Flagstaff delays snow load, EV charging, wildfire code amendments pending cost analysis

State the time the meeting started and then you just go down the agenda. So next you'll say call to order and then I'll call everyone to order. Jacob Conger, Mark Hogwart, Scott France, present. Mark Sherry, present. David Merrell, was that Dave Merrill? I'm president. was. Yes. [laughter] Thank you. And Patrick Saski, thank you. So, this is to approve the minutes from the last meeting um which were attached in the agenda.

And what we'll do is someone will need to move to approve and then someone will need to second that. If there's no changes at this time, you would say if there was a word misspelled or anything along those lines. I'll make a motion to approve them. I'll second, but I wasn't even there. And then you'll do you'll say um all in favor, any opposed, and any discussion? I I also wasn't there but I Is that everybody? Okay.

Uh, and just I'm unable to hear anybody else in the room other than uh other than uh I think whomever's speaking on the Is that better? I I can hear you, but I haven't heard anyone else uh in the in the room. Got it. Can you hear me now? Yep. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. So, the motion passes. Okay. And then you would do an open call with the public and this is where um anybody from the public can speak. Usually um the chair you would read what's underneath that at this time. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. At this time, any member of the public may address the board on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the board on that day. Due to open meeting laws, the board cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the board on an item that is on the agenda, please wait for the chair to call for public comment at the time it is heard. Perfect. Is there any open call to the public? That would be a no.

You would next you would just say on to action item number 5A and then I don't know if somebody has a presentation that presentation would be given at this time and then discussion and then voting. Okay. Uh action items. Moving into action item A. Uh just discussing the recommendations for approval of the draft of the 2024 building code amendments, including the whole gallery of building code uh wheelhouse uh for the purpose of moving forward with public outreach and stakeholder engagement.

So, chair, I do have a small presentation. I'm trying to join the meeting to be able to share my screen and pull it up. Uh, for those on the phone or um on Teams, this is Amy Trestler. So, this is Mark Shy and I have a question. Go for it, Mark. Yeah. Um, is there a quorum that's associated with this board because there's not a lot of people? There's only four uh board members required uh of this board to attend to be a quorum. Okay. And I I take it we have the four. Yes, there are four present.

Okay. Thank you. And we have one additional board member that just showed up. Mark, go ahead and that and Yes, I am. And it's not working. Huh? Oops. Hang on. thing go minimize this zoom and PowerPoint. Thank you. You are amazing. [laughter] All right. Well, for those of you that are online, I did have printed packets with some additional um handouts.

So what I will do after this meeting is send send those out which are cost summaries and impacts as it relates to the international residential code which is just base uh costs going from the 2018 code to the 2024 as well as the energy code for residential specifically and just base adopting as the code is written without any appendix adoptions. So you will get those um later this afternoon.

So this is just a very very quick overview as far as some of the small talk topics that I wanted to talk about today as it relates to um specifically uh some of the significant changes between the 2018 and the 2024 codes. So temporary occupancy has changed um to where we have not allowed it in the past and now in the 2024 we will be allowing residential temporary certificates of occupancy um for certain conditions valid up to 60 days.

So we are definitely having an increased flexibility um in allowing these TCOs or at least this is what we're proposing. Next is snow loads. So snow loads is our big discussion as far as where do we go from here? We thought about putting 70 pounds um per square foot ground snow load in for residential, but that still leaves what do we do with the IBC with the ASCE um tables.

So, I wanted this to be a topic of discussion on how we're going to move forward and what type of general consensus we can get on snow loading requirements because it is very different than how it was applied in the 2018 code. Um, I also have Rick here who has done a lot of research as far as, you know, trying to make this determination, but we felt like this this would be a really good topic for the board to help us um make that call and what to do moving forward.

So, this is definitely a topic piece that I would like to discuss further. Um, so we could either discuss it now or go over the few other slides that I have. What would you like to do? Uh, I would say maybe since we're on it, we can address it now and just while it's fresh. Uh, I don't know if any of you guys online first have any things you want to uh say about it or if you have any initial thoughts. I just have I have a lot to say about Sorry, Mark.

I have a lot to say about it, but I'll wait to hear from the presenters. This is Mark Shy. I was just wondering what the reason for the increase in the snow load is. It's because the the way that the new code is there these are ASCE site specific. So you actually type in what your parcel number is or your address into the ASCE program and it tells you specifically what the snow load is for excuse me for your particular site. That is not how the previous code adoptions have been.

So this particular section is totally different than how we've dealt with these in the past. So the reason why the snowload change is because in the base code it is a change and that is why we needed to address how we're going to handle it. So are we suggesting just adopting a 70 across the whole city and not doing what the county is doing? uh not entirely.

I mean there we were talking about that specific to residential and knowing that commercial would have different implications and requirements and I know Dave Merrill has done a ton of research on this. So I would really like his input and discussion as far as how we look at the residential side and the commercial side. So just a couple thoughts.

Um, one is as a designer, if you, and I'm dealing with this with the county already, is you're starting from scratch on every single project and you don't have stuff that can carry over from one project to the next, makes design a lot more expensive, adding to the cost. But the other, and this may be a correction question for Rick, but we had a lot of decks collapse in the last several big years of snow, 2009, 10, more recently.

Uh, have we seen house roofs collapse and not manu not um mobile homes and FHA stuff but actual stuff that falls under the city criteria? Have we seen those collapse? Yes. I'll clarify 2010. Yes. with in 2009 2010 I probably did 10 uh collapse maybe the wrong word but roof failures that would eventually collapse if they weren't resolved. Okay. And those were under the old 40 lb snow load though. That's that's that was the code at the time that the event occurred.

What you have to realize is that um in the 90s the snow load in Flagstaff was 30. In 97 I think maybe 94 they changed it to to 35 and then they changed it to 40. Help me out here. Maybe 2006 2009 2006. So, it's been So, the vintage of the home um actually it's it's kind of interesting because the older homes that weren't built with trusses tend to survive these storms because nobody was actually designing the lumber. They were just throwing lumber at buildings.

But, these kind of middle-ag homes are what we were seeing with uh with a lot of uh truss pops and things like that. I guess what I was getting at was, have we seen failures that of homes that have failed under the 40 lb snow load and also under the 60 lb snow load? In other words, is there caused to go to 70? So, I'll I'll pitch in here. Um, the the code has has gotten more refined through the years.

Um the ASCE is now taking historical data, sightsp specific historical data and assigning the snow load as it relates to the code load combinations and includes a factor of safety that that uh that is reasonable to adjust the snow to a 700year snowfall. So, um, that's the code level. That's the code level snowfall for residential now or or what we call occupancy category 2 buildings.

If you're a designer, you'd recognize that if you go to an occupancy category 3 or an occupancy category 4 in the old code, you used to apply an importance factor. These are these are um large stadiums. These are large schools. these are fire stations or hospitals, you would apply a factor that would take the snow load from a 700year load um to a to a bigger year load. Um depending on on which occupancy you were in um that is no longer the case. The occupancies are now all historical as well.

So if you have um so basically they're using statistical analysis to estimate the storm load at each of these intervals which the code prescribes the current maps based on history are are calculating what we call ultimate snow loads. That's the other thing is is that the building code has changed from a from a nominal snow load to an ultimate snow load. We did this a few years ago.

If you were here back in the '9s, the wind load was 70, then all of a sudden it changed to 90, then all of a sudden it changed to 105. But from a structural standpoint, the loads actually went down. It's because they changed the way they measured um the wind. They're doing the same thing with the snow. So if you go on the ASCE hazard map, it's an ultimate snow load. Flag staff sits between 105 psf to 153 psf.

To adjust that to the residential code and to compare with old snow loads, you multiply that number by.7. So in no case in Flagstaff does the historical data even support a 70 psf snow load. But Rick makes a good point that 70 PSF is the biggest snow load that you can use the tables in the IRC. So at 70, you don't have to hire an engineer. Anything above that, you likely would.

Um, I would like to not see the IBC adopt any snowload as a standard because if the we don't have a way to apply importance factors or anything like that anymore because um because it's not in there. And so if we have a category 3 building, we would need to go to that table anyway. Um, so I I would my my proposed solution would be the IRCB70 ground. And again, let me let me just say a 70 psf ground snow load is a 49 psf roof snow load. So we're going from the old days was 40.

Um, now we're up to 49. Um but again that's not enough per the code. Um there's a little bit of risk in that number by 50% in some cases. And then the IBC I would suggest that we adopt the code as written because those snow loads are provided for each and every site and it provides a it provides a code level structure.

I think that's important when somebody buys a a new building from somebody that they're assured that when the building official looked at it, it was designed to the appropriate snow load. I would say the same thing about residences too, but I understand the cost implications of doing such. I think my biggest concern, I've been contracting here 30 years. I've seen the various changes, but I haven't heard of a lot of homes built under the 40 lb snow load within the city.

I have seen them in the county have structural damage, but not in the city. But what I have seen is the snow coming off roofs and hitting decks, which up until now decks have been 40 lb snow load, even though the footers were 60 lb. Um, I think the DEX would be a more critical issue to up. I I see no problem with the current 60 and I think you could probably even go down from there, but that's just my view. Okay. So, it's worth mentioning that the in both books there's a figure.

It's basically a map of the United States and it's very poorly drawn. But if you stare at if you stare at the map long enough, it tells us that the prescriptive load for Flagstaff is for our elevation is becoming 73 pounds if we were to adopt a prescriptive number. Both code books also give us the option or give a give a designer the option of using ASCE7, the hazard tool calculator, which Dave mentioned. use the tool, you get a drastically higher result than than the simple prescriptive number.

The prescriptive number is 73 pounds for our elevation, which is kind of an awkward number within the built with built into the IRC chapters 6 8 9 all for structural structural construction. The prescriptive tables stop at 70 pounds ground snow load. So that awkward number of 73 automatically pushes a designer into using some engineering practice or common engineering practice to um derive structural designs.

So so one of the things looking through the code book that we often encounter is we're in climate zone five as we're called. problem with that is that extends up to like Chicago and the far north that does not get the long sunshine we get in the winter time and the high angle of sun.

So even though we're in that as far as we can get the same snow and maybe even the same cold, they don't get the solar that we get, which equals fast melts, longer days, higher sun angle than the northern latitudes in the same climate zone. I would add that uh the high energy efficient homes are also um keeping snow on the roof at higher levels. Um there's actually a a factor for that in the IBC.

If you have a cold roof where you've insulated the the the ceiling of your home and then you allow the the venting to go to the outside air, your roof deck is now cold at the outside temperature and you're not leaking nearly as much heat from your home as historically we have been. So to assume that homes that are that are, you know, 15 years old that are not failing, which is not a not necessarily a criteria we should be looking at under under that snow load.

As we add um insulation and efficiency in these homes, that snow load number is going to go up. This is Mark Sherry. I have a question. And um you know over the years it seems like our snows have been changing and have becoming more moist. Um and we've also had some snows with rain in between and then snow on top of it. How does that affect this whole snow load situation? That's supposedly captured in the historical data on the ASCE.

That's where I mean just because we picked a number in the past and that number was too low doesn't mean we shouldn't change that number. But um that again that's my opinion. But um um but those wet snows and things like that should be captured in that overall um historical data that ASCE is collecting. the snow load varies across the city considerably um over 50% and I think uh I think anybody who lives in the city can can see that that's truly the case.

So, how about for now this is tabled and we can look a little bit more into it before we h have the next meeting and then we can just specifically put this on there because I we have a lot more material to try and get through um for today. So, if you guys are okay with it, I'll just continue on. Sounds good. I think that's fine. Okay. So, a couple other changes that we have is residential permit expirations.

Uh, this has just been um this has been adjusted to give some additional time to complete um a lot of these larger type of builds that just are not getting done in the current time frame that is in our amendments. So, all that we are doing is just extending it um actually an additional uh six months. So now now it'll have a maximum of 3 years. Uh the other change on this is construction.

Uh once the permit is issued, the construction needs to commence within 180 days um of pulling the permit where we did not have that in our amendments previously. So people would sit on a project for a couple years before they would start. And this is just going to um allow the project to commence, move forward, and be consistent with how our current code reads um in the body of the code itself. Same thing with commercial permit expirations. Uh we just cleaned this up as well.

Um it's still what is it? Is it still 300 or 1,095 days total? Um similar base is the residential uh and the strict 180day commencement. So once a permit is pulled, you have 180 days to get that first inspection to basically start that clock and make sure that that permit doesn't expire. Uh next, residential energy requirements. We are changing the furnace um from a 90% efficient furnace to 95% um plus a cold climate heat pump requirement.

I think Genevieve will probably you have some more on this in your code or or in your discussion or Okay. So if you've got any questions as it relates to this in particular right now I have it captured on my slide. Um any questions on this before I move on? Okay. So, currently we allow um 80% non-condensing furnaces for remodels. Would that continue? Yes. And have we done a cost analysis of the benefit of going from 90 to 95%. Hi.

Um, well, it saves 5% more in utility costs because it uses, you know, it's 5% more efficient. Um, that's not quite how that works, but okay, let's keep rolling with that. Can Can you please introduce yourself? Yeah, my name is Genevie Perth with the sustainability office. Um, in terms of the cost of a 90 versus 95% efficient furnace, I don't have that specific cost. I did try to look into it. It was a little bit challenging to figure out. So, if you have any data, please share it.

That would be helpful. Um, in terms of the cost of 95% fish and furnace, it was calculated in the base costs of the IAC adoption just because that's what the NHB and National Lab accounted for. So, I don't have that pulled out. Um, although I think they had a number of like 500, I might be pulling that out. So, anyway, maybe something like that, but if you have a more accurate number, happy to get that from you.

Yeah, I think it'd be worth doing a cost analysis because uh, first of all, you mentioned it's 5% less on utility bills. not how the math works, but well 5% more efficient. So, so slightly less in terms of cost savings, right? Yeah, I think you would find it's quite a bit less.

Um, I think we should look at that because you we're at the same time trying to keep prices down for affordability in Flagstaff, but as we go to these higher and higher efficiency furnaces, the cost on them does go up significantly. And it's not just buying a furnace, you also have to buy the neutralizer for the condensation coming off of it. that has to be changed periodically. And there's a lot more to it than just the simple price of the furnace as well.

On the page two of the handouts I gave you for the changes and cost impacts. And for those of you that are online, you don't have this in front of you yet. Um there is let's see I think it's the fifth one down where it says high efficiency HVAC and heat pumps and the impact and cost shows cold climate heat pumps for climate zone 5 can cost around 6,000 plus but are key for compliance and electrification. So this was straight out of the information from the National Association of Homebuilders.

So that's 6,000 install or and then also does that also include the higher operating cost of electric versus gas? I I don't know. I was only pulling this this data for what the dollar amounts are. The document's 38 pages long. I'm sure it's in there. Yeah, I can answer that a little bit. So the NAHB and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in their cost analysis of the 2024 ICC included a 95% efficient gas furnace as well as a almost cold climate heat pump.

So um those are so the cold climate heat pump is assumed in the cost of the base IEC as well as the gas furnace is also in that um in terms of electric versus uh the higher cost of electricity. So, we actually commissioned a study last year. Um, I'm happy to share that with you where the consultant looked into that. Um, and found that there is quite a bit of variation actually depending on what APS plan you're on.

And so, there is a lot of you ways you can lower your electric rates by switching APS plans. Also, you know, heat pumps are 3 to 400% more efficient than gas furnaces. So, they do have a higher cost per unit of electricity, but they're also a lot more efficient. So, I think it's a lot more complicated than just electricity is more um costly than gas. Okay, next is another new requirement or at least proposed requirement. Um, in the 2018 codes, we did adopt the radon appendix.

So, if there was radon or radon issues um at a particular site, this would uh tell you how to mitigate it. Well, now um the proposed 2024 amendments would mandate radon resistant construction and subslab exhaust uh for all new construction. So, do you have any questions on that? Probably millions, but I like the idea. [laughter] All right, anybody online? Are we are we good to move on? I do have one question. Uh just reading this uh as I'm looking at it.

This is for new construction that has had uh known radon in the area or this is for all new construction? This is all new construction. Okay. Um and part of it is because radon moves. So while you may not have any radon detection at the moment or very very low numbers, that is not to say that in one year you know you would have those same numbers because it does it does shift and change. So understood. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Quick. Yeah. So we did some research into radon in Flagstaff.

Um the state estimates that or based on radon tests across Cookanino County, the average is over four picoies per liter, which is the maximum EPA recommended level, which still um does lead to can lead to lung cancer in folks um smokers and non-smokers alike. Um and talking to radon testers in Flag Staff, they find that level frequently. Sometimes they find lower, but they also find a lot higher, too. So, it does seem like radon, we know that radon is present in Flagstaff.

Um, it's not consistent across every neighborhood. Um, and it is really hard to tell in advance just from soil tests. It sounds like those aren't super accurate in term ter terms of determining what radon would look like in a finished home. So, the best way to prevent radon from coming in home or at least minimize it is to put that radon resistant construction in place. So, that's like a vapor barrier, vents, um, things like that. And I have a slide um that talks about radon a little bit more.

So if you have any more questions, we can talk about that at that time. All right, I'm almost done with the building ones. So next one, plumbing efficiency. Just some very, very slight modifications from our water services group. Um 1.3 gallons per flush is now listed at 1.28, which seems pretty standard on these water sense fixtures.

Um and what you will see or if you have taken a look at the amendments in the plumbing schedule tables, um all of those fixtures are now uh or will be required to be water sense fixtures if this gets adopted. Next is new inspection triggers. So Rick, I'm going to let you take this one. Amy, real quick, um, on the toilet thing, has there been any looking into mandating gray water where it's available? I shouldn't say recycled water where it's available for toilet flushing. Not mandating.

Uh, we do have it as as a section within the plumbing code that allows you to do it if if that's what you want to do, but we have not discussed mandating it. I was just thinking along the lines of the Tucson model. Okay. something to look at in the plumbing code. Talking about in the plumbing code. Okay. New inspection triggers. Uh we updated the 2024 amendments to include mandatory inspections to be more reflective of the inspection record card that we issue for every project.

So new required inspections will include weather resistive barrier with window flashing and uh window installation um utilities. Yeah, that was one of the is that one of the items? sewer. Uh the code, the old code didn't used to require inspections for underground water, sewer, and electric if there is electric. Um so it will now be a required inspection. Um the old code did not require energy compliance inspection for insulation.

Um, but has always been a has always been uh energy compliance has always [snorts] been a required inspection. We're just updating the code to include it as a required inspection rather than just a policy as well as roofing underllayment. That will now be a required inspection whereas it used to be just a simple uh policy that it be inspected. Uh those are the those are the updates for the new amendments for required inspections. Next, heritage preservation expansion.

It's really just uh in the existing building code. The old code just applied to historic buildings and um and excuse me or registered buildings. The 2024 uh makes it more specific to any structures over 50 years old. Um that is consistent with how heritage preservation currently operates. If a structure is over 50 years old, we have to send it to historic preservation for review. We're just incorporating it into the amendments. So it's standard across the board.

Everybody knows it in advance because this is what we're already doing. I'm a little concerned about that one honestly because my house is already 26 years old and it's one of the newer houses in town. It's not going to be long before the entire town is a historic district and that's a bad idea. There's thousands of them that come online every year. Yeah. I I just got to say I oppose this right off the bat. It's this is bad.

Well, my suggestion to you is get with the Historic Preservation Commission and have that discussion with them because they would be the ones that would be able to look at this requirement and be able to make those changes. But aren't you saying the city is adopting that citywide? No, this already is a process. We're just formalizing it in the amendment. So, the historic preservation already looks at structures that are over 50 years old regardless of whether or not they're in an overlay. Okay.

Utilities on non-permanent structures. This is a new um proposed amendment that we have not had in in the past. Uh so what it would do is prohibit any plumbing or gas to structures that don't have a permanent foundation. Uh this aligns I believe with Cookanino counties. Was it the counties that Yeah, Cookanino County um is also doing the same amendment. Uh so for sake of consistency, we thought that this would be good across the board.

Dumb question, but does this apply to mobile homes that are not on a foundation? mobile home foundations would be considered. Yes. So just the ones that are on jacks that are peers or are I think I think really what what the intent was or what we were looking at is a shed on skids that type of I get I get the intention. I'm just thinking like all the manufactured homes in Christmas tree that are on sticks and it's a state approved residential building essentially that type of unit.

So manufactured houses Whoops. Okay, last slide for building safety would be NEC strengthening. Rick, do you want to you can take this slide for me? [snorts] Nope. Nope. It's just listing and labeled and this amendment to the NEC and the equivalent amendment to the IRC would be to require any and all equipment that would be include um junction boxes, wire, any kind of equipment to be uh listed by a listing agency such as UL.

Um recently we had a situation where a electrical installer had field fabricated a piece of a piece of electrical cabinetry. The NEC gives the opportunity to have that piece of equipment to be approved but we don't have the capability nor do we possess the knowledge to approve that piece of equipment ourselves.

Therefore, it was up to the the equip the sorry, the electrical contractor or the general contractor in this case to have that piece of equipment approved by a listing agency and they weren't open to that idea either. The intent of the amendment is to just simply require any piece of equipment that runs a full gamut of electrical electrical products, let's say, requires it to be already approved by a listing agency such as UL.

All right, that ends what what we've got as far as just a quick um outline of what our amendments are. That would be big ticket items um from the old one to the new one. Now again, I will be sending out the information that uh that I have for each of the codes um and significant changes from the 18 to the 24 um for all nine of what building safety is looking at updating. So you can take a look at that and um and that cost summary.

And then for the next meeting that we have, if you've got questions as it relates to those, we would be happy to go over those. I think the next meeting I don't I don't anticipate building safety would have a formal presentation because I I would prefer the next one to be more of a of a question answer type of thing. So I think with building safety as long as there's nothing left um or no questions on this I would like to pass it on to Genevieve to talk about the energy code. Great.

Um, I think you need to stop sharing your screen and then it will go back to this one. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, I'm here to talk about the 2024 IEC. So, just like in the current code, there's a residential code and a commercial code, and it applies to new buildings and new construction, additional alterations. Does not apply to repairs and routine maintenance. Um, just a little bit of a snapshot on the 2024 versus 2018 code.

It's about a 15% improvement in energy efficiency for Flagstaff's climate zone. Average 12% 12 13% reduction in energy costs. Uh, 12% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, higher than that for commercial. Um, and these are from the Pacific Northwest Laboratories. That's what this comes from. Oh, how do we fix that, Nancy? Is that something you can do? They usually don't have to join teams on here. I mean, just a quick question.

Is that that study was that specific to Flagstaff or just a general study? Um it was the nationally but it looked at different climate zones. So it has climate zone 5B is represented or climate zone 5 is represented but not specific to Flagstaff. Just searched for it. Didn't show up. Oh, it is. Never mind. It's okay. It doesn't show up on this team's right. Oh great. Awesome. Okay, online folks, this is the slide that I was sharing. So, okay, I'm going to keep going.

So, for the energy code, um there's a couple amendments and appendices proposed. So the one is one that Amy mentioned about uh 95% efficient furnaces as well as if heat pumps are installed in new construction they are work at cold temperatures. So right now we don't have any standards for heat pumps for new construction. Um and people can install ones that don't work for Flagstaff's climate.

So this would just apply to new construction would not apply to retrofits although they're always encouraged to to meet these standards. Real quick just one question. You said if heat pumps are installed they won't be required. Is is that correct or they will be required? So, this doesn't require a gas furnace or heat pump. It's just if one is installed in new construction, it would have to meet certain efficiency standards, but yeah, not requiring one or the other.

And these standards aren't required for retrofits. Another one is lighting controls. So, that's outdoor and indoor lighting controls. um those are proposed to be deleted entirely um because they have some automatic controls that are required and see the energy efficiency savings are really minimal compared to the costs and just seemed you know seemed like a good thing to to remove. Other ones are appendix RB in the residential energy code NB in the IRC solar ready.

So we have this in our code right now. This is basically the same thing that applies to detached one and two family dwellings and town homes. I have a couple quick questions on that because it is in our code. We made a mistake that was actually in our favor the last time around. Um, so I did actually speak with a solar engineer on this and I'm a little concerned about what might be intended by solar ready. I'd like to hear that before I comment on that. Sure. Yeah.

So, this one, um, pretty simple. It's that there's room on your electrical panel to support solar, that your roof can handle the the load, um, and that there's room on your roof, and the construction documents show a potential um, conduit pathway. So, that's really all it is. It's not requiring the installation of conduit or any other electrical infrastructure. It's just those really minimal things.

The National Association of Homebuilders estimates about a $100 cost just showing it on construction documents. Um, and I did talk to some solar installers as well and there was mixed mixed response in terms of how helpful installing conduit in advance actually is. Some were like it could be helpful but it might not be and others were like sometimes we have to install our own conduit. And so um that that's not actually even included in this appendix. That's above and beyond.

So this is just that really minimal stuff. um the roof space, the electrical panel, things like that. Um and it's basically what we have in our code as well. Um the other next one is electric vehicle charging infrastructure. So we do have requirements in our current code because this appendix did not exist in the past. Um it does exist now. This is going to be a topic for discussion. I have quite a few slides on this afterwards. So we'll get into that in a little bit.

Um, but basically what we require now is an EV ready space in a garage, which is basically a 240 volt outlet that folks can use to charge EVs, but you can also use it for other things like a air compressor, welder, dryer, other high energy appliance. Um, and then we require up to three EV capable spaces in parking lot. So, it's basically installing the conduit during parking lot construction. So, that's our current code. There's a couple different options for what we could do moving forward.

So, we're going to talk about those in a little bit. Um, the next one is electric ready construction. So this would be a new standard, but basically in mixed fuel, so natural gas, all electric homes, it just requires a 240 volt outlet behind the dryer, water heater, and stove just so if folks want to switch to an electric appliance in those homes in the future, they can easily do that without having to spend a lot on retrofits that could also be pretty difficult.

Are you going to present on that because that's a high ticket item. Um, well, National Association of Homebuilders estimates about $1,000. They are wrong. Okay, so that's three new data. Feel free to share. Yeah, I do have a lot of information on this stuff. The you're talking about three additional electrical runs of heavy copper and extra breakers in the circuit panel, extra space in a bigger circuit panel, sub panels, all that.

Um I don't have all the technical details, so it is in the appendix. So, um, happy to chat about this more next time if you want, but, um, the NAHB estimates about $1,000. And if it's more, go ahead and share your data and we can include that in the estimates. Um, the last one is renewable energy infrastructure. So, it's a little bit of a confusing title. Basically, it's solar ready. Um, and we're proposing to amend it.

So, any standards in that one that would apply to one and two family dwellings and town houses won't apply that those would be covered under appendix RB. And basically this appendix RL would expand those solar ready standards just like what's in RB to more multi- to more um residential building types. So larger buildings. So basically the effect is that we just have solar ready on more building types. And again it's super simple.

It's the roof space, the electrical panel space and where conduit could go. So that's what those are. Okay. So those are the residential and then for the commercial. So a couple of proposed amendments. One of them is allowing our two buildings over three stories to opt into the residential code. Um, a bunch of cities in the valley as well as Tucson have adopted that.

That would um could provide substantial design and construction cost savings for those larger buildings because the residential code number one, the energy efficiency standard is a little bit less than the commercial code and it's a lot less ownorous to comply with in terms of design and construction and and um lots of things. So, this could potentially help those larger residential buildings have a lot of cost savings. So, that's where that amendment comes from.

Um, another one is automatic receptacle control. So, a bunch of cities in the valley have also deleted this one. I think Tucson did as well. Um, we're proposing to delete that entirely. Basically, it's requirements for certain percentage of outlets and office spaces to turn off after a certain time or add a predetermined time. And again, minimal energy efficiency savings compared to cost as well as the hassle potentially if someone's working when an outlet shuts off.

Um, and then there's four appendices proposed here. One is solar ready zone commercial. This basically exactly what we have in our current code. Very similar to residential where it's just the space on the electrical panel. Um, solar ready zone, the roof can handle the weight, etc. Another one is EV charging. So, we're going to talk about that in detail. Then our current code um again requires the space in garages that 240 volt plug and then three EV capable spaces in parking lots.

Then the next one is electric ready commercial building provisions. So that requires electric ready again those um 240 volt outlet and other things in um stoves, dryers, um water heaters. There's a little bit more in the electric ready commercial one. So happy to talk about that more. And then the last one is um demand responsive control. So this would also be new.

So, this just basically um would require new buildings under the commercial energy code to install smart thermostats that could if they would allow these buildings to opt into programs to um like APS's cool rewards program that would allow them to low APS to lower the thermostat during really hot days so that they're not using as much energy, but then they experience utility cost savings in exchange for that. So, um, this would allow those buildings to opt into it if they want to.

Um, there's also requirements for water heaters, um, that could also receive that signal, and APS doesn't have that program right now, but they might in the future. Um, but this is proposing to delete any demand response lighting requirements as well. Um, okay. So, moving forward, EV infrastructure. So, we've got a lot of options. Just a little bit of background before we get to those options.

So, you know, really trying to think about the buildings that we build today meeting the needs of today, but also tomorrow. You know, EVs right now aren't a huge percentage of vehicles in Flagstaff, but they're growing a lot. Um, and really they're kind of doubling every two years. Um, and AOT anticipates there'll be about a million EVs in Arizona by 2030. So, how do we support that? There's a lot more EVs around than there were when the 2018 codes were adopted. So, just thinking that through.

Um, and then a lot of folks who visit Flagstaff also use EV chargers. So, just thinking really the point is that it's growing. Um, and that 90% of charging occurs at home. It's the least costly and most convenient way for people to charge. And, um, you know, people who have single family homes are a lot more able to charge at home typically than multif family. Residents of those um, developments tend to have a lot less access. So, how do we think about that moving forward?

Um, and just that, uh, we know that we can save a lot of money on costly retrofits in the future. I think the estimate for retrofit in EV parking lot space is $5,000 plus compared to a lot less than that um, at construction. So, that's kind of what we're thinking about. And just a couple more background slides. So, the appendix um, both the commercial and residential EV charging appendix talks about three different types of EV infrastructure. So, the first one's EV capable.

Um, so in garages, there's the electrical infrastructure in the wall, but that 240 volt outlet isn't actually installed. So, in order to get that outlet, you'd have to open up the wall and install that outlet. Um, for parking spaces, that means that there's conduit and electrical capacity, but the wires aren't actually installed. And that matches what um is currently required in our code for parking lots. Um, EV reads, that middle ground. Um, the next, so for garages, it's a 240 volt outlet.

That's what we currently require in our code. Um, for parking spaces, there's just more electrical infrastructure installed, but there's not actually the charger. Um, you just have to add the charger and that becomes a full charging space. And then EVSC, that's electric vehicle supply equipment. Um, that in garages, that's the 240 volt outlet with the actual charger installed. Um, right now, you know, if someone does have an EV, they just have to purchase that charger separately.

So, if an full EV space in a garage would include that outlet or that um charger. And then for parking spaces, basically you have the charger installed. Um and then there's multiple levels of charging. So um level one is 120 volt. So that's just using a standard plug. You know, it can work for folks. It just takes forever. Um but if you don't drive very much and you're charging at night, you know, that can be a good option for some folks. But again, it it doesn't it's not super efficient.

It takes a long time. um level two charger that takes about six to 10 hours to charge depending on the size of the battery and it's best suited for people who drive more or who need your cars to charge faster. Um and then the last one, direct current. That's level three. Those are really fast. Those are the ones you typically find in commercial spaces or on highways or gas stations, things like that. Um and then one other thing is power sharing.

So one charger can serve more than one or two, even three cars. So, it uses the same level of power. It just charges more cars. Um, and the charging speed's slower, but that is a way that folks can have more EV spaces without spending more money on EV infrastructure. Uh, so there's four proposed options. Um, for multif family, I guess commercial has three. So, they're really options A, B, and C. And then for um residential, it's split up and B1 and two. And I'll talk about those.

So basically option one is adopting the appendices with amendments to match Flag Staff's current code. Um option B is kind of a middle ground between um what we have now. It's a it's more than what we have now, but it's not as much as option C. Um so for residential um and this is multif family, so not talking about single family. Um it's 7 to 30% of spaces are EVs. Um B1 and B2 require the same number of total EV spaces.

Just B1 has higher infrastructure requirements by requiring EV ready spaces whereas B1 does not. Um and then for commercial 1 to 30% of spaces are EV spaces. Option C. So this is as the appendices are written right now. So all these amendments actually are proposing to amend down from what's written in the appendices. Um 40% of residential multif family spaces are EV spaces. That's what's in the original text of the appendix.

uh for residential for commercial the original text has one to 100% of spaces being EV which is a lot. So that's why these amendments are proposing to amend it down. Um and I'll go through these in a little more detail. Just want to clarify though that the single family and duplex and town home are the same. Um it's that 240 volt outlet. Um and then an exception like if you're doing um a bedroom addition that doesn't trigger installing a 240 volt outlet in your garage.

um unless you're building a new garage and then you install it. Um and then for multif family, the actual infrastructure requirements for EV capable, EV ready, and full EV spaces are the same. And then there's some exceptions. These are from the appendix as written. Um so there are exceptions. If the local electric utility can't provide enough power within two years to support that, then that's an exception. You don't have to meet EV charging requirements.

Um, or if the design requirements exceed $450 per unit on the utility side of the meter, then you also don't have to meet them. So, those are built in and those are from the original appendix. Okay. A couple quick things on that on your options. If you're really going to explore all options, we have to have an option of not adopting it at all. So, I know that there's a lot of push for EV in the city. I get that.

But to be all completely fair, you need to have an adopt an option to say we're not going to adopt EV. And then the garage thing, I just want to question also, it's possible to do a detached garage with no electrical in there. So, do we have an exception for that? what's in our current code right now.

So, so I I would be against the idea of if someone just wants to build a garage with no power in it, why should we force them to run conduit and all this over there if all they really want is a roof over their car? So, you know what I'm saying? So, in our current, you know, garages that are attached to homes, you got to have an outlet.

But I don't know of any code, I may be wrong, Rick, you'd have to advise me on this, but if a if a garage is completely detached from the house, is there any requirement that it has to have electricity? Can't hear whoever's speaking right now. I think they're asking for your mic to be closer because they can't hear you. But yeah, that's what I was getting at was we you can't require a 240 volt outlet in something that's not even required to have electricity. Okay.

Well, so what Rick is saying is the valid point. So, do we have to write the amendment? And the answer is no. We don't have to write the amendment um to have that. I mean, that's the whole purpose of amendment. So, what we would be looking at is actually what the base code would require. So, I think this is something that we'll write down and be able to talk a little bit more on it next week um in hopes that we can meet at some point uh next week and discuss this.

Um, I'll go over kind of some of the final thoughts at the very end of this meeting on things that we could go over, but we'll add this to the list. Yeah. Okay. Uh, so and then just across all commercial options, the again the actual infrastructure requirements are the same. Um, and then they do have an exception for occupancies other than R2 with fewer than 10 spaces and then ability to substitute different types of spaces depending on the minimum requirements.

So what we have in our current code I mentioned this is just for parking lots. So right now if you have a 100 or more parking spaces you have to provide three EV capable spaces and if you have fewer than that you provide fewer EV spaces. That's what's in our current code. So that's option A. Option B one and two. Um there's an amendment in there to allow duplexes without garages to share the one EV space. Um and that's basically the just a 240 volt outlet.

Um, for multifamily, if there's a garage with direct access to unit, you need to have a EV ready space. Again, that's that 240 volt outlet. It does allow substitutions um for different types of spaces. So, if you provide a space that's kind of a higher level than what's required, you can provide fewer of the lower level spaces. Um, also clarifying EV space calculations. And then some exceptions um for R3 and R4 occupancies with less than fewer than 15 parking spaces.

And that's consistent with the commercial appendix as well. Um, and then so I just mentioned they're B1 and two. I know it's kind of confusing, but they're basically the same. They were the same amount of requirements. Just in um B1 there are no EV ready spaces required. So you can meet the requirement with EV capable. That's just installing conduit and making sure that there's room on the electrical panel.

I did hear feedback from builders that that's fairly minimal in terms of costs, especially compared to other EV uh requirements. So that's why this is in here. Um so you know it it increases somewhat for residential as the buildings get bigger. Um and then for R3 and R4, it's pretty minimal just because those are tend to be care homes, group homes, things like that. Um so that's where this comes from and um this is less than what is in the base appendix. Again, that was 40%.

And these came from the Colorado and looking at some other cities that have have are leaders in EVs. Um, and then real quick, another dumb question. So, with the recent city council passing the new zoning, I don't know if it's zoning, but the R1 adjustments to where you can have up to four units on an R1, how is that going to impact this? And if an R1 say has two, three or four separated garages with those four separated or combined units, how does that work? Yeah.

Well, in our current code, anytime anyone has a garage, they have to have the 240. So, this is proposing to continue our current code as the base. Yeah. What if they have two garages or three or four separate garages? Because you could do that now with like the new R1 rules. You could have four separate units with four different garages. Are you going to require a 240 in each one of those garages? That Yeah, that's what our current code is. So, this proposes to continue that.

I would suggest maybe we should think about that because there's lots of circumstances. For example, a person might have a car-sized garage on one side of their house and an RViz garage on the other side of their house and there's no reason for them to be forced to have a 240. You're saying if one unit has multiple garages, it could be any combination of these things. It could be one big house with two separate garages, one for their mobile home, one for their car.

It could be one lot with four and an R1 with four units and 10 garages. I mean, there's not really a limit on the number of garages you can build. Yeah, I think um I think our current code says anytime there's a garage built, and please correct me, Amy, if I'm wrong, you would have a 240 outlet. think the appendix is per unit but we can look into that to clarify. Okay. Um and then moving on to option B2. So again it's the same amount just some of those spaces are EV ready.

So that has it's a little bit more than EV capable in terms of there's more electrical infrastructure there but there's not the full um EV charger. But again the same total amount. So that varies from 7% to 30% of spaces. Um, and then the last one. Oh, whoops. I missed uh Oh, I went into commercial. That's why. Okay. So, if we go to commercial, um, since we're going through them each. So, the commercial one, this is a middle ground. So, again, it's about 1 to 30% of spaces.

So, similar to residential, it's just broken up a lot more by different occupancy types. Um and then if we go to option C. So this is um actually what the appendices say like without any amendments. It's 40% of spaces um for residential or um not single family duplex and town home but anything else is 40% and that could be EV capable EV ready or full EV space. Um and then for commercial um it goes up to 100% for group R1 and R2 occupancies.

So, apartments and hotels um and other ones are um not up to 100% but uh you know higher than what we're proposing in the other options. So, that's the three options for EV spaces. Um and yeah, before we move on um would love to get your feedback on these options.

Yeah, just generally looking through those options, uh, having done different, uh, types of EV chargers on our different buildings and things like that, uh, I would say B1 is definitely very feasible, um, when we can just throw conduit in there and there's space on the overall building panel. Um, so that would be the one in terms of commercial uh, that when I see those that I would generally lean towards.

And then I guess uh for the single family uh kind of just thinking of what Mark spoke on uh in terms of the the outlet in the garage uh I definitely see that and then this is kind of jumping back to the other IECC with the other outlets in the house. Um if we do want require one at the stove and the washer and dryer and things like that for dual fuel.

could definitely see with the garage outlet and then all those other outlets that those panels having to be upsized and that cost getting larger than a thousand would be my only concern. Yeah, we talked about that a little bit. um initial feedback from builders is that often the and again um feel free to jump in if you have different data but it seems like upsizing often happens if you add more stuff like a spa or other things that kind of put it over.

So I I think that's something we want to look into like is there an out for example like if if this would lead to a higher a bigger electrical panel like 400 instead of 200 like do we put an out in there because yeah the the the goal isn't to in exponentially increase cost that way. So I think that's something we want to look into. We just don't have that yet. Yeah. Just as way of our experience because we deal with electrical car charging all the time and we put them in.

I like them, but I don't like forcing people to do things that are very costly that they're not going to use. We have not been on a project recently where we haven't had to put a sub panel. We're having to put sub panels on all our projects now because the main panel is full so fast. If you've got a garage, a water heater, a stove, a dryer, perhaps a sauna, now you've got five breakers right there that are double spaced, right? And you can only double space.

I mean, you can only put d the double tap breakers that, you know, the narrow ones in the bottom part of the panel. Like you, we fill up these panels so quick. One of my houses has three sub panels. So, I mean, the stuff that everything's getting so electrified and people want special dedicated for fridge so it doesn't shut off when your power goes off. Dedicated for the freezer in the garage. All of these individual ones take breakers.

And once you bump somebody into a sub panel, you're a lot more expensive. Now you've got a feeder, you got another panel, etc. I mean, it's it's a lot more than the thousand dollars that you're thinking for sure. Yeah. Well, and a follow-up question are how big are the houses that you're talking about on average? So, the one where everything from I would say 2,000 square feet on up. So, the house that I have that I own that has three sub panels, it's 3,000 square feet.

Um, and it's got a 400 main coming in, but it's got multiple, you know, split system air conditioners all require this. You know, if you're doing heat pumps and pretty soon you're having to size the panel bigger because if you've added four 50 amp loads plus your air conditioner load, there's a point where your bus isn't even big enough. And I, you know, electrician can talk to this more than I can, but it becomes then you have to go to a 400 amp panel or something like that.

Everything gets a lot more expensive. the APS feeders coming in get more expense. Everything goes through the roof. It's not as simple as, oh, just running one more wire and one more breaker. It's not that easy. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thanks for that feedback. I mean, that we know that's something we talked about like we don't want to especially for smaller homes or homes that don't have a lot of custom features. Um, you know, definitely don't want to push those into a a sub panel or a larger panel.

So, I think maybe having an out is something we can talk about and think about for the next meeting. Yeah, I think just because I'm not I'm not necessarily against having outlets in those areas. Uh but we've just done it in the past as like an option for dual fuel or things like that. Um rather than putting it into the code that it's it's a requirement. Yeah. Okay.

Uh on the subject of the EV kind of readiness, I I like the idea of of being capable rather than immediately jumping to building the the the spaces, you know, getting getting to the point where there's infrastructure in place such that, you know, I'd like to see that demand grow and then adjust to it with as minimal disruption, as minimal retrofit as possible with with that.

So, if that's closer to the the B1 option, I think um yeah, that's where I would be leaning to, you know, lay some of the groundwork, but wait for some of that uh expected, you know, increase in EVs to to manifest before we start putting chargers every which way. Thanks for that feedback. Yeah, I agree.

just with uh you know buildings changing hands, uh builders handing off buildings, properties being sold, uh with there being capable spaces if the person that currently occupies that building doesn't necessarily have those needs uh but it's available for uh whoever in the future uh may may take that over. Yeah, sounds good. Well, um I only have 10 more minutes left, so I want to get to the next topic, but thanks for your feedback and we can finalize this at our next meeting.

So, um, the last one that's a big bigger topic to discuss is so the commercial code does require on-site renewable electricity generation. Um, so that's 0.75 watts per square foot multiplied by the sum of the gross condition floor area of all floors. Um, and if they can't meet that on-site, this is just what the base code says, they have to procure off-site renewable energy that's 15 times the on-site requirement. So, that's a lot.

Um we know this is a big requirement and so we've got some options that we're proposing to lessen that requirement. Um number one is to keep it but um all the other ones are to lessen. So option number two is to keep the on-site requirements but delete the off-site energy requirements. So if you can't meet it onsite, you don't have to procure off-site renewable energy. And when I say procuring off-site, there's a lot of different mechanisms that they talk about.

Um, but basically it's like renewable energy credits and things like that. Um, option three is to make all on and off-site renewable energy requirements apply only to commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet. Um, and again, if we have that amendment that allows those residential buildings that would be on the commercial code to meet the residential code, this would not apply to them.

So, um, approximately 25 or so commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet that aren't actually residential, um, have been built in Flagstaff since 2018. So, it's not very many buildings that are above that 10,000 square foot threshold. Um, option four is to make um those on-site energy requirements apply only to buildings over 10,000 square feet, but delete all of the requirements for off-site renewable energy. Um, and then option five is to make all renewable energy requirements optional.

Um, yeah, so those are some of the options we put forward knowing that the base code requirements, you know, add add a lot. So trying to think how can we still get benefits of renewable energy but maybe lessen those requirements somewhat. Uh one question I have this may be um within the the larger code but I'm curious if the renewable energy requirements from a generation standpoint also come with requirements for storage capacity on like within whatever unit is there. Um I don't believe so.

I don't think there's any storage capacity required. Yeah. Because you know as I see like making as soon as you get into the the space of making renewable energy required that does then just place a burden on the utilities providers to then figure out where that power goes if there's no means to store it um like immediately upon generation.

and would just be cautious of of that of that nuance within you know the renewable space that obviously a lot of you know a big cost to try to put storage into any of the any of these buildings but just a thought that I'm having as we're looking at Does anyone else have any feedback? I I he just made a really good point. You know, if you're making energy, but you don't have any use for it when it's made, that's a problem.

And I'm sure you guys have looked at hopefully they've looked at this, but even on the big buildings when you throw a whole bunch of solar panels up there, then you've got roof loads that get increased. There's a lot of extra expense and hopefully that's been looked at as well. I mean, that's part of the um solar ready appendix would require them to support solar anyway. So, it's kind of already in our code. Um, but I hear what you're saying.

I think for the solar generation, I mean, you know, it does if you don't have on-site storage, it does go back into the grid. If you have solar panels, it doesn't exactly power your house. If you do have on-site storage, then it would power the building and the battery. Um, you know, it is used during the day, but that is a challenge with solar is that if you don't have a battery, you can't use it at night. Um, but you know, it is used during the day.

So, um, and but that's more of a APS question. I'm not a super expert on that topic. Yeah. Yeah.

I recognize that's a that's a question for you know the utilities as much as anything but yeah I don't want to assume that it's not used because it is going back into the grid and powering whatever is using electricity but it's not directly powering that building that's yeah yeah just [clears throat] succumbing to that you know electricity until we have like grid level storage is a it's got to go somewhere when it's generated otherwise you start getting blackout brownout type territory. Yeah.

So that's it's a little bit of a I don't want to say misdirection, but if you produce solar power on top of your roof, yes, it goes back into your grid, but how far does it go? Not very far. It might make it to your neighbor's house, the next commercial building over. It doesn't get to Tempe or Mesa or Okay, so that's a that's one factor. And the other thing is Arizona already has some really cheap electricity because of the overp production of solar here and in California.

Um, so there is a point where we're overproducing solar at all the wrong times to your point. So what I'm getting is is it worthwhile to make buildings have all that extra roof structure and the solar ready structure all for something that actually may not provide any value. Yeah. So one thing is that the roof structure already required through the solar appendix.

Another actually is that uh the Federal Energy Information Administration actually finds that Arizona has the second highest electricity rates in the West on average. So that's not specific to APS. Um that's across Arizona. So we actually do have relatively high electricity and gas rates. Um and in terms of not doing anything, I mean I don't think that's necessarily true in terms of solar. So well, you've got to look at how electricity works and how the grid works and line loss and all that.

It it's not as simple as you make an extra 10 watts and it makes it all the way across the state. It never gets across the state. That's not how it works. And we do need to look at how APS's rates are. It doesn't matter what SRP rates are because that's not us. We're APS and we have some of the lowest rates in the country. I will add that APS requested a 14% raise rate increase that is over for before the Arizona Corporation Commission. So, we'll see what rates are later this year.

Anyway, um any other comments in terms of looking at these options? just um because we're going to have to figure this out. My if if we were to consider a requirement the only on buildings over 10,000 square ft where you might have uh you know an easier time addressing some of the nuances that we've discussed on storage on you know what to do with excess or anything like that. Um that to me would make sense. Otherwise, making it optional to me would be um would be my my caution.

You know, taking the uh taking the higher road. Okay, I think that's all that I have. Um thanks everyone and we'll bring this back next meeting. Okay. I will be sure to add uh the energy code discussion. I think what I would like to do is probably provide another hour you think for for yours. Do you think that'll be sufficient for you to dive a little deeper into some of these topics? Okay. All right. So, I'll make sure to add an hour to that. So, next up, Mr. Chris Jack. Good afternoon.

Chris Jack, fire marshall with the Flagstaff Fire Department. Uh we didn't have anything really that was a like options that we needed to go over with the fire code. Um I'll hit some high high things. Um the significant changes document was shared with the board hopefully uh before you had a chance to look at that. Uh the biggest things that they changed um lithium batteries was a huge huge thing as far as fire protection in buildings if you're doing energy storage.

Uh even recycling um people turning in like the hazardous product center. It would be something for them. H lithium batteries being stored in a 55gallon drum keeping them separated from other things. Um just for the fire safety aspect of it. um some changes on uh like rooftop gardens and how that's figured into egress. Um so uh those are significant changes. As far as our amendments, we copied uh what we did previously with the 2018 code.

Um there was a few new additions that we pulled out uh that were already written in the code. Didn't need them anymore. Um, two big ones that uh I did add were um for electric vehicle chargers having a little bit more there. The code was pretty vague on the fire side. Um, generally there's not a disconnect provided by code. Uh, which is kind of a a risk to us. You got a 480 commercial charger and we can't shut it off uh when there's a fire or an issue. So, that's one added in.

um even just a a switch box and then the signage on it, you know, that hey, this is the electric vehicle charger. That way we could find it easy uh for firefighters in the response. Um and then another one was the emergency responder radio systems. Those have been in the code required. The code just said at the end of construction, you should meet all the requirements for radio coverage. And that's critical areas. You have 95% coverage in the building.

That's all done by a third-party inspection. Uh there was no criteria of when you should install one. Um all we added was pre you know adding conduit to pre uh conduit the building for a system when you hurt hit certain criteria. It's going to be high square footage buildings or materials. Um like one example would be the uh U-Haul storage building enclosed building being all metal. it had an issue with radio coverage. Uh you get in there with a fire, radios can't communicate out.

So that's a uh repeater system within the building that has an antenna on the roof to help carry that signal out. Um and those those types of buildings would be required to have that added in. Um other little amendments that uh or one amend one uh code addition as well was the uh I know it got brought up in the previous meeting. if the electric vehicle chargers needed any fire protection in like a single family home.

Uh any requirement there, there's not any fire sprinkler requirement or anything on that. Um and even energy storage systems in a garage like the Tesla Power Walls don't those don't require any fire protection in a garage like a single family home garage. The only thing it doesn't want um codewise is ballards.

If they're right in front of the parking space to protect people running into them, if they're off to the side far enough on the sidewall of the garage, then you're good without vehicle protection. Um as a little additional note, um I did find out from the state fire marshall's office that they have moved forward and adopted the 24 IFC. Um, and they started using it about a week ago. Um, so we're kind of held to that. That'll be the state minimum.

They give us some time for our adoption and they don't force us to start using it right away. Um, most of the amendments, appendix amendments that we have, they're all copies directly of what the state also did. I do not have a copy of their amendments yet. Um, but I can provide that to the board if they'd like to see what the state's amendments to the IFC are as well. Um, other than that, I'm happy to answer any questions or or anything you'd like to discuss.

Quick question on the uh does the IFC fully apply to residential as well as much as it touches it? Uh, it doesn't touch it a whole lot. a little bit um on, you know, there's very limited things like smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detection. Uh this will have the uh like ballards for a power um storage thing in the garage. Other than that, there's not much for uh single family home residential. There's no requirement for, you know, annual inspections like commercial stuff like that.

No, what I was getting at was uh the section labeled deadends. Um there should be no parking or other obstructions in fire apparatus turnaround areas. Does that include residential culde-sacs or is that just in commercial parking lots? Um it it should be everywhere all fire apparatus assess roads throughout the entire town. Um and that would depend on the dimensions. Um dimensions as the dimensions go out then you can add parking to one side, both sides uh what what have you.

It depends on that situation. Um, I'm curious because I live in a culde-sac and so to actually turn around one of your fire trucks, you can't do it. You back recently happened. You back into my driveway, which is fine, but would that mean we're going to yellow red stripe culde-sacs fully to keep people from parking in them or what's the implications that it's all um this is all new uh new development.

Um, and that's where it makes it hard with the older development when you know some of the streets were designed pretty narrow and people are already parking on them. Um and we've discussed it a little bit with traffic, you know, trying to come up with a plan of how would we move forward. Um right now the city's going through a process, the safe streets master planning, and that's with some federal um stakeholders that got some funds. Uh and they're looking at a a master plan across the city.

And these were some issues that we brought up is existing roads that don't meet current standards, aren't striped, and mark no parking. Where's the funding to move forward with marking that? And how would we go forward with, you know, adding the signage, the red striping? Um, it's not in the city budget or anybody's budget really to handle that uh currently. Anything else for me? All right, I guess we'll send it over to Neil. Hey everyone, can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Yeah. Great. Thank you.

Um let's see. I'm not going to bother sharing my screen. Uh the WOOI code just to give you some background, but my intent with some of these updates. Um obviously adopt the 24 international wildland urban interface code. Um draft amendments based on our local wildfire risk and heat transfer methods of embers, radiant heat, and direct flame. Um, a big intention of mine was to simplify the construction requirements. I think um, I'll get into that in a minute.

Also, there was a lack of alignment with some of our own zoning code and and then a recently updated forest management plan with some of the defensible space guidelines and uh, and since this was last adopted in 2008, there's been a lot of progress on what sort of standards exist for creating wildfire prepared construction. Um, so those were my intentions as we went through this some significant updates really.

Um, I'm trying to deconlict the fact that there was three different construction standards. Um, it was based on a formula of calculating your fire hazard severity based on, you know, number of high fire danger weather events, your surrounding fuel models and and really it just led to some some arbitrary decision-m. And so really um I I whittle this down to just one standard and it's a combination of the first and second construction standards. The third one the least firep prepared.

We really should not be building to that one whatsoever anywhere in Flagstaff. That's based on a moderate fire hazard rating. There's nowhere in Flagstaff when we download any maps or anything that says this is a moderate rating. Anywhere in Flagstaff can be receiving embers from a wildfire. there's nowhere where um anything in Flagstaff is more than a mile away from a forested area that could be raining embers down on that community.

Um so really moving um the ignition resistant construction class one and two into what's considered non-combustible construction. So um non-combustible materials for everything that ex is exposed. Um and then including a zone zero for new construction as well. So that means nothing combustible within 5 ft of the house regarding vegetation and fences.

And so our uh our estimates and and I'll be honest, you know, this is again comparing this to ignition resistant construction class one and two of the current code because again class 3, we shouldn't even be using that. We're looking at about $5,000 an increased cost due to boxing in eaves using non-combustible material. Um, moving to non-combustible siding. Um, from what I understand talking to multiple builders in town.

Hardy board complies and majority of our construction is using Hardy board. So, there's not going to be a significant cost change moving from our current methods to making non-combustible the standard. And um, non-combustible decking material can increase cost. But again, we're talking about single family homes here. And you can do alternative construction methods instead of worrying about the cost of non-combustible material versus wood.

Um whether it's stone or pavers or or concrete slab patios for new construction. Um we can think about smarter ways to do this. I've been on plenty of fires where decks are what caused homes to burn. Um, so really the big change in the WOOI code would be replacing the three different construction standards and the formulas of calculating these these different metrics within chapter 5 and just moving to one simple construction standard.

Um, simplifying, you know, the the way the city and the builders work through this process. Um, let me make sure I've got all my documents up and ready here. All right, ready for questions? I've got a ton of questions, but I'll let everybody else go first. I see a lot of problems here.

Yeah, I think I'm from the standpoint where I would need to do a lot more research before really saying anything of value uh on the specific topic just with building materials that we're current currently using and where those stand. Okay. So, there's a lot. You covered a lot right there. And I tried to go through all the pages. You've got quite a few pages on the wildland. And just to be clear, this applies to the entire city that's stated in there.

So, it's not really a wildland urban in uh what do you call it? But it's actually just saying the whole city is going to be under this. There's no interface, so to speak. It's not really an interface. It's just a blanket code over the whole city. But there's a lot of things in here that one contradict our own code. For example, the the shrubbery and the tree branch separation. You got to be your branches have to be 10 feet from each other under this code.

And that contradicts with the RPO that we currently have in a lot of the city. You'll end up with Just real quick, RPO, we have a pilot project that we're changing that moving forward. So, um, this does not conflict with the way we're we're moving forward with resource protection standards. Yeah, I I would love to see those go away anyway, but Yeah, me too. That's our plan. They're Yeah, they're stupid for fire. Um, and I do like the idea. I mean, we just did a house like this.

We made it fireproof like you tal talked about, even removing all the grass within 5t of the house because of their insurance requirements. But I am real reluctant to say we're going to force everybody not to have a blade of grass, a vine, a cedar bush, or anything within 5 ft of their house. Uh I've got a lot of push back on that. And then also, uh branches overhanging the house.

I don't think it's a good idea, but they often shade homes and prevent the use of higher energy cost because if you can shade your home, you don't have to run the air conditioner more. Um so that's a factor. The um gosh, this this thing goes so many different ways. The um the hardy plank you mentioned, that's a terrible material. Most builders are moving away from it that have any kind of sense. It's very brittle.

Uh we've replaced siding that other builders have put on that hardy plank soldering in numerous cases because it blows off the house. It's brittle and we've replaced entire homes already that have been hardy plankked. And yeah, it's non-combustible sort of. It's made of paper and cement, but not a good product. So, I would give some push back on that.

If you wanted to do something like that, I would say uh, you know, do a non-combustible ways coat around the house, uh, metal, stone, brick, masonry, something down low because if we look at a lot of the fires, even the recent Timberline fire, a lot of it was ground crawl. Uh, I saw homes burned to the ground, not even charred wood left, but the trees around them didn't even get damaged. It it was ground crawl like you said under decks. Uh I build a lot of decks.

We're currently building a $2,000 deck, $200,000 deck in Ponderosa Trails to give you an idea of our level of decks. Um if you take that $200,000 deck and turn it into no wood and no flammable surfaces, you've taken a $200,000 deck and made it a $400,000 deck. It's a lot more expensive. We looked into the prices of doing steel joist, steel post, all of that for decks. it easily doubles the overall cost. We've done cost analysis on that more than once. Uh so that's that's kind of a non-starter.

What we have seen with insurance companies is decks that are close to the ground, in other words, 30 in within the ground area, requiring some kind of non-combustible skirting so that uh a grass fire or blowing embers won't go up under the deck and ignite the deck superructure, the joist and whatnot. Uh on a much higher deck, it's easy to walk under there and see if there's embers going under. When you're close to the ground, people don't tend to crawl under there.

So, if you want to look at non-combustible, I would say look at skirting decks that are lower to the ground either with uh a lot of times we use metal. You could use a a grid, you know, like a eighth inch or quarter inch um like you would anywhere else on your vents or anything. So there I I got to I mean I could go on and on with the list of problems with the the wildland interface uh rules. I think the concept is great. Yes, we're surrounded by a forest that's overgrown.

A lot of our vacant city lots are overgrown. A lot of people's personal lots are overgrown, but this is going really far and is going to add a lot more uh cost to construction than you're you're imagining. Well, it's really not going very far compared to our current ignition resistant construction standards one and two. This is going far compared to three, which I don't think is smart for us to be using to begin with.

The cost of somebody willing to put in a 200,000 deck, $200,000 deck, I don't really know how to respond to my concerns over somebody spending $200,000 on a deck. Um, moving to non-combustible siding is becoming an industry standard. The Wildfire, what is it? The um insurance institute for business and home safety is what we're taring this to. And so that is a standard that's in five different states in the west.

It's not in Arizona, but we'd like to see it become eligible in Arizona and their wildfire prepared home standard that we're tying this to is what the insurance industry is asking for. And so if we start building to this standard, these are currently the only construction standards that we're seeing any homeowners get relief by utilizing. There's a community outside of San Diego and Escandido that built every single home to this standard. None of those homes required being on the fair plan.

They all received private market insurance and their premium cost per home value was lower than the surrounding areas. So the trend Okay, I got to interrupt you there because you're comparing Escanido, which I'm very familiar with. I was just out there. If we want California prices in Flagstaff, fine. But you know, do we want homes that are $1,000 a square foot to build? Then okay, let's follow the Eskanido model. But that's not realistic.

The numbers I've got are moving to this wildfire prepared home standard compared to our current standards of ignition resistant one and two construction. Like I said, are under the $5,000 addition for a single family home. There's absolutely no truth to what you just said because Prescuit already has some of this in place, not all of it. And we have designed and and worked with it uh construction down there and the costs are way higher.

And that's Prescuit that doesn't even have this full uh wildland interface that you're talking. They're not quite there yet. At least not last time we designed down there. They're requiring heavy timber versus non-combustible. But the costs were way higher than what you're talking about at a factor of 10.

Even if those costs are higher though, I mean, because I think I think the point that this is trying to get at from from Neil's perspective is the the avoided cost of catastrophe should wildfire get to some of these neighborhoods that at the moment because of the proximity to homes, the proximity to fuels to those homes that you're going to, you know, you get one house on fire, the whole neighborhood's going to go up in smoke.

And so, you know, it I I respect the I respect the emphasis on the the initial upfront cost of some of these things but there's also the avoided cost of catastrophe that we're trying to avoid with standards like this. I think a great example is the tunnel fire that we dealt with in 2022 just outside of Flag. That had nothing to do with tree density. That was construction and vegetation. We burn more homes in this country in fastmoving grass fires than we ever do in crown fires in the forest.

And that's just what we're trying to prep for is fastmoving grass fire through the community. And when we started looking at trying to differentiate between a WOOI area on the perimeter versus an area inside town, this construction practice is also incredibly relevant for high density construction when you're trying to create a home that will be somewhat resistant to radiant heat and direct flame. It doesn't really matter if it's a juniper shrub or the house next door to you.

Um, these standards also uh support risk reduction in high density just as much as they do if you're on the perimeter of town. This is Mark Sherry. Another thing to consider on this is um the people's maintenance, their yearly maintenance. You know, we have pine needles, we have shrubs, we have uh all kinds of things that grow up against homes. People have their own furniture, etc. that they put on their decks that are right up against the walls.

Um, so you're creating an ignition source um from an ember that's coming in and uh and then you know igniting and you've got a direct flame impingement on the construction of the home. So if you take care of this ahead of time, you can alleviate some of those issues because we all know people and their maintenance, yearly maintenance uh slides by the wayside, which isn't also an added cost.

But when you live in a forested environment, you have to have that yearly maintenance to maintain your home. I'll share some some other docs just real quick. I can share some more docs with you guys. We've got reports from Headarters Economics on cost of construction increases with these standards. We've got reports from Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety on how we're trying to align with those standards as well. We can share all that.

You know, I do want to emphasize I'm not against fire protection. My own home is probably the most fireproof house in the city. I built out of stone, metal eaves, like it's almost impenetrable to fire. So, I respect fire and the danger to it, but I also, as a builder and designer, know in the real world what costs are and uh the impacts of that. And yeah, so yeah, I I get it. You don't want to spend $200,000 on a deck, but we're talking about Pounders of Trails.

Our typical decks range from 50,000 to 200,000. But the point is you double that cost. It's not 10% more. It's not 5% more. It's double to go to a fireproof deck. It is literally double. We've done the cost analysis more than once. Well, that that's if they want to stay with a deck. If they want to move to a different construction method, then we know we're not talking about double. Well, you can't put pavers 20 feet up in the sky.

You know, when you're do typically when somebody does a deck, they're doing it because they're not down at ground level where you can do concrete and uh pavers and that sort of thing. Once you're up in the air, your deck is kind of the only thing, your only option left. You know, I think just it's great that you've invested time and money to make all these modifications. If your neighbor doesn't, then your insurance company has every right to say that your your home is at risk.

You know, this isn't something that we solve parcel by parcel. This has to be a communitywide effort to make these mitigation measures impactful. The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety says that if 80% of the homes in a designated neighborhood don't meet their standard, then that neighborhood is still going to be considered high- risk. I I understand that totally.

Um, one thing I did like in your proposal was uh for fences that are within I think you said 5T of the home um would be non-combustible. I think it's a great idea. Uh the only change I would say is most of our R1 I don't know if most Amy could address that but is an 8 foot sideyard. So most people have a an 8 foot long fence connecting to their home.

I would almost say go to the 8oot with a non-combustible and at that we just encountered this recently with an HOA that refused to allow us to do metal. They want wood all the way up to the house. By going to an eight foot level, you basically are saying, "Look, HOA, you can't force people to do wood partway to their house.

You know, let's let's make it a realistic uh to the building code number rather than 5T." Yeah, we we got some feedback from folks saying, you know, go out to 10 or something and we were trying to just keep it consistent with the five foot section, but yeah, I get you. Thanks for the feedback on that one. All right, since we're about out of time, um, hey Amy, can we can we make time to sit down and go through the the W code stuff at another time? Like, how how does that work?

That is what I was just going to get to. Great. Okay. So, uh, Neil, your additional documentation that you said that you have, could you send that to me so I can send it out to the board? Yep. Okay. the sooner the better. So then the board can hopefully have a whole week and if possible I would like to be able to reconvene next week. Um Nancy, I know we're kind of going out of order. Is that okay? Yes. Okay.

Um the times that we can meet here in chambers would be next Wednesday, excuse me, from 1 to 4, next Thursday from 1 to 3 or next Friday from 8 to 12. Um, and I anticipate probably an hour for the energy code, an hour for the WOOI, and probably 30 minutes or so, um, to tie up the loose ends that we had as far as snow loads and some of the electrical questions. So, maybe two and a half hours. Um, for the board, do those do any of those times or dates work for for you all so we can have a quorum?

Wednesday works for me. Okay. from 1 to 4 or 1 to 3:30. Those of you online, uh, Wednesday through Friday is going to be tough for me. I'm traveling out of town for a funeral and I'm flying on Wednesday and Friday and then the funeral is taking place on Thursday. So, um, that's going to be tough for me. Um, depending on on when, like if it's in the morning, maybe on Friday, but yeah. Yeah. Friday would be the only availability that we would have is the AM hours from 8 to 12.

Um, I mean, there is a possibility for Tuesday, but it would have to be an off-site meeting because all of our conference rooms here are taken. So, I mean, it may end up having to be a remote meeting if if we wanted to do a Tuesday. So, then, um, Scott, you could also be attending. Anytime works for me. So, okay. Uh Neil, what about you? Since this, you know, you would be kind of uh one of the main topics. Real quick, what were those options again for next week? I was just typing up an email.

Sorry. Um Tuesday 1 to 3 or we'll just say Tuesday afternoon. Um Wednesday 1 to 4, Thursday 1 to 3, Friday 8 to 12. Sorry, Thursday. What option was Thursday again? 1 to three. One to three on Thursday I can make work and Friday. Okay. But I don't think Thursday works for Scott. I am not available on Tuesdays. I've got a EMT class I'm taking at CCC every Tuesday. Um Wednesday. Did you have an option for Wednesday? Yeah. One to four. One to four. I can make work on Wednesday. Okay.

Is Dave Merrill still online or is he off? You don't see him on there anymore? Okay. I'll check in with Dave as well. I mean, we have to have a minimum of four people to have a quorum. So, it's not mandatory to have all six individuals attend, but I mean, obviously, in the interest of the codes, we would like as many to participate. So, do we have a a day that I can be looking at? The for for me the preference would be Friday morning. Okay. For me, too. Okay. Friday AM.

Will that work for you guys? Yep. Okay. Yeah, we'll do a virtual option the same. Yeah, I should be able to make that work. Okay. So, I will do Friday morning. Uh, can I just set it for 8 to 11 and then if we don't use all the time, we don't use it. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, I will send out a meeting invite for uh Friday morning 8 to 11 in the same room, council chambers with a virtual meeting option. So again, one hour for energy codes, one hour for WOOI, and 30 for building safety.

Genevie, does that work for you? Okay. All right. So, what's the next step in the meeting, Nancy? I mean, typically, you would go over any information to and from. If there isn't any, you just say none and you adjourn the meeting. I would say there's none. Yep. I think we covered it. and then just announce the time you're adjourning the meeting. Meeting is adjourned at 2:59 p.m. Thank you. Thank you guys. We will see you next Friday. Yeah. Thank you so much everyone.

Amy, you got those documents in your inbox.