, 108 are American National Standards Institute units.
Of that 108, only 12% are occupied by individuals that are disabled. There was another fairly large percent
that are rented to market rate individuals, but in addition, nearly half of the units are either not rented,
or they are being given a discount in order for someone to take them, because the American National Standards
Institute units aren’t desirable for all potential renters, so we spoke out against that.
The motion failed in committee and we very strongly urge this committee not to make that a citywide requirement
to go from 2%to 5% American National Standards Institute units. We have talked with numerous of the manager
staff and others as recently as today, and I think we have some alternatives that we’d like to pursue in terms
of how we work with the disability community to identify properties that are available. Because we know we
have units available that are not being used. They’re saying, on the other hand, they can’t find units to rent.
So we need to figure out a way to match up the groups. I think the industry would like a commitment to do that.
The other issue had to do with reference to the Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility. As this
Chapter 12 Amendment stands right now, it continues to reference the International Code Council Code
Requirements for Housing Accessibility document, which we believe is the only document which would give
apartment building community safe harbor for accessibility, and we encourage you to keep that reference in the
document as it currently is. Thank you.
Gary Coley:
Can I make a comment? Can you give us the specific paragraph that you were referring to? Is it 12 –20, or is
it?
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Chapter 12 – I haven’t gone through this, because I just got the information as I arrived at the meeting today.
Page 15, 12-20.1 contains the reference to International Code Council 2000 Code Requirements for Housing
Accessibility. We feel strongly about keeping that in the code.
Gary Coley:
So do you have a copy of this proposed amendment?
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Yes.
Gary coley:
Right. So if we go to the comment she was talking about, would that be in the 1220.1 or is it in 12-20.2?
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chair. She’s talking about 2 items here. The first item she started talking about was the. . . . type A.
That’s on page 15 of the Development Advisory Board agenda #8, amendment 12. 12.20.2 and it says apartment
buildings became more than 20 … at least 2% but no less than 1% of the building shall be type A dwelling units.
….was submitted to that subcommittee to change that 2% to 5% citywide. That motion was rejected at the
committee so the person can come before this committee if they wish to reconsider.
Gary Coley:
Given her concerns, it’s left at 2%.
Joe McElvaney:
Right, so she’s picking heads on this.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
I want to make sure that we’re on …the position that’s been taken by the Arizona Multi-Housing Association on
this, and the position is not taken lightly. It’s taken full consideration of the survey that we have done.
And we think 9500 units is a pretty good sample size. We have lots of anecdotal information from almost every
one of our members that we talk to, that it’s nice that we built these units, but they’re not being rented for
one reason or another.
Joe McElvaney:
The point is that someone else is going to propose the 5%. She’s going on record for 2%.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
The committee did take action on another motion. That was to increase the percentage of type A units in the
transit corridor, but they did not decide what percentage that should be. Now, the mayor’s commission is
looking for 8 to 10 percent American National Standards Institute units or type A units in the light rail
corridor. We again would say that there’s no data that really supports the need for increasing to that amount.
We’d certainly be willing to sit down and look at what might be reasonable. But right now I think the survey
reveals that even the 2% are not being occupied. And before we start increasing that requirement that at a
minimum, we ought to sit down and figure out a way that we could match up the units with the people that need
them. And I can tell you that the association is committed to doing that.
Pete Hemingway:
Given that they are asking for improvements along the light rail corridor, do you as an association (I don’t
know who else is going to speak to this today) would have any information as regards to other light rail
systems within the country now that have any information to say whether this would be of any benefit to raise
this percentage?
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. That question was asked at our accessibility
Committee meeting the other day, and we had a gentleman by the name of Ron Nixon on the phone.
Ron is the code person for the National Multihousing Council, and National Apartment Association. He is not
aware of any city where they have a higher percentage in a transportation corridor. He said it wasn’t
something they’d surveyed, and he’s not aware of any, and he is very active nationally.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other comments? Anybody have any other questions at this time? (To Susan: Thank you.)
Suzanne Gilstrap:
Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Mark Giebelhaus would like to speak.
Mark Giebelhaus:
I don’t need to speak.
Pete Hemingway:
OK. Mr. Giebelhaus is in favor of this item.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Dan Demland. Dan, help me out here. Are you in favor of this item, or are you opposed?
Dan Demland:
I’m not too … with it. But I won’t say I’m opposed, because there are conditions we need to address here.
That’s what I’m here today to do. I have three specific proposals or comments, and I’m not going to get into
the stuff you guys heard me speak over and over. Being the main opponents of this, I’m not going to address –
this is probably premature, because subcommittees are not done. That plumbers are now being recognized as
experts on the building code, and that the breakneck speed of this restricted open process has had its
problems. A day and a half ago I got amendments that I printed out, and the ones I just received are very
different. And it’s forced me to even change one of my proposals right now.
Let’s go to the American Institute of Architects national report on this and use it as a challenge.
Pete Hemingway:
Could I ask a question. Are you going to speak specifically to the amendment?
Dan Demland:
I’m going to speak specifically about two amendments and one comment. But I want to set down a challenge for
us. American Institute of Architects came up with a comment in their national report about NFPA 5000, quoting:
“Despite efforts by American Institute of Architects leadership to bring the NFPA and International Code
Council back to the table to resolve their problems and to achieve the goal of one code, NFPA has remained
entrenched in its position….
Interruptions from several voices
Pete Hemingway:
Gentlemen, gentlemen
Dan Demland:
I’d like to lay this down as a challenge. May I please continue? It’s three sentences, if you’ll let me
finish.
Pete Hemingway:
And please keep it to that.
Dan Demland:
I wasn’t going to read any more minutes. “With no better measuring stick to use to understand the rationale
for such a position, American Institute of Architects concluded in 1999 and continues to believe that such a
position is solely based on economic self interest. “ The challenge here is to break that mold.
Pete Hemingway:
Now this does not speak to the amendment.
Dan Demland:
Proposal one I want to make is for subgroup 5, the energy and other systems
Committee. Chapter 53 – there is no table for minimum plumbing fixtures. We’ve go a table very similar in our
current Uniform Building Code , a table A29a. I even looked at these amendments I got, and they don’t address
that. I think we need to have that subcommittee look at that issue because if we don’t, we’re going to end up
with what I have already projected and testified just a couple of weeks ago before this committee, where ….. is
going to have 30 water closets to support in this code.
Pete Hemingway:
Hold on for a moment.
Larry Litchfield:
What I’m handing out is package of supplemental information that was approved this week. And I’m here
speaking on it. The committee has approved it.
Dan Demland:
Which brings us right back to the question. Why are we here today? I haven’t even had a chance to look at
this, or to see how it impacts my practice or my projects.
Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chair, may I answer that?
Pete Hemingway:
OK, go ahead, Mr. Litchfield.
Larry Litchfield:
The commercial committee met this week and reviewed a draft proposal to add a supplement to the building code.
Basically the state plumbing code now addresses toilet fixtures, unless it’s amended by the building code, by
communities adopting the building code. What staff has done through this week is generate a table which is in
the packet that was just passed out, on pages 27 to 34 that basically reproduces the table that we have been
using in the City of Phoenix for the last ten years. So virtually there’s no changes in the toilet fixture
count from what we’ve been used to, to what is proposed to be as an amendment to the building code. Which
basically complies with the state plumbing code provisions. So I think that issue is a moot point -–it has
been taken care of, dispensed with and virtually no change.
Dan Demland:
Forgive me for that. Again, one more illustration about the breakneck speed. We’re doing this too quick.
Proposal number two for subgroup two, residential and subgroup 6.
Ben Barcon:
What’s that have to do with – I mean, we are in the process of doing the code changes. Speed has nothing to
do with it, because we’re in this process.
Dan Demland:
Public meetings over the code should be done….not while they’re still being placed…
Pete Hemingway:
I don’t think we want to debate that right now.
Dan Demland:
I will go to my next one.
Pete Hemingway:
OK – go to your next one.
Dan Demland:
The second proposal is for subgroup 2, residential, and subgroup 6, the structural. I know this, that we do
have – it was in my email that I received just a day and a half ago. There is a revision to strike table 36.3.4
but I still have concerns that it still reduces our allowable pounds per square foot for soil bearing pressure,
500 pounds per square foot lower than our current code. Critical data will not support that when the other
codes are going the other direction.
In fact, we’re now looking at this cut still increasing our employee sizes 100% from what the other code would
allow.
Pete Hemingway:
Hold on for a second. We need to look it up.
Dan Demland:
Don’t worry, I went through the same thing a few minutes ago when I looked at it. The amendment strike that,
and you put up a new table, apparently, that allows us to go to 18 inches instead of 24, which is what the
NFPA had, but it still drops our pounds per square foot to one thousand. And when the other codes are going
the other direction, which is supported by more empirical data I question this. And I’d like you to look at it.
Pete Hemingway:
We will look at it. That’s why we’re here today. Have you noted that, Joe?
Joe McElvaney:
Yes, Mr. Chair. I’m trying to get a feel for what’s …(interrupted) No, he’s right, and I would suggest that
if you want to discuss it further, subgroup 6 meets at 8 o’clock on Tuesday morning.
Dan Demland:
It’s very hard for me to make all these meetings. One of the things I’m concerned about this, is that we’re
going to throw a homeowner who is not trained or experienced to decide… for adding a patio.
Pete Hemingway:
I’ll say it again, and obviously that’s the concern, the health and safety and welfare of the residents of the
City of Phoenix. Having sat through several structural subcommittee meetings, I will tell you that, in
essence that committee’s actually being more restrictive and requiring more subsoil testing. And I know that
you can’t be at every meeting, just like I can’t be at every meeting, but for the ones that I have attended, I
can personally tell you that they are actually requiring more subsoil testing than being less restrictive.
But I’m glad you brought this item up because we want to address it.
Dan Demland:
A person putting on a patio cover. Is this a burden they need to have?
Pete Hemingway:
What I’m saying – this is part of the process. We got the point. Thank you.
Dan Demland:
My last one. For the same two subgroups as well as this entire board, I request respectfully, but adamantly,
that all three of those committees, those two subcommittees and this committee address one issue by roll call
vote. Is the INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, the International Residential Code, a consensus code? If it is
voted not, there is two issues that must be addressed or should be addressed.
Number one, how will that document’s inclusion into this parlay into ordinance 1905.1, which is a consensus
code requirement?
The second thing is, if it is not a consensus code, why? I believe we, out here, deserve answers to those two
questions. It is included in chapter 26. I’d appreciate that.
Pete Hemingway:
I don’t think this committee right now is going to decide whether the International Residential Code is a
consensus code. That’s not our purpose.
Dan Demland:
Public comments here will be addressed, and that needs to be addressed somewhere.
Pete Hemingway:
Just like I know that the previous item will be referred to that subcommittee that’s appropriate, at the
appropriate time. Right now, unless a board member tells me otherwise, we’re not going to decide whether
International Residential Code is consensus or not, and I’m not going to take a roll call vote in that regard.
Debating that with me is a moot point. I will note the point that you have made, and it’s in the public record.
We appreciate it. Thank you.
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chair, to help explain some of the items, look at chapter 36, page one of four. That structural committee
did say these blank items comprise single family one story homes in addition to the structure. That way they
do not need to get…. Report. They took that into consideration for that. That’s why also they say a single
story commercial structure less than 5,000 square feet would not need a sole support, and there’s another on
number 3 saying other structures ….do not need a …support, so maybe I’m saying that..buildings….slide off and ..the
ground. So that committee took care of those single family homes.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you, and I do appreciate your energy and enthusiasm. And I know you’ve been involved in the process.
So we do appreciate that.
Joe McElvaney:
Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
Miss Sharon Webber.
Sharon Weber:
I’d like to defer at this time.
Pete Hemingway:
OK, are you opposed or in favor of the item?
Sharon Weber:
I am in favor.
Pete Hemingway:
The whole Alliance for Fire Safety, Thornberry, Corley and Copham. Who would that be?
OK, you are?
Thornberry
OK, Mr. Thornberry. Do you wish to speak before the board? And Mr. Thornberry, are you in favor of this item
or opposed to it?
Rick Thornberry:
Mr. Chairman, we’re here to provide that information to the committee. We’re not taking a position for or
against. That’s not our issue.
If you have some patience, we have quite a few handouts we’d like to give you. The significant issues we feel
that need to be brought before you at this time.
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chairman, in what context are we coaching what amendments? I’m confused.
Rick Thornberry:
Maybe I should introduce myself. My name is Rick Thornberry. I’m with the code authority, I’m incorporated,
the consulting fire protection engineer. I’ve been in the code consulting business for about 35 years. I am
also representing the Alliance for Fire Safety. Which is an advocacy group that’s been informed recently to
include fire and building code experts, consulting fire protection engineers.
For example, we’ve got Dr. Gene Corley here that led the World Trade Center investigation in the fire there.
Former fire marshals: we have Ed Pendergrast, for example, from the City of Chicago, the fire resistant
construction industry, including manufacturers, contractors, labor unions. We’re involving the general public
with this issue that have concerns about fire safety. We’re here today, and we are in the process of involving
the fire service organizations. In fact, we’ve approached the National Association of State Fire Marshals,
and we’re looking forward to them to confirm an opportunity for us to present our issues to their next board
meeting.
This group was formed because of concerns we have as to the impact that we see as to the adoption of the
NFPA 5000 and the adoption of the IBC, the International Building Code. We have communities that heretofore
have been working under one of the model building codes that have been available until recently when the
International Code Council was formed. That process was developed, and a new code came out, and the other
codes have been put on the shelf. And obviously, that’s why you are doing what you are doing now, because that’s
a 1997 code that you have, that you’re presently enforcing, and obviously it’s time to update that code.
Our concern is that when you do update that code, that you look at it very closely, and make sure that it’s
going to deliver the same level of fire safety if not better, than what you already have. Because obviously,
the community here has at least lived with the uniform building code for the last ten or so years when it was
first adopted by the city. And you’ve enjoyed a fairly good track record in terms of fire loss, and life loss
due to fires in your community. And we think that’s important that that record continue, and that that record
not be lessened by the adoption of the new code.
Fortunately, our group has the resources to make detailed analyses of these codes. And make that analyses
available to jurisdictions that are in the process of adopting these Codes. And as I said, we’ve only formed
officially in the last month or so, so we’re trying to get up and running. We’re trying to get your process a
little late in the process. And we apologize for that because we know you are trying to move forward and get
this code on the books. But we did propose a series of amendments over a series of submittals to the
commercial subcommittee for their review and consideration. Mr. Litchfield mentioned that is an ongoing…as we
speak. As a matter of fact, there was a meeting this morning where some of the issues were discussed, and
action was actually taken on one of the issues. It’s included in the supplemental on one of the handouts.
So, what we want to do if we could have the opportunity is to present to you what we consider to be some of the
issues that we need to make you aware of, and hopefully that will provide some good feedback, not only to our
group, but to the community and to the committee that’s looking at these. And that would be the commercial
subcommittee. And hope it would give us some additional guidance on what additional information we may need
to bring to you to help you make a good decision when you amend this …
And we’re not opposed to the adoption of this code, that’s not the question. You don’t have a lot of choice.
There’s only two out there, and we understand based on the resolution that was passed in 1997 that consensus
codes, or the codes that the City is going to be considering for adoption from now on, and certainly the
NFPA 5000 clearly beats the definition for consensus that American National Standards Institute has established.
No question about that. I’m not here to argue about that one iota.
But what I want to do. I know you have a bunch of handouts, so it’s going to be a little difficult to sort
through these. But where I’d like to start is with the handout that says at the top of the page: Alliance
For Safety proposed amendments. It should be a 3 page document.
We’re looking at Alliance for Fire Safety proposal amendments, NFPA 5000 building , construction and safety
code, phase 1.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Phase 1, and then phase 2 goes on, on the second page.
These were the phases in which we submitted the changes because our organization was only recently up and
running and we’re trying to get the information out as quickly as we could. We actually had an earlier
submittal to warn the committee that something was coming, and that it was significant. And it just said here
are the issues that we want you to look at, and more to come. We gave them basic background information on
that, and some position papers on the need to look at these issues.
And then we submitted phase 1 and then a couple weeks later we submitted phase 2. And basically, what they
focus on is the height and area table in the NFPA 5000 code. And that’s the table that determines whether or
not a building is going to be non-combustible or combustible construction – to have fire resistance built into
it. And that’s a function of its occupancy, as well as its size. And that being related to both height and
area.
We see it as a very significant issue that needs to be very closely looked at here in Phoenix, especially
compared to what you have now, which is the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Those consist of basically the first
three items in phase one, because they’re addressing fire resistance range for types of construction which fit
into this overall picture of level of fire resistant protection that’s provided in our buildings. Maximum
allowable building heights based on increased permitted for sprinklers, and the automatic sprinkler increases
for height and area.
Down at the bottom of the page, you’ll see firewall ratings. That one was actually resolved today in a
compromise position which we felt was reasonable. I believe it’s on the first page of the supplemental
amendments that were handed out. And we commend the commercial subcommittee for taking that action.
On the top of the next page, two issues that – one relates directly to this and the other one’s indirect.
Our high rise building issues. Obviously, we didn’t see any cranes on the horizon that are going up right
now. Obviously this is a thriving community, and you will see high rise buildings again. One has to do with
fire resistance construction and the reductions that are in the NFPA 5000 and the fire ratings that go into
those buildings. And the other is a peripheral issue to that, which is smoke control. And right now, under
NFPA 5000, there is no smoke control requirement for high rise buildings, whereas that was a specific
requirement in the Uniform Building Code. We have an amendment in to reinstate that.
In phase two we have heights and areas again. We have proposed what we thought was the simplest and most
straightforward approach was to simply take the height and area tables out of the Uniform Building Code,
translate those into the NFPA 5000 language in terms of occupancy classifications and types of construction
classifications and substitute that for the table 741 that’s in there now. And that way, you bring with you,
if you adopt NFPA 5000, if you take that amendment, then you bring with you the same level of built in fire
protection that you’ve had over the last ten years. And we think that makes a lot of sense.
However, there’s a lot of controversy around that as you can well imagine. And that’s some of the stuff we’re
going to talk to you about further as some of the other folks come up to speak to you.
Then the last set of items starts with corridors. And that’s all it is. It looks like a lot of stuff. And
it’s only a lot of stuff because NFPA 5000 is an occupancy-driven code. So we got 20 some chapters on occupancy .
So you have to go into each occupancy chapter, identify where the section is that has corridor requirements,
and whereas under the Uniform Building Code you had basically one section and that’s it. Here, here’s what
you do for corridors. So it looks like a lot, but it’s basically capturing all the corridor requirements in
NFPA 5000, and trying to reinstate them to what you have right now in the Uniform Building Code that you’ve
adopted. In most of these cases we indicate whether it’s a sprinkler trade-off or there’s actually no
requirement at all in certain occupancies.
So we think that’s a very important issue because that is a life safety issue. Corridors get you from where
you are to a protected exit or out of the building. And hopefully, they provide a level of safety that allows
you to do that in a way that you don’t jeopardize yourself or others. And it also is a way for the fire
department to get in and fight the fire, and to do it in a reasonable manner. Not to be putting themselves in
such great risk as if they didn’t have this corridor. So there’s a lot of benefits to corridors other than
just getting people out, and we think it’s an important issue that’s a very strong issue in the Uniform
Building Code has been. And we believe that you should seriously consider that one. Right now, this ones’ on
hold. The subcommittee’s looking at it further on down the line. But we wanted to bring it to your attention.
This is kind of a preview of coming attractions for some of this.
Regarding the handouts. Just to bring you up to speed with those. We have some background information which
we feel would be useful to you, and then a lot of this we have given to the commercial subcommittee, so they’ve
seen it. It’s a double-sided document that’s about 3 pages long, and it’s called the “Need for balanced fire
protection building by the Alliance for Fire Safety.”
What we’re focusing on, and we understand that you passed the sprinkler ordinance, and now require virtually
all buildings other than residential to be sprinklered in the City. So what that means, is now you’re going
to see a different ball game than what you’ve been seeing. In that, building owners, architects, developers
are going to now say, where can I go in the code to take advantage of the fact that I have a sprinkler system
that I’ve got to put in there. Where are the trade-offs? That allows other things to be relaxed or reduced
in the code with the installation of a sprinkler system. So you’re going to see a lot of that. So buildings
are going to change the way they look. You’re going to see less fire reduction construction built in because
buildings can be built….sprinklers without so much fire resistant protection. You’re probably going to see
more combustible construction than non-combustible construction. So you’re going to have a little different
landscape.
But, what we want to make sure of is that you understand that landscape and you understand the impacts that
can happen with these trade-offs. And look seriously at 5000 and see where those trade-offs are. As a matter
of fact, in your handout, as it’s a work in progress, there is a fairly big document. It’s about a 6 page
double-sided document. I always make sure people have lots of handouts when I go to make a presentation.
It’s called “Automatic Sprinkler Trade-off NFPA 5000.” No need to look at it right now. Just when you have
insomnia, you might want to take it to bed with you.
What we’re attempting to do is identify every section in the NFPA 5000 that does a sprinkler trade-off. Some
way shape or form allows a relaxation or change in the code when a sprinkler system is provided. And we want
to identify where that is and what it does. And you’ll see, we stalled out after awhile on what it does,
cause we just ran out of time. And we haven’t even identified all the trade-offs yet. And part of the
challenge is because you have 20-some occupancy chapters. It really takes a long time to get through the code.
But we hope to have that completed in another couple of weeks and make that available to the commercial
subcommittee and anyone else that’s interested. But the idea is, you’ll see that there’s a lot of cases
where things are going to change in the buildings that weren’t necessarily there before, because they didn’t
have a sprinkler system before.
Our real point is, we believe in a balanced approach to architectural building. And that means you have a
compliment of built-in fire resistant and smoke resistant construction. And you have the active protection.
And you’ve already made that decision that you need to improve your situation in the City. And ….the Uniform
Building Code, which is a pretty good code. And layered on top of that….that weren’t required to be
sprinklered on that code. So you saw the need for it, and we agree with it, that’s the way to go. Especially
with some of the events we’ve heard about occurring lately. Fire safety is on the forefront of everybody’s
minds. And we want to make sure that your city stays in that forefront. So this is just background
information on where we see we have concerns about trade-offs and the imbalance that can occur when you adopt
the new code.
Now, I guess one analogy I’d like to put forward is: You wouldn’t be here if the three mile code rules hadn’t
decided to merge. You’d be looking at the 2002 edition of the Uniform Building Code. And it would be a pretty
simple process. You wouldn’t be going through all this. But, because of that, you have to look at a brand new
code and see how it’s going to serve your city. In my mind, you’ve got to look at it pretty closely, and you
have to analyze it and see what it’s going to deliver to your citizens.
In California is where I practice, and we started this process in California, and it really enlightened us to
take a good hard look at what the new codes are doing versus what we had in the Uniform Building Code.
I think the Uniform Building Code land is kind of in an enviable position, because there’s no question in my
mind that the Uniform Building Code has delivered the best level of fire life safety up to three mile code.
Pete Hemingway:
Excuse me. Are we dealing with specific items going forth? We are definitely going to refer it to the
appropriate committee. The only reason I bring this up is that we have several people that want to speak
today, and I want to be fair to them. So if you have specific items.
Rick Thornberry:
Well, I pointed out the items we’re discussing. What we’re trying to do is see if we can get some feedback
from your group as well. Because you’re obviously having some oversight of the process.
Pete Hemingway:
We will give you feedback. We’re good at that.
Rick Thornberry:
What I’d like to do is, if I could, quickly give you the rest of the handouts and then I’ve got Doctor Corley
who would like to say a few words about these issues and these amendments that we’ve talked about. And Bill
Coppel that has been heavily involved in the development of the NFPA 5000 code would also like to comment on
some of these. Then we have Mr. Pendergrast who would like to talk about the high rises.
To point out – you have this one chart – so you know what it’s about. This is a fire record of the different
regions of the country. It’s kind of parallels the way the different regions have adopted the three mile
approach that were out there before the NFPA and the IBC. And you can see clearly that the west has the
superior fire loss record over the last ten years.
Pete Hemingway:
And again, I don’t want to cut you off, but we have several people, and if I want to be fair to them, and
their hour of talking. And these folks will never go home, and I’ll have a lot of people angry with me. So
I’m trying to be fair to everybody, and give them an opportunity.
Rick Thornberry:
I didn’t like to be first off, cause I agree with you, some other people should get up and speak. And we have
a fair amount we’d like to present to you.
Pete Hemingway:
I understand that, but we have specific items that we need to address as far as amendments. And you’ve done
an excellent job. We really appreciate it. And we can go through them now and identify them now. And I think
most of these are commercial subcommittee related, and I’m sure Mr. Litchfield will address them specifically.
Rick Thornberry:
I think we’ve got the amendments proposed. We’re discussing them. We wanted to bring them to your attention
and give you a little background, so that you might offer a little feedback. That’s what we were hoping for,
that we’d get this process moving forward at a subcommittee level.
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chair, I’d like to ask the question. I understand you’re from California, and I appreciate the information
you’ve brought. Building Owners and Manager’s Association is very much aware and supportive of both
containment and suppression as a means of fire life safety and protecting, primarily what we deal with is high
rise buildings. And you’re in an alliance. But I’m not clear as to where the alliance is and what our local.
You’re proposing that we look at stuff in our committee – who’s going to be our contact person. Is somebody
going to be here to follow up with the committee to discuss these things?
Rick Thornberry:
Yes, sir. We have a representative at each of the subcommittee meetings since we brought the amendments to
them. And we’ve made ourselves available. Joe knows how to get hold of us.
Gary Coley:
So Joe’s got the contact. OK.
Rick Thornberry:
If I could, then, I’d like to give the microphone over to Dr. Gene Corley.
Pete Hemingway:
If Dr. Corley is going to speak to a specific amendment, then we can, otherwise we need to give an opportunity—
Rick Thornberry:
We can certainly do that. Why don’t we hold off on that, and see what other folks have to say.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Larry Davis, who would like to speak today. Mr. Davis, are you in favor or opposed today?
Larry Davis:
I’m in favor of the amendments from the Alliance for Fire Safety. I’m a local contractor, and after looking
over their data. Since this code process has started, I’ve been looking over the NFPA data, and I can’t find
anything to support in lowering decrease in fire rating construction. I can’t find it. So, I just want to say
that I’m in favor of their amendments.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Mr. Edward Pendergrast. Mr. Pendergrast, you are in favor.
Edward Pendergrast:
I am in favor with amendments, and I wish to address some specific amendments regarding the high rise section
of the code NFPA 5000. By way of introduction, let me acquaint you with myself. I am the former chief fire
prevention engineer of the city of Chicago, bureau of fire prevention. I spent 30 years toiling in the
vineyards of city government, and spending more hours of my life than I care to think about sitting on the
same side of the table as you find yourselves on this afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have a high rate of
empathy and respect for the chore that you before you.
Specifically, my duties with the City of Chicago involved, in large measure, high rise buildings. Therefore,
I’d like to address two sections, chapter 33, NFPA 5000 dealing with high rise buildings. Specifically, the
Alliance for Fire Safety has proposed an amendment that a smoke control system be provided for high rise
buildings.
Pete Hemingway:
What section?
Edward Pendergrast:
This would be in a new section, 33.2.5.
Pete Hemingway:
Central control station?
Edward Pendergrast:
Yes, this would be an amendment to that. The high rise building would be sprinklered, which is of course
important and appropriate. But the deletion of a smoke control system would create a situation. I want to
emphasize to you that I speak from experience with my duties with the City of Chicago. I not only worked in
the code capacity, as many of you do in City government, but I also responded with the Chicago Fire Department
as an engineer to many fires in high rise buildings.
And what we find happening in high rise buildings is that even with the proper functioning of the automatic
sprinkler system. Where the sprinkler system acts to control the fire. You still have to deal with the
products of combustion from the occupied spaces of the building. The result of the automatic function of the
sprinkler system will be to eliminate a level of products of combustion that may be life threatening, but will
still create a situation of sufficient irritation, that a high degree of anxiety results for the occupants of
the building.
A typical fire scenario might be that the sprinkler operates to control the fire. In a high rise building you
have diverse occupancy, so you may be dealing with something like a restaurant storeroom for example, or a
janitorial storeroom of any of a number of scenarios that may arise. The sprinkler system acts to control the
fire. One or two sprinkler heads activate, but you still have the products of combustion. And because of the
encapsulated nature of modern high rise construction building where we rely on the HVAC system to provide for
the air changes and the breathable air in the building, those products of combustion tend to linger and to
travel through various channels of the building. That would be your stairwells, elevator shafts, pipe chases
down the corridor, and so forth, exposing the occupants to not necessarily a life threatening level of products
of combustion, but an irritating level, such that there is a need for evacuation. Because the general public
is now aware that they’re in a building which is suffering some kind of a fire emergency. What we find
happening is that where we have a smoke control system, we can either contain or eliminate those products of
combustion from the rest of the building. They might still flow out on the floor of the fire of origin floor,
but they will not travel to other floors. So if you have hotel occupancies, residential occupancies, occupied
office buildings during the day in an office or health care facility, you eliminate the need for any high
degree of evacuation of your occupants, with the smoke control system. Something which may occur to you if
you don’t have that smoke control system. So we would recommend that amendment be made.
Pete Hemingway:
So, a specific amendment – this is the way I have it recorded – you’re recommending.
Edward Pendergrast:
Yes, I’m recommending that Section 33.2.5 be added. That the high rise building shall be provided with an
improved smoke control system.
Pete Hemingway:
Got that, Joe?
Barbara Koffron:
So in that case, 33.2.5, the existing central control station, would be renumbered.
Edward Pendegrast:
Yes. I stand corrected. Thank you.
The second amendment that I would like to propose,
Pete Hemingway:
Just a second, hold on.
Joe McElvaney:
Could I have that one more time?
Pete Hemingway:
Could you repeat it just one more time?
Barbara Koffron:
Sure. Section 33.2.5
Pete Hemingway:
Could you state the proposal just one more time?
Edward Pendegrast:
It’s one sentence, and it would say: Smoke control. High rise buildings shall be provided with Pruett’s
automatic smoke control in accordance with section 55.7.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you.
Edward Pendegrast:
The second amendment, dealing with the degree of structural fire resistance. I’d like to propose an amendment
to section 33.1.3. Actually, there would be several changes. And basically it would be to propose that the
structural fire resistant rating for the structural components for the building be not more than one hour for
the automatic sprinkler system. Now again, high rise buildings will be constructed with automatic sprinklers,
so this is going to be an automatic kick-down in the degree of fire resistance for the structural system of
the building. And the reason for this is that the proposed NFPA 5000 drastically reduces the amount of
structural fire resistance from the existing 1997 Uniform Building Code.
But to relate my proposed amendment to you, ladies and gentlemen. When we deal with a high rise building, I
think everyone would agree, we’re dealing with a very highly critical type of structure, and occupancy.
Unlike other occupancies we have, we are totally dependent on the function of the structure as what we might
almost refer to as a life support system, if you think about it. You have a 30, 35, 40 story high building.
The way our modern buildings are built, the mere continuity of human life within the building is dependent on
the systems of the building. Like the HVAC systems – breathable air, recycling of air, water, elimination of
human waste, and all the other functions that the building supplies. So we’re not dealing with just a building
like we might be talking about, for instance, a fast food restaurant or some other occupancy of this type.
Given that these buildings are oriented in a vertical dimension, we have an entire vertical community. The
role of structural fire resistance in that total large equation is to provide for integrity of the structure
in an emergency situation. This provides for two critical features.
One, the ability to evacuate the building, should it be necessary. Emergencies have begun to occur,
unfortunately, in the society where we have to re-examine the fact – the assumption we had in Chicago way back
30 years ago was that we would never have to evacuate more than one floor of a high rise building at a time.
But more recent events, more recent types of emergencies have uncovered the fact that we have to re-examine
that. It may in fact be necessary to evacuate a larger portion of the building.
Pete Hemingway:
Specifically, which amendment are we proposing?
Edward Pendegrast:
This specifically would deal with a higher level of structural fire resistance. And where I was going with
that explanation is that we need that structural fire resistance to keep that structure in place to allow for
evacuation and to allow for forward fire control operations. I think I can speak for the fire service when they
go into one of these buildings, they must be able to go up into the building, in a high rise building more so
than in other structures to interface with that building’s system on a very intimate basis.
Pete Hemingway:
And just so you know, we have the fire marshall as part of this force, so he’s kept us abreast of the vertical
structures. Because I’m trying to keep you to the point of the amendments.
Edward Pendegrast:
I don’t mean to stray. I mean to just supply some background. In other words, what we need in our high rise
buildings are the fire safety features, not withstanding, is a good degree of the structural fire resistance
to maintain the integrity of the building, not only for the safety of the occupancy so that they have the time
to evacuate in a worst case scenario, but also that forward fire fighting operations can take place in the
upper levels of the building. The tactical fire officers can proceed with that degree of confidence.
Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? This last proposal we have is dealing with section 33.1.3? Structural
requirements?
Edward Pendegrast:
33.1.3. Yes.
Larry Litchfield:
There’s three subsections in there that allow a reduction of one type of construction if you provide sprinkler
protection in the building.
Edward Pendegrast:
Yes, and the specific proposed amendment would limit it to a reduction of only one hour.
Pete Hemingway:
So the specific amendment is?
Edward Pendegrast:
In buildings of type 1 construction, the fire resistive rating set forth in Table 7.2 shall be permitted to be
reduced by 1 hour for interior bearing walls, …supporting roofs, providing the beams do not have direct
connections to the columns.
Larry Litchfield:
Mr. Chair, this is where the committee had problems. Because that language, what it allows, is a deletion of
one hour rating, in a type 3.1.1.1 construction, to eliminate one hour, would be down to zero. And we thought
it totally defeats the purpose. So we told them to go back and rework the language, because it doesn’t work.
What they intend to do – we agreed with the concept of not decreasing the fire rating, but the proposed
language was an old Uniform Building Code language, and it is looking through the mirror the other way if you
will, because what he did was end up deducting an hour off where one hour is allowed on a high rise.
Edward Pendergrast:
Yes, and I stand corrected, and I quite agree.
Larry Litchfield:
So, what you’re saying is no more than a minimum to reach the floor and no less than one drop, and that’s all.
Edward Pendergrast:
Precisely, yes.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Tracy Finley.
Tracy Finley with Shea Homes, a member of the residential subgroup.
Pete Hemingway:
Before you get going, Tracy, are you in favor of this amendment, or are you opposed?
Tracy Finley
Good question. I don’t have a specific item that I am opposed to today. I am in favor of the residential
subgroup proposals that we currently have approved.
In regards to a specific item, I don’t have anything that I can specifically tell you today. Other than some
of the items that we have not finished through our subgroup. City staff as well as Pete, has done an excellent
job working with us in our subcomittee, and we just ask that we can continue to have that happen. And just
continue to resolve the item that we have in question today. I know we said we may one meeting left, I would
assume we have two or three maybe.
Pete Hemingway:
I’ll work that out with you, OK?
Tracy Finley:
That’s all I have today. Just ask that we could have some more time to continue the efforts that we have
today.
Pete Hemingway:
OK, thank you.
Miss Betty Jenkins
Betty Jenkins:
I’m opposed to taking any direction today. We still have a lot that we have to do.
Pete Hemingway:
OK, but you would not like to speak then, That’s it? OK, thank you.
Mr. Mark Wetmore?
Mark is opposed to this item.
Mr. Russ Brock
Russ Brock:
Mr. Chair, members of the committee.
Pete Hemingway:
Are you in favor or opposed?
Russ Brock:
I am, like Tracy, I am in favor of the items that we have moved into this amendment already, although I
haven’t read some of them. Obviously, we want to have an opportunity to review that. As you know, we still
have 28 items yet to go.
Opposed to is moving ahead and saying that this phase of the code development process is complete. Till I’m
addressing the items that aren’t in here yet, we hope to be able to work those out. As you know, we’ve had
committee meetings. In addition, we’ve had extra work sessions with Joe to try to get caught up on it, with
the other committees, but it’s a lot of small details in what we’re doing apparently, and we need more time.
Pete Hemingway:
All right. Thank you.
Miss Liz Carabin. Liz, are you opposed, or?
Liz Carabine:
I’m actually for.
Pete Hemingway:
OK. I think they have a speaker set up for you over here.
Liz Carabine:
I’m going to clarify what Gilstrap from American Institute of Architects talked about. You say it was on
page 15 or 20, but I don’t know what specific item it is.
Pete Hemingway:
That’s your amendment to chapter 12.
Liz Carabine:
Let me just explain. The Mayor’s Commission on Disability Issues went before the Transit, Aviation and
Technology subcommittee on February 12th, and we wanted increased accessibility housing around the new light
rail system. They charged Development Services and us to come up with a solution to make a statewide increased
percentage. We took information to the committee, which did not ask the committee to increase it
from 2% to 5%. But the comment I want to make is that we are not done with this issue. Development Services
was charged to come back with the solution in 30 days to the next subcommittee meeting. And if we stay
at 2%….solution to increasing the accessible… so if we finalize NFPA 5000, or if we don’t today, however it
goes, or if we even vote on it today, we need to come up with a solution for providing additional accessible
housing. And I do appreciate Susan’s offer to work with us, because that is something that we will do in the
future. But we need to get moving on that stipulation, increasing the accessible housing throughout the City,
and increasing accessible along the light rail transit corridor.
There are some issues we are addressing now and I think within the next 30 days we will be able to solve that.
My concern is that we need to go back to the subcommittee and let them know where we stand before the deadline
mid-March, first of April. And again that’s something that ….and Development Services and…. were charged with.
Whatever decision comes out of today’s meeting, we need to address that separately and work on that. We need
to increase the type A housing, or accessible housing throughout the City.
Pete Hemingway:
OK. I do know that has been placed on the March 20th agenda.
Ben Barcon:
Can I ask a question? Is there another avenue to deal with that corridor other than NFPA?
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chair, there are several things going on. We’re meeting with the law department, to see if we can legally
do it. Some people think that if we have an overlay in the ….quarter, we are talking about the quarter mile
where the track is, the overlay, so can we legally do it or not?
Gary Coley:
Excuse me, Joe. Quarter mile each side, or quarter mile wide?
Joe McElvaney:
Each side of the track.
Gary Coley:
So a half mile wide.
Joe McElvaney:
Half mile wide, yes. Whatever direction it will come. That’s my understanding of how big this is at this
time. There’s some questions on whether we can legally do it, because now you are potentially infringing on
someone’s rights in that area. Where if you live 5/8 you’re not in that zone. The law department is looking
at that to see if we can do that. Staff is working with Liz and everybody else. City had one internal meeting
with all the city departments, and I think there’s ten city departments affected by this. The Planning
Department, Housing, EOC, Transit. Everybody was there except Fire and Police, I think. So we’re trying to
work on a solution. What that solution is at this time we don’t know yet, because there’s some legal questions
to be figured out.
Ben Barcon:
So, once you come up with a solution, or a recommendation, where does that go?
Joe McElvaney:
Most likely, it goes several places. Depending on where we are at in this process, and when that decision
comes from other departments. We can take it to the accessibility subcommittee or we could take it to the
whole Development Advisory Board, and maybe that would be the best and easiest way to do it. It’s such a
large issue that you may have a solution or an answer from a subcommittee. We’ll have a public hearing on it,
just like we….so maybe working with multi-housing and also the Homebuilders Association, maybe we can have
some working meetings. And the solution would eventually come here.
Danny Ortega:
Mr. Chairman I was just wondering. Do we have any information, say from other light rails areas, say San
Diego or Houston to get an idea of what we’re trying to look at here?
Joe McElvaney:
In the subcommittee that’s one of the questions that came up. Do they have any additional grants in that area?
There’s a person who’s writing a grant from the City, and he’s looking into that also. But the accessibility
people have given some information on the transit that showed a large amount of the people who ride transit
now…there’s a fairly good hunk of that. So the odds are that light rail – it’s going to be easier, even for
those that drive rather than ride the bus…taken an increase. The other cities that have light rail, the
numbers have increased also. So they never will increase for the handicapped to go from a bus service to a
light rail service.
Gary Coley:
I’m confused. Our subcommittee is the NFPA 5000 subcommittee, not a separate subcommittee dealing with these
separate transit issues.
Pete Hemingway:
Right now it’s not, but because this issue was raised.
Lady?:
It was brought up in the accessibility committee.
Pete Hemingway:
It was brought up in the accessibility committee of the NFPA 5000, because they wanted it to be part of the
NFPA 5000 and our adoption process. When this percentage was talked about, it went first to legal, and they
said basically you could not apply it to the light rail corridor, you’d have to apply it throughout the City.
So that has major impacts to the Multi-Housing Association in particular. And other impacts that we felt was
necessary to look at, and it may be necessary for us to look at this outside the NFPA 5000.
So we’re probably 30 days away in a legal determination of whether it fits within, or gets separated out, or
some combination thereof.
Pete Hemingway:
Or some combination thereof.
Rick Doell:
If I could clarify this. This discussion started at the Environmental Subcommittee of the City Council. And
they came up with a proposed revised code amendment, to put the 5% in, based upon our current code. They were
advised that the best avenue was to come through this process and what we have been tasked for as City staff
to work with and deal with in Development Advisory Board is to start to answer the question on the proposed
revision. And if Development Advisory Board rejects it, that’s the answer they will look at. And then what
they can do is actually take the issue directly to the Public Safety Subcommittee and say this is the code.
If the code issue isn’t the proper way to do it, then you’re looking at going to zoning to see if that’s – but
again whether or not we can do it at all is still in the hands of our attorneys.
Gary Coley:
I don’t want to speak for Larry, but he’s had experience with this in San Francisco and like we do with
downtown redevelopment, are you exploring and to end … rather than making the code requirement, and make the
pot sweet enough that you get the same effect without having to include it.
Rick Doell:
…discussion that went on in Environmental Subcommittee, but they decided that this was the quickest and
easiest route to do this, even though the construction –
Personally, it’s probably not the best item to put in a place like this. It’s probably a zoning issue. The
Deputy City Manager has asked us to do – is to get that feedback from Development Advisory Board in an
official manner, so they know what their options are.
Pete Hemingway:
So we have a little work to do.
Mr. Charlie Obie does not wish to speak, but he’s in favor of item #8. Item #8, I believe that this is all
the cards that we have received. Did anybody not get an opportunity to speak that would like to speak?
I know we have our two gentlemen.
Mr. Todd Gilbert would like to speak, and you are in favor?
Todd Gilbert:
Well, I’m not opposed. I just wanted to go on record to say that I’m absolutely in agreement with the
amendments that the Fire Safety has proposed.
Pete Hemingway:
OK, I have another one? And you are?
Sharon Weber:
My name is Sharon Weber. You have a card. I deferred earlier. I just wanted to go on record and say that I
live, work and play here in Phoenix, and in my work, I’ve been involved with the Uniform Building Code 97, the
IBC 2000 code, and now with the City of Phoenix looking at the NFPA 5000 code, I’m becoming more and more
familiar with the code as it stands. I’m very concerned with the changes from the 97 code to the new code
that we’re looking at, with the changes in the level of fire and life safety. And I’d just like to go on
record as saying that I’m in favor of the proposed amendments that have been laid out by the Alliance for Fire
Safety.
Pete Hemingway:
And you are with a specific association, or are you an engineer, architect, or?
Sharon Weber:
I work with a company called Hilti. I am in construction. Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
OK, Mr. Corley.
Gene Corley:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gene Corley. I am a licensed structural engineer and professional engineer.
My background is that I led building performance studies at the World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City, and
have done other similar work. I would like to call you attention to material that was handed out earlier
that’s indicated as fire protection after line 11. I’d like approximately one minute to let you know what is
in there.
Basically, at the World Trade Center, there were two buildings that were not hit by airplanes that collapsed
as a result of fire alone. These two buildings are shown in here, and are shown that even with what was
considered to be excellent fire protection at the time there is a very real possibility of collapse when
sprinkler systems don’t work. In both buildings, they were fully sprinklered, the sprinkler system was not
effective in stopping the fire. And that’s what these two items show.
Next to the last sheet, I note that sprinklers are not always effective. Burn out can occur. Fire protection
should be related to the fire lode in the building, and reduction in fire protection is not justified.
Therefore I speak in favor of deferring any action until such time as the height and area table can be revised
to provide at least as good protection as Phoenix has at present.
Pete Hemingway:
May I ask a question? In this area, which buildings collapsed?
Gene Corley:
OK, the collapses in the aerial view are building 7, which you can see was a total collapse of a 47-story
building. It was not damaged before, and building 5 had collapse inside the building. The first set of
slides show the collapse inside building WTC5 and the last 3 photos show building 7 at the time it was set on
fire, when one of the towers collapsed. And then just before that time, when it was not yet on fire, and then
it shows the collapse of that building that occurred in the afternoon of 9/11.
Pete Hemingway:
And both of those buildings were sprinklered, and the sprinkler system didn’t work.
Gene Corley:
They were fully sprinklered. The sprinkler systems were unable to provide adequate protection.
Larry Litchfield:
So inadequate to the task. They actually functioned, but they were inadequate for the level of fire.
Gene Corley:
The sprinkler heads fused. There was no water available for the sprinklers. Therefore, they couldn’t do
anything. The water system was not able to supply.
Pete Hemingway:
I don’t know if you can answer this for me or not, but given the circumstances. What would have save the
building?
Gene Corley:
What would have save the building is an adequate amount of fire protection to make the-
Larry Litchfield:
What was the fire protection on the building?
Gene Corley:
The fire protection was a sprayed on – 3 hours for the columns, 2 hours for the floors.
Larry Litchfield:
And what was required by the code?
Gene Corley:
That’s what was required by the code at the time these buildings were built.
Larry Litchfield:
Was it reduced because of the sprinklers?
Gene Corley:
No, sir, it was not.
Larry Litchfield:
It had the code minimum fire proofing.
Gene Corley:
It had the code minimum fire protection, but even with just –
Larry Litchfield:
So the sprinklers didn’t really. You could have had 6 hours of fire protection, and it still probably would
have collapsed.
Gene Corley:
It would have stood up if it had a little more fire protection. Big parts of the one building stood.
Larry Litchfield:
But it had the code allowance so if you had put one more hour on it, would it have stood up?
Gene Corley:
In my opinion, it would have.
Larry Litchfield:
So you’re saying four hours for everything?
Gene Corley:
No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that there should be appropriate minimums for buildings, and if you have a
building with an unusual fire load on it, that is a fuel supply that is unusual, then you should increase it
above that minimum.
Pete Hemingway:
I guess you say appropriate. Is that three hours or four hours. My concern is that we’re trying to
understand what you’re saying, but to increase it to what point? At some point – I’ve seen various reports –
these weren’t the towers that were immediately hit. But I’ve heard various reports that said it wouldn’t
matter that no sort of bunkers – it would have been cost prohibitive to protect a building against that type
of impact.
Gene Corley:
Yes, our report, in fact, says that it is not good public policy to design buildings to take the hits of the
biggest aircraft available. However, these buildings were not hit by aircraft. They were burn outs of
contents of the buildings with no outside fuel. And yet there was collapse there.
Larry Litchfield:
What was the time period when the buildings were exposed to fire?
Gene Corley:
On the 47-story building, the time was from about 10:40 in the morning when tower one collapsed until 4:20 in
the afternoon.
Larry Litchfield:
So about six hours?
Gene Corley:
Yes, there was enough fire load in the building for that. That building would have required a higher fire
resistance than the minimum.
The other building did not have an unusual amount of fuel in it. I don’t have the time on that fire, but it
was most likely in the range of four or five hours of fuel. The equivalent of a four or five hour standard
fire.
Larry Litchfield:
So what you would be advocating is a fire design criteria for each building specifically.
Because that would be the only way to really figure it out.
Gene Corley:
That would be my favorite way of doing it. What I’m advocating for the City of Phoenix is that the tables not
further reduce the fire resistance, but at least stay at the same level.
Pete Hemingway:
I just want to get to where we were.
Gene Corley:
That’s my recommendation.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. You are Mr.?
Bill Koffel:
Bill Koffel
Pete Hemingway:
Hi, Bill.
Bill Koffel:
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Koffel. I’m a Fire Protection Engineer with Koffel and Associates. We’re a
fire protection engineering code consulting firm. I am here on behalf of the Alliance for Fire Safety. And I
really just want to speak to one issue, and not get into the technical issues. But really give you a little
bit of history and some basis for considering the proposals that the alliance has put forward, and
particularly regarding…
I chaired the task force that was responsible originally for the height and area provisions that are found in
NFPA 5000, and subsequently are scope cut expanded to the entire chapter 7. If you go through the documentation
of developing a code, you will notice that up until the very last minute, the task group was exploring an
alternative method of regulating building height and area. A very non-traditional method that dealt with
sprinklers and compartmentation, and height of buildings. During the public comment period, we received a
number of public comments and a task group, and subsequently the technical committee decided that the
alternative or the new method that we were exploring was not quite ready.
One of the public comments was to merely go back and place a height and area table in NFPA 5000 that was
essentially the same as the National Building Code. What is in NFPA 5000 is very similar to that public
comment. The Table is essentially the same as the National Building Code, except it has been modified to
incorporate provisions from the NFPA Life Safety Code. Those primarily reduced some of the number of stories
that are permitted within the IDC.
But I think the message that I want to leave with you this afternoon is that as far as the task group is
concerned, the technical committee, the technical correlating committee for NFPA 5000 is concerned: Our work
is not done. And therefore, to the extent that your subcommittee has the ability to explore the proposals
that have been put forward, and consider them in relationship to your current code requirements, I would
encourage you to do so.
Earlier today, we heard the comment that there’s no data to support the relaxation. Well, I guess that’s part
of my comment. The subcommittee did not, or the task group did not look at data to support the table.
Because we were at the 11th hour of the process, we merely took an existing table and placed it in the code.
I wish I could tell you there was more technical basis to it than that, but there isn’t. So, in terms of data,
no the data really doesn’t exist to support the table anymore than it does or does not exist to support the
table in the National Building Code.
Larry Litchfield:
Before you go on, maybe you could elaborate, too, on the fact that when NFPA was going to produce the tables
they planned to approach it on a more scientific basis. And that didn’t take place exactly.
Bill Koffel:
To the extent possible, yes, that was our ultimate challenge, was to develop a scientifically-based area
provisions within the curve. And the task group worked diligently, looking at a lot of fire data. We looked
at studies throughout the world. Some of our preliminary work was based on the work that was done by
Ramashandra in the U.K. Again, we just were not comfortable moving forward with that provision. And we opted
to go back to what was present in the IBC.
So I think you have the opportunity to provide some valuable input into the NFPA process, because as I said,
our task group will be continuing its effort. We will be holding a task group meeting in about five or six
weeks in New Orleans to start working towards the height and area provisions in NFPA 5000 2005 edition of the
code. So, again, the message I want to leave is that we don’t think our work is done. Any work that you can
do to help us along those lines and provide input into our process, we would certainly encourage you to do so.
Thank you.
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chair, Can I ask a question? At what point do you think this alternative is available?
Bill Koffel:
That would be speculation on my part. I will say our objective, and I think the technical
committee will challenge the task group with again during its meeting in April, will be having a new
methodology available for the 2005 edition of the code. Whether we are able to accomplish that, I cannot
guarantee. But we will be working towards that end.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Koffel, I believe what you’re proposing is that we keep the height and area table of the Uniform Building
Code currently. And as this process of research continues, that more data would come forward, and more … come
forward, then nationally there would be more data to support different heights and areas, and then maybe at
that point, the table could change.
Bill Koffel:
Clearly, that’s probably the safest thing for the City of Phoenix to do, because it’s a known entity. And
it’s no different than the NFK task group did when they went back to the IBC table with some modifications.
Larry Litchfield:
There’s one more point, though, that if – because the NFPA has a performance-based code section, chapter 5,
that’s in there, if somebody wanted to do greater heights and areas than are in the table, there is a
performance methodology that they could use to go to a greater height and area.
Pete Hemingway:
Absolutely. If you were to retain the current provisions for height and area, Chapter 5 of NFPA 5000 would
give any developer, any designer, that wanted to look at an alternative method – maybe what the task group was
working on at the time – to try to implement that in the project – that would certainly be available.
Larry Litchfield:
Then, at that point, if that’s the direction you take, and it’s encumbent upon Development Services, then to
decide if that alternative is adequate to exceed the requirements?
So the ball’s back in our court again.
Bill Koffel:
There’s a methodology for saying, I have a small fuel load, or I have a smaller building. I have something
that’s unique. Go through the analytical process. Come up with a justification, and say, wow, I’ve come up
with a bigger area.
Keep in mind, too, in both the Uniform Building Code and the 5000 and the IBC, there are provisions for
unlimited area buildings, and that doesn’t change.
Gary Coley:
In fact, if I could just carry forward that concept, Larry, that recently I received the comment that my pas?
needed to expand our effort in the place height and area provisions within chapter five, which is a
performance-based option. And my response back is, not we don’t. If the goals and objectives in Chapter 5
adequately address fire safety and structural stability, there’s no reason for us to do anything in Chapter 5.
We’re developing a prescriptive approach. And the performance-based approach is already there.
Thank You's all around:
Pete Hemingway:
Are there any other items or any other cards on agenda item 8?
Rick Thornberry:
I’ll be real quick. I wanted to point you – since we are talking about height and area changes, and that’s a
specific code change that we have submitted to the commercial subcommittee, and I wanted to check on what Mr.
Koffel said. I happened to participate in that task group as well, in the NFPA 5000. We think this is an
important issue to bring to you based on our experience.
But if you look at one more handout. I’d like you to take a good look at. And it’s a 3-page handout called
“Allowable building areas and heights, types of construction.” And it looks like this, landscape format. We
just picked some examples to highlight to you the drastic differences between the Uniform Building Code height
and area table and the NFPA 5000 height and area table when you apply all the increases that are allowed under
the code for area and height.
And just to start off the top, and that’s as far as I’ll go, Mr. Chairman, just so you know how to get through
this table. Because I think it is important to see.
We chose occupancies that we think are pretty typical. But on this first page you see it’s an office occupancy.
You’ll see the type of construction under the Uniform Building Code is type 2N, which is a non-combustible,
non-ratability, no fire resistancy in the building. Under the Uniform Building Code you have two ways you can
use fire sprinkler increases. That’s why there’s a line across there. The first is – you can use your
sprinkler increase to get an increase in area, but no increase in height. So this is how you can maximize
your building area along with your maximum frontage to get your biggest increases there. Below the line is if
you decide to use the sprinkler to increase your height but not your area. And then you can still use your
frontage increase to increase your area.
Then we compare that to the comparable type of construction in an NFPA 5000, which is your type 2000. That
means no fire ratings. It’s non-combustible. And you see what that allows. You can see a big difference
right there. Even if we use the story increase, we only go up to three stories under the Uniform Building Code.
You go to five stories under the NFPA 5000, and no fire resistance in the building at all.
Then, on the other side of the dotted vertical line, which show you to get to where you could get in the Uniform
Building Code which you have now to get to the areas and heights allowed by NFPA 5000, you’d actually have to
go to type 2FR construction. Which means basically you have to have 2 hour floors and 2 hour columns. And
then that will get you up to the same area, and it will get you a little higher. We’re just showing you that
this is what you’d get if you divided the allowable area by the 5 stories to meet the 5 story height in the
NFPA 5000.
That’s just an example of how drastically different they are. And that’s why we strongly urge you to take a
look at this and act on it. And take the time that it needs before you adopt it.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
Larry Litchfield:
You know, they’ve made about three presentations to our subcommittee. And as the chair of that subcommittee,
I’m almost ready to make a motion, I think, to placate this situation. Is that in order?
Pete Hemingway:
I don’t think that’s in order right now. I think the committee should bring it back.
Larry Litchfield:
But, actually, they’re making the motion before us because the subcommittee has moved to not act on their item
at this time.
Pete Hemingway:
Then it will come to the correlating committee.
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chair, there are several options that are available, I think. They can come here and request as they have
done so this board can listen to the appeal and they can vote on that appeal or they can send it to the
correlating committee or send it back to the committee. Because basically, it’s like an appeal process.
When we do a modification they can appeal it, then you go to full Development Advisory Board. This is where
they’re at. So you all have some options here to do.
Pete Hemingway:
They have given us a volume of information today. I would like the board to give consideration to referring
it back to the subcommittee and the subcommittee coming back to us with a comparison or recommendation as to
why we should or should not support what has been presented to us today.
Larry Litchfield:
Well, actually, what they are proposing is no change in what we’ve got right now in the City of Phoenix. That
was going to be basically my motion, that we keep the height and area table of the Uniform Building Code,
carry that forward. It sounds like it still needs six months to continue their … and we’re going to have
six months when the fire code comes up that we obviously continue to visit this as additional data comes
forward. And then, when the fire code is coming up for review, we tweak the table at that time.
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chair, since this addresses my constituency, in the office of commercial environment, I would like to see
all of the points that have been brought up today go back to the subcommittee, come back to us in a timely
manner. I don’t know how much time I spent this week reading emails and now I’ve got more stuff coming at me
before I even sit down. And I’m uncomfortable voting on that now. I don’t want to go back to my high rise
developers and tell them we listened for 20 minutes, and voted and moved things forward. I would move that
all of the items that have come up today go back to subcommittee and attempt to have it presented to us before
our next scheduled hearing so that everybody can have a chance to look at it. Maybe we can knock some of these
off.
Ben Barcon:
Again. Point of clarification. We’re still on item 8, which is a public hearing, so we have to go on to
item 9 to take any action.
Pete Hemingway:
Any more discussion – we’re moving to item 9 at this time.
Discussion/Possible Action on Recommendation for Adoption of the Amended National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 5000, 2003 Edition as the Construction Code of the City of Phoenix
Any comments, Mr. Doell or Mr. McElvaney, before we open it up to the committee?
Rick Thornberry:
I would encourage the committee and any chairs to discuss this issue.
Gary Coley:
In light of the input we’ve received, and the amount of information we’ve been given, I would move that all of
it be referred back to the committee with an attempt to have it wordsmithed and back in our hands prior to the
next hearing.
Pete Hemingway:
We’re asking if you want to take an action on that.
Ben Barcon:
I think what you’re doing, is you’re specifically addressing the fire issues that have been brought up and not
the entire NFPA 5000 as listed in item #9.
Gary Coley:
Well, actually, I’m uncomfortable with ADA. I don’t know where we are. My last conversation with Scott was
that they had two or three more weeks worth of stuff. If they could accelerate it between now and the next
meeting, that’s fine. But I think we’ve got a number of issues and a number of chapters that need to be dealt
with. We’ve schedule public hearings for another two weeks from now.
Pete Hemingway:
That’s the next discussion item. And just because we have an agenda item, we don’t have to take action on it.
On item # 9 we could defer it, table it, and move on to item 10.
Gary Coley:
That’s fine with me, as long as we’re not deciding that everything’s approved at this point. We have a lot
more work.
Pete Hemingway:
We would have to entertain a motion on item 9.
Gary Coley:
If that leaves it open to committee review, moving forward, I’ll withdraw my motion.
Pete Hemingway:
Anybody have a motion on item 9? We can move forward to agenda item 10.
Gary Coley:
I thought we had a card on item 9.
Pete Hemingway:
We did. I apologize. Mr. Ken Ireland.
Ken Ireland:
If we delayed the recommendation to report the NFPA 5000 I won’t speak to that point.
Pete Hemingway:
Dave Nichols. No Dave. OK. No other discussion on item 9, we’ll move to item 10.
Discussion/Possible Action on the Closing Date of Public Comment on Agenda Items 2, 4, 6, and 8 if any of the
above code items are not adopted
Mr. Chair, before we go on. I would like to make a couple comments. We can continue to dissect this code.
There’s a number of things that obviously need to continue to be done. But there's another process that needs
to go on. And at the Council level, and there’s going to be basically two efforts at the Council level.
One’s going to be what I call the political level. Whether it should go forward or not.
And I think, maybe, if we could, divide the question into two parts. Let us create a parallel process in the
public hearings can be made at the council level on the political issue, and then let the technical side of
this process continue to weather, knowing that once the code is adopted that’s usually a slam dunk at the
council, because they are not necessarily going to review it technically as long as most of the technical
issues are resolved. They will probably hear testimony to that effect. But at some time they are going to
have to move on it also.
Pete Hemingway:
City Council.
Larry Litchfield:
City Council.
Pete Hemingway:
And City Council will have a public hearing.
Larry Litchfield:
Right.
Pete Hemingway:
OK. I don’t think I’m going to tell City Council that they need to have a public hearing to discuss whether –
I mean, that’s part of the process.
Larry Litchfield:
That is part of the process. That’s the process this board approves. That’s step five of the process.
Pete Hemingway:
I guess I don’t understand why we would try and split.
Larry Litchfield:
We’ve got two issues at hand. Whether the code moves forward. We, as Development Advisory Board, we’ve
wrestled with that, and we’re moving forward. Council has had just the subcommittee hearing on that, and has
officially taken a position to adopt the 5000. Which they could politically, not technically.
Pete Hemingway:
But I think they made, when they decided this was consensus call, with the appropriate ordinance, that
NFPA 5000 is a code. If they want to open it up to public hearing at some point in time, it’s their purview
to do that, I would think, as City Council. And if they want people to speak to that regard, they are the
City Council.
They haven’t so far, but I’m not saying – if I’m missing something, please enlighten me.
Mike Colletto:
What Larry’s saying. We could go on – there could be an amendment at the next public hearing, and we could
stop and review that. Then there could be an amendment at the following public hearing. That is an indefinite
possibility. At some point, we’ve got to say, this is a deadline for the amendments. We’re going to vote on
the adoption.
Pete Hemingway:
I agree with that, and you’re getting a little ahead of me. If you read down to item 10, that’s where we get
that closing date of public comment and hearing and get through that process. And if that’s what we want
to do, move to item 10, then we can. I guess I didn’t understand what motion you were trying to make and how
we can move. I guess I kinda to understand what you’re trying to say, but I don’t know if we can do that.
Gary Coley:
I guess I don’t know what you’re trying to say either.
Ben Barcon:
Are you saying we recommend the code as it is now for adoption, then follow up with the technical stuff?
Yeah, we’re going to adopt it anyway, so let’s go ahead and approve it and we’ll fill in the blanks later?
Is that what you’re trying to say?
Mike Colletto:
No, not really.
Ben Barcon:
If Larry has a motion to make, he needs to make it, and if there’s a second, fine, then we can move on.
Larry Litchfield:
Move that we make a recommendation to adopt the NFPA 5000 2003 edition with the amendments as brought forth to
date, knowing that this is not a stable process, it’s a dynamic process, and this review and code changes will
continue. Which basically gets us back to where Phoenix used to adopt codes before. They had a document and
they continued to amend it. Rather than stagnantly to adopt it, and let it sit for 3 years.
Pete Hemingway:
I think I understand your motion. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Joe McElvaney:
Second.
Pete Hemingway:
We have a motion and a second to move forward to recommend that we take it to City Council for their
recommendation. Move to step 5 in the process.
Larry Litchfield:
As it stands today, knowing that this process will continue.
Pete Hemingway:
We will open up for discussion. Yes, Barbara.
Barbara Koffron:
Chairman, I’m a little uncomfortable with that, frankly. Because there were a number of things I would like
to see changed with regard to the amount of fire safety in buildings. I like some of the things that the
Alliance for Fire Safety has done, but we get the same. If we bring that forward today, we’re down to zero.
We’re back to your paper houses with sprinklers. I think that where we started.
Ben Barcon:
We tried the motion before to keep the height and area and construction type the same, but that didn’t seem to
apply.
Barbara Koffron:
I guess I thought at the end of this we would have an opportunity to take it back to our committees. Our
committees would get to work, and deal with some of these issues. Because I think there was a lot of great
stuff that was brought up today. I think I’d like to see it discussed in our committees, and have an
opportunity to come back and I understand the need to get to a point where – fish or cut bait. But at the same
time, I want to make sure that if I’m going for the shark, I have some decent bait.
Ben Barcon:
Mr. Chairman, as part of the subgroup 1, we’ve reviewed a number of things, we’ve got some recommendations,
but we’ve still got a little ways to go also. And I would agree with Barbara. I think a little uncomfortable
to proceed. I think we’ve got a little more time. We’re close, and so given that, I think we’re going to
have another opportunity to vote on this item. And so, I would not be in favor of it.
Pete Hemingway:
Any more comments?
Danny Ortega:
I was going to add the same. I think if they come over here and give a subcommittee, and give us go, so
everybody knows we’re on the same page. They brought some good information forth, but the way I understood it,
the way the code is now is applicable. Let’s not change it. But they have something else they want to add,
since 9/11. And I think we should look at that and I don’t think – we’re not going to waste any more time
than we have already on this. We haven’t wasted any time. We’ve done a lot of hard work here, and I think
one more week or two more weeks is not going to hurt the situation.
Barbara Koffron:
As part of this discussion, too, we might suggest that the next meeting be the last meeting.
Pete Hemingway:
That’s number 10.
Barbara Koffron:
So that we do have an end to this. I definitely need to see an end here.
Pete Hemingway:
Any further discussion on the motion?
Steve Sheldon:
Is it possible to carve out those issues that have been addressed today?
Pete Hemingway:
No, there’s a lot.
Hearing no more discussion, all those in favor of the motion.
?:
We should probably do a head count.
Pete Hemingway:
OK. We are going to do a roll call. Mr. Ortega
Danny Ortega:
Could we reread the motion?
Pete Hemingway:
Hope you guys got the Reader’s Digest version of that motion, but go ahead anyway.
Barbara Koffron:
Reread the whole motion?
Pete Hemingway:
She just finished writing the motion. Go on, Joe.
Joe McElvaney:
Mr. Chair. I’ve got some notes here. Mr. Litchfield’s motion and seconded by Mr. Colletto was to send what
we have today that was presented to Development Advisory Board to step five. And we have the continuation of
other things going on as needed. Did I say that correctly?
Larry Litchfield:
You said it better than I did.
Pete Hemingway:
You understand the motion, Mr. Ortega?
Danny Ortega:
Yes
Votes
Danny Ortega
Steve Speer
Greg Russell
Ben Barcon
Larry Litchfield
Gary Coley
Barbara Koffron
Mike Colletto
Peter Hemingway
|
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
|
I have 4 opposed, 5 in favor.
Pete Hemingway:
So what we’re saying is that we’re recommending that the parts that have already been changed are moving
forward to step five.
Question from the audience:
Could you clarify what that means, to move up to step five?
Pete Hemingway:
Step five basically moves it up to City Council. And City Council considers it.
Ben Barcon:
But yet, committees continue to meet and changed continue to be made.
Pete Hemingway:
I will tell you, that’s a real concern. I would like to say - believe me I understand we have a process in
place. And I’m not sure we’re not circumventing part of the process.
Lionel Lyons:
Mr. Chair, we’re not trying to circumvent the process. And I’m also here to say appreciate all the dialogue
that’s going on.
I’m Lionel Lyons. I’m Director of Development Services Department. I’m the guy who’s got to live with all of
this when it’s said and done. And I do humbly beg you all in this process. I understand where you both ended
up, and I sat in the back with the willingness not to say anything, but I’m a bit uncomfortable in this process.
I think one of the things that we did talk about a little bit, and it’s your discretion entirely where you go,
that at a minimum when we talked the last time was having at least one public hearing and then possibly a
second one in a couple of weeks.
As I sat here, and I listened to a number of things that have been raised, I still think that there is a lot
of work from my staff that needs to be done. I think there’s a variety of items as well in terms of the
subcommittees. I think there has been a good faith effort on both ends in terms of trying to involve all of
the stakeholders here in the state. And even though you suggested and recommended this, I also have to be
very mindful of the fact that putting this in the lap of even the Mayor or City Council at this time, without
this thing being fully explored – which they’ve asked you as the Development Advisory Board to serve as their
catalyst for being able to address these kinds of issues. And I think what you really do, is you put yourself
right back in the situation where they really send it right back to you.
I think the other part of it is, too, a number of issues have been raised. I think everybody in this process
have operated in good faith. And for me, I hope in this good faith effort, in the part of expediency, that we
don’t lose a sense of focus of all the tremendous work that each and every one of you have done. And still
there’s just a little bit more work to do. And if another two weeks or four weeks gets us there, by looking
at the things. As an administrator, I’m willing to look at that. Because in the end, separate and apart from
what you adopt, I’ve got a challenge in terms of how do we get this think implemented and move forward.
And so, I would personally beg you and urge you, even though your vote has been such, to strongly consider
some more time in this process, and also to continue to allow your subcommittees to continue to move and work
as they’ve been doing. And I think if we do that, we will have even a more open an viable document. Even
though we may not address all of the concerns that everyone has, I think in the issue that we have heard today
I heard you strongly consider just a little bit more time. And that’s my point on that.
Danny Ortega:
I’m asking this because – OK, can the committees still continue to work if we go to stage 5?
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Ortega, the committees can continue to work. What basically we have done is to move things to level 5,
and again, as the Director has pointed out, I feel very uncomfortable moving forward with a very incomplete
document.
We have to consider also, the fire marshal part of Development Advisory Board and she’s recommending that we
take further consideration. We have some very – I personally as part of the Residential Committee,
subcommittee chair, have some real concerns that we don’t have a complete document. There are some real
issues that we have to address. That’s not even to mention the accessibility issue. So I think to move
forward a document that’s not near complete.
I have a lot of confidence that we can move through the process. That we can deliver to City Council a
complete document. And to be honest with you, the document will never be 100% complete. Because it is a
dynamic document. It will be subject to change, and as we put this document in practice, I’m sure people will
raise issues that we need to address. But there’s some known issues now that we need to address before this
document gets moved forward to City Council level. And it was my hope, and it still is my hope, that we will
go and exhaust that process. And it will be a thorough process, open and fair. And that we move forward at
the appropriate time. I just want to say for the sake of expediency, we are going to bring closure to this
item.
I’ve spent many hours, and I’m willing to go another month, if it takes it, to get the document to the point
where we all around the table feel comfortable. I think by the mere fact there was a 5 to 4 vote, and given
that other members of the board are not here. This is a very important issue that’s going to impact the City
of Phoenix for the foreseeable future. I would like to see a consensus and I know we may not get 100%, but we
are at 5/4 right now, with a minimum quorum here today. I just think we ought to reconsider where we are
moving forward to.
To me, to get the time and effort and then just say we’re going to move it forward, almost out of convenience.
I think that makes short shrift of the time and effort that we have put into it today, to this point. So I’d
ask you to reconsider the motion that we just passed.
Steve Speer:
First, I want to say, I didn’t vote the way I voted for convenience, or to set the time back. I put a lot of
hours in this, as I did with the NEC 99 version, and as I’m perfectly willing to continue to put in as this
code develops, and as any other code develops. I made the vote that I made based on the fact that I think at
some point in time, this thing’s got to move forward. With the concern that we can have continual meetings,
and there will always be one more amendment that will come up that we don’t know about today, that we’re going
to know about tomorrow or the day after that. Which is going to be consideration for the argument to say when
do we go forward. When do we say that we’re not going to take any more amendments on this code?
You stated, and I think we all recognize that we’re talking about a dynamic document that is going to continue
to go on and amended as we go on, and as issues come up, we become aware, and they can be changed, as we have
done all along in the previous times in all the years we’ve worked together.
Pete Hemingway:
And maybe the use of my words was inappropriate, but I also think that we’re not to that point that we can
honestly say that we have a document that’s to the point that when we put it out to the public to utilize and
implement. I mean, if I know that something is not quite there, why am I going to put out a document that I
don’t have a lot of confidence in?
And maybe you do. I just don’t feel that we’re at that point where – when documents like this get published,
and then people put it in practice, I think they should at least have some level that we’re not – it’s like
we’re ongoing changing it, and we’re putting the document out, and the ink never dries. And we know that.
At least I want to say we put a document forward that was fairly complete. And again, I’m not intimate enough
in the building profession to say without a doubt, we’ll get there, but I just don’t think that we’re there
right now.
Ben Barcon:
So if I could, Mr. Chairman, we’ve had a motion that passed. What options do we have now? I don’t hear
anybody willing to change their vote.
Gary Coley:
I would like to offer a motion that we overturn the last motion, and continue on with the process. That’s my
motion.
Pete Hemingway:
Maybe it would help if you could put a time limit on it or something.
Gary Coley:
I don’t think that’s necessary. I think we’re all (it’s not part of my motion, but I’ll defend my motion).
You’re all aware that I’m not in favor of this code. We have a number of people, many people, putting a lot
of time and effort into it. This is a freight train that’s not going to stop for political reasons. If I
choose to stand in front of the freight train, that’s my business. But to slap the people of the City of
Phoenix in the face after one hearing, and say, yeah, you had some nice things
