Flagstaff Board of Appeals unanimously adopts wildfire-resistant construction code requiring non-combustible materials

Good morning, Chris. Morning. How about now? Can you guys hear us now? Yes. Excellent. Thank you, Chief. Uh, good morning everybody. It appears as though we have a quorum. This is Ricken Onus. I am filling in for Amy Trestler this morning. Uh Dave Merrill. Uh if Jacob has not uh appeared this morning, uh Dave Merrill will be functioning as vice chair. And now would be a good time for Dave to call this meeting to order. All right. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

and we would proceed to a roll call among the board. Do we have an agenda that I can pull up while I'm doing this or is put online? Sorry, I didn't know this was going to happen. Sorry, Dave. Uh Stephen will be dropping the agenda into the chat. [clears throat] I have it. Thank you. Okay, I got it. All right, we'll do a roll call now. Um, I think I'll be able to roll call now. Oh, yeah. Um, Jacob Conger, Mark Howlet, present. Scott Friends, present. I'm probably butchering these names.

I'm sorry, guys. Um, myself, Dave Merrill, president. Present. Geez. Patrick Stasi and Mark Shy here. So, with four of us, we have a quorum. Um, next, I'll take a motion to meet our to approve our minutes of the May 1st meeting. Do I have a motion? So, moved is Mark Shy. Mark moves. Is do I have a second? Second. Any uh discussion? All in favor? I I and any opposed? Motion passes.

At this time, any member of the public may address the board on a subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the board on that on this day. Due to open meeting laws, the board cannot discuss or act on any 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 on the p for the public comment at the time the item is heard. Do we have any public comment?

All right, let's move to our action items. Um, and I will turn the time back to you, Rick, I guess, for continued discussion on uh specific topics related to residential decking, residential sighting, and uh HVAC filters. Correct. That'll be uh we are going to turn this over to Neil Chapman to um continue this discussion about the WOI code uh discussion items. Okay. Thank you everyone. Can you hear me okay online? Yes. Yes. Okay. Uh updated document that I think you guys can see.

Do you see the um 2024 IWIC significant changes and cost impacts document? We do. Great. Okay. So, um also want to introduce a couple friends that I asked to join us today. Uh Dr. Dr. Kimmy Barrett with the Alliance for Wildfire Resilience has published a handful of documents that we've been using um through our analysis and Steve Hawks with IBHS um Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Steve has been instrumental in helping us think through the wildfire prepared home standards.

And since they have a a limited availability this morning, I think I'm just going to quickly hand it over to um let's start with Kimmy real quick.

if you could talk through um some of the documents that we've been using, specifically your your cost assessment, the the one looking at some of the post LA fire numbers, and just just if you could give us some quick history on some of your your work with um how we work through understanding the the increased costs for um non-combustible construction compared to some of the long-term savings. Absolutely. Yes. Good morning, everybody.

Um, thank you for the invitation to be here, Neil, and for others for participating on this. Um, yeah, as Neil introduced to me, u, my name is Kamiko Barrett. I am a wildfire researcher and policy analyst with background in structural ignition, vulnerability, and cost analysis. I previously worked at Headwaters Economics as their principal researcher and then have recently moved over to another policy think tank called Alliance for Wildfire Resilience.

Um, as noted though, my background is in how homes burn and the science behind it. And thus, I've worked very closely with Neil as well as Steve Hawks and others on this call. And in doing so, breaking down the cost analysis for material, I would use the word loosely as substitution. So, looking at a traditional home built with more combustible materials as we have done over decades and decades of time, uh, including where I live in the uh, up in Montana.

So looking mostly within the inner mountain west and in parts of California. Uh and in doing so looking at that exterior component of the home, there's predominant features as noticed on this table here that Neil's already outlined under the key change. Another way to look at that would be broadly kind of the components or the assemblies of the home.

So if you're looking at it from the top down, you're largely looking at the roof, the eaves, including the sophet area or the vents within those eaves, the exterior wall or the siding components. Then you're looking at the windows and the doors, anything with a glass to it, as well as the decking material, uh, including the patio surface area and the actual, you know, elevated deck.

and then what we call loosely this non-combustible zone or a 0 to 5 ft perimeter around the home primary structure itself. And so looking at traditional materials and then we've done a cost analysis for building that exact same home to a wildfire resistant home. And the way we measured wildfire resistance was based off of really two dominant standards that are commonly known out there. One is the ICC WOOI code or the wildland urban interface code as noted down below in this table.

Uh and then the other one that Steve's going to be talking about is the IBHS wildfire prepared home both its kind of standard baseline feature as well as its plus. Uh and in doing so what we found is for new home construction that cost comparison is very uh negotiable in that uh or negligible I should really say in that it elevated costs around two to three% depending on the assemblies of the original home and what you're replacing or or building up to that higher wildfire resistance.

Um, a lot of the materials I would note for wildfire resistance standards are commonly used on the market. They're just not often used or discussed within the larger umbrella of being wildfire resistance. Things like, you know, fiber cement siding or asphalt composition shingles, all of you know Trex decking material. These are materials that are widely used, but again, just not collectively pulled together in this whole systems approach to reach wildfire resistance.

The largest triggers of a cost increase, unsurprisingly, came from those that required larger quantities. So, for example, a roof is going to cost a little bit more if you're going from certain feature, you know, certain materials up to say a metal roof. Metal roof is not required. However, you can use an asphalt roof as noted before. even sighting materials. This is a cost savings in some case. Uh for instance, in Montana, it's very very common to use cedar sighting or wood sighting.

So, if you actually replace that with a fiber cement or a non-combustible sighting material, you're going to save money because uh it is it's um while very very common, it is actually going to be more affordable than using wood sighting. Um some of the additional costs are related to decking materials. This can be an increase depending on what that kind of material, you know, selection is going to be. And in some cases, a zero to n five foot non-combustible zone can also increase cost.

But I would underscore with all of these materials, you're talking about a long-term durability and lower maintenance that is also a mutual benefit that comes many months and years following the use of these materials. Um, the last thing I would note is when you look at homes that do meet wildfire resistance standards, they often comply with other mutual hazard mitigation.

The best example I can always use is here in my own area, which I also know is applicable to places in Flagstaff is that we get these winds that come through on a seasonal basis. Um, my parents home just up the street has beautiful sighting that's non-combustible, non-combustible zone, metal roof, and it's just beautifully designed with, you know, dual pane windows. And when I asked the architect, great job, you did terrific efforts in building this wildfire resistant home.

He said, no, I did this all for wind compliance and to bring down the wind load. So again, I would just underscore that a lot of these features do also meet mutual hazard resiliency efforts. I can certainly talk more about the costs as we go through this. Um, but with that, I think I'll turn it back to Neil uh before I go too deep into some of this. Thank you, Kimmy.

And I think uh just to add at the on our sheet here, we have a total project cost impact of about 1 to 2% because we had so much of our WOOI code already covering some of these items. Um so no major change from ignition resistant construction design method uh two within our current WOOI code within windows, roofs, doors, gutters, decks, vents. Um, no changes there in the the current. Yeah, thanks for calling that out, Neil.

I would say that the cost comparisons we did were largely for California, so both the northern and southern parts of California and then up here in the northern inner mountain west. And so because of that variability, I would certainly agree with your cost analysis here, Neil, that it does bring it down to because your standard is already elevated relative to the rest of the country, it's going to be a smaller decrease when you're looking at a new comparison.

And I also did want to note, I see the avoided cost uh line down there that's indicating for every dollar invested, it saves approximately $210 in avoided future losses. And the analysis of that avoided future loss often comes in things like watershed rehabilitation. Obviously, the reconstruction and rebuilding of homes and businesses lost lost business revenue and economic value at that local scale.

uh hillside stabilization, infrastructure repairs, even things like human injury and fatality are quantified within that wild fire or loss. Uh and so again, I can discuss that more if if it's helpful. Thank you, Kimmy. I think uh I'll hand it over to Steve and we'll we'll get um a couple details from Steve and then we'll we'll open to some more questions before I get into some of our details on the agenda while we have you guys here.

So, Steve, if you could talk a little bit about um since we potentially have this code aligned with the wildfire prepared home plus standard, if you could talk a little bit about how that works and successes you've seen in other communities, uh challenges as well. And then one of um while we've got you here, we can get into some some of the decking conversations as well. Absolutely. And uh good morning, Vice Chair Merrill and um committee members.

Uh Steve Hawk, senior director for wildfire at the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety or IBHS. And my background is in the California Fire Service. Uh 30-year career both in uh fire suppression and uh prevention uh at the last part of my career working in the office of the state fire marshall in a division called the community wildfire preparedness and mitigation division.

And um I had the opportunity u throughout my career to not only respond to large, highly intense and destructive fires across California, but also uh at the last part of my career, I managed the damage inspe inspection program for California. And um so I was deployed to the Tubs fire, um the campfire in paradise, which is my hometown where I was born and raised.

and my parents lost their house that day in the campfire as well as many other family uh and friends that lived in paradise still at the time. I did not um live in paradise at the time but uh postcalire career I joined IBHS and we're a nonprofit organization that conducts research on severe weather and wildfire and how that impacts uh structures. And on the wildfire space, we really look at those flames, radiant heat, and embers and how they exploit vulnerabilities in the structure.

And there's two specific areas that we focus on at the parcel level. And the the first one is the the structure itself and the components of the exterior of the home and the materials that they're made out of. And then the immediate surrounding area out to about 100 ft. uh and looking at the the pathways that the fire can take to burn directly to the home through a series of combustible objects leading the fire right to the house and its ignition and loss.

And so our wildfire prepared uh program has two lanes. One is a parcel level uh lane that is wildfire prepared home and uh that's what Neil referenced just a bit ago with the wildfire prepared home plus and we really think of that as the enhanced um level of protection and the other level of designation is the base or essential uh uh mitigation actions that a homeowner should take.

And the essential or base level is really designed for an existing home that is looking to be more resilient and targets specifically the embers uh from the fire and those components of the house and its surrounding area that are most vulnerable to the that ember exposure. The the that are lofted into the air and carried down wind and when they deposit on a cup a combustible item they could ignite that item um either the home directly or items around the house.

Um and then the plus level or enhanced uh protection uh provides that added level uh for for the direct flame and and uh radiant heat exposure and addresses the other components of the home and some additional things around that excuse [clears throat] me the surrounding area and really provides the maximum level of protection. And uh with decks being one of those um significant areas uh that are vulnerable when they're made of combustible materials.

And uh Neil, would you like me to um continue on with the deck or do you want me to hand it back to you for now? I think uh if we we'll get into decks [clears throat] in a second.

And if you could just mention some of um one example we've brought up was the recent development in Southern California where they they designed the homes to be wildfire prepared home plus compliant from from the building design start and um and the fact that those homes I believe are all receiving insurance through the regular private sector markets and avoiding the fair plan. Is that correct? Yeah, I have two examples that I can give to you.

Uh so the first is the campfire, the town of Paradise that was virtually destroyed by the campfire and uh Paradise implemented a ordinance uh to rebuild those homes to the wildfire prepared home standard and um and initially some homes were sent to the fair plan.

Um but since then there have been a number of insurance companies that have come back into paradise and started writing um policies for those homers uh specifically targeting those homes that have the wildfire prepared home uh designation because they understand that the actions that are required by the program meaningfully reduce the risk to the home uh making it more survivable which in turn makes it more uh uh insurable.

and then to the Southern California uh as my colleague Laura Blau who is working very closely with many architects and nonprofit organizations that have come up post uh both Eaton and Palisades fire and they are uh really those homeowners are leaning in uh having gone through a very significant and traumatic event uh looking to rebuild uh with a higher level of resilience. So, they're they're really leaning in on rebuilding to the wildfire prepared home plus standard.

And as Kimmy mentioned, uh we had done a cost analysis of rebuilding in Altadena um and found that, you know, the the cost for traditional construction versus the wildfire prepared home plus is only about uh 2 to 3%. And if you spread that out over a 30-year mortgage, that's about $50 extra per month over a 30-year mortgage. Thank you, Steve. Mark, I see you've got a question. Um, if it Do [clears throat] you want us to get into decks first or do you want to go with your question first?

No, I don't want to get into decks first. Um, a couple quick comments. First of all, um, I'm sure there's a lot going on in California. Welcome to Arizona. We're not California. Um, let's do talk about this significant changes and cost impacts and uh, which is completely inaccurate. I'm a general contractor, been so in Arizona for 29 years. Um, and we need to talk about some realistic numbers here. And we can start with the exterior walls if you're ready for that.

You know, if we could if we could just get through the deck part real quick while I've got Steve and Kimmy here because they do need need to drop off soon and we'll get into that. And uh just so you know before I this was information we printed off from Home Depot's build plan yesterday. So uh that's great for Home Depot, but it's not it's not reality and we it's we're not going to skip over this because it's not reality. It's not even close to reality. You got less than $40 for exterior walls.

Uh do you realize that was what the builder site from Home Depot gave us yesterday. Okay. So, little education here because you're going to need it. And um Flagstaff is looking at completely wrapping the homes in 2 in of um foam insulation. Now, to install a Hardy product, Mark, if we could get into if we could just have the deck conversation first. You cannot present something that is completely a lie and accept it. I'm not going to stand for that. That's unacceptable.

You guys cannot present things that are completely untrue to the commission and expect to get away with that. That's not okay. Now, we're going to talk about this for a minute, and if you cut me off, I'm going to leave the quorum here. The exterior walls in Flagstaff, to install Hardy Plank siding over it, you have to install furring strips first with either number 10 or number 12 screws that are going to be about three and a half inches long all the way around the house.

Then, after you install that, you have to install the Hardy plank on top of that. But now the problem is you've created a gap of 3/4 in between the hardy plank and the foam which is both toxic and combustible around the house. There is no way that is costing $40. That is the stupidest thing I've seen presented to this committee yet. Now you can try to explain to me how you're going to add furring strips around an entire house and fire blocking before putting on the Hardy plank for $40.

Mark, may I interject? This is Rick. Um, can I ask where are you getting this idea that we're wrapping ex the the exterior walls with with layers of foam board? Rick, that is in the ECC requirement that has been presented to this committee. It's 2 in of foam to create an R30 around the entire house. It's already been presented to this committee. Mark, there's an exception for that requirement. It is not It is not a direct requirement. The requirement is for R30.

Do you plan on doing 2 by12 walls? What's explain how that's going to work, Rick? All right. Um, Mark, can we uh table this discussion for the moment? We don't have those details in front of us. Um, no, you can't. You're Rick, it is required. It's in your own code that you presented to us. All right. Let's let's come back to this. Okay. All right. I'm leaving the quorum. Bye. Have a good day, guys. We we can come back to that discussion.

Uh the numbers I'm using here are for the siding material specifically, not any of the underlaying issues. That's just not something we're in the buoy code getting into. We've lost our quorum. I don't think we can continue um under open meeting law. Is that true? I would think you're correct. This is Chief Gaylord. Um, I think you'll need to adjourn the meeting and uh try again for a quorum. Um, really quickly, um, is Pat Staski in this meeting at all? We have a 928 phone number.

I don't think we know who that is. Can the caller identify themselves, please? You're muted if you're trying to. Are you guys able to hear me at all? Yeah, there you are. Yeah, I I had to hit star six. I'm I apologize. I've been listening to the whole conversation. And this is who is this Pat? Yes, it is. Oh, we have a quorum again. So, we have a quum. We can continue. Okay. Well, we can continue then. Sorry. I uh I think it's okay to continue. So, please please continue presenting. All right.

We'll jump it back into Dex real quick, but I just wanted to let you know at our last meeting, Mark was talking about LP smart side composite siding. I built a package on the Home Depot website for an 18,800 ft home. I got $3,284.76 82 or 62 panels. Um, I did the same thing for Hardy James Hardy fiber cement siding and I got $3,318.86, a difference of about $40 for 62 panels. um what goes on underneath that sighting and some of those other details.

I don't factor those numbers in um to the number that we're saying here. Just for that exterior wall, that's where for that material alone, $40 difference for moving from a wood product to a non-combustible product. And uh in the research that we'll get into after we let Kimmy and Steve get into, um most of the challenges I've discovered were inefficient installs. So, people weren't installing it properly, which leads to issues with the siding itself either cracking or vibrating.

And uh I talked to installers and the ones that said that they took the time to learn how to do it properly, they've been incredibly satisfied with the results. And the people that want to just rush through the job don't don't enjoy it as much, I guess. Um but decking, Steve and and Kimmy, if you could kind of just give us a little one. Can I ask one real quick question? That's kind of decking before. Um, Steve, I I assume from your title you're familiar with the insurance agency.

If if as a board we adopt these standards with amendments, um, how does the insurance industry look at um, providing insurance to a community that has standards and then standards with amendments? Does that make a difference to them or are they just looking at what the overall standard is? Are they digging into the amendment? That's my kind of question as it especially as it relates to deck. I just know um there's significant cost there.

But if in my opinion if the insurance companies are going to cut us then I don't know that we have a choice anyway. So so insurance companies are looking to write uh homeowner policies. That's what they're in the business to do. And they're looking to write good what they consider good risk. And uh so when it it comes to a home, they're looking at the standard that the home was built to, not not particularly about whether it has amendments or whatever.

It's just the requirements that are uh designated within the standard. And uh so that they know that a home is built to a specific level. And then the uh the one of the key components uh about um building a new a home brand new is the verification process. So, as part of our wildfire prepared home program, we send out a third-party uh entity to gather information and data about the how the home was constructed and the materials. Uh, and the insurers really value that verification process.

They know that uh when a homeowner has the our certificate of designation that it has met that uh standard and has been verified and they find a lot of value in it.

Uh we have a previously existing program to our wildfire prepared home is called fortified and uh and it has been existing for over 10 years and we found that that program that uh that is one of the key components to it is that standard that the home is built to as well as the verification process that gives the insurers the confidence to know that that home meets a high level of resilience to the wildfire making it a good risk and making it more insurable.

Okay, I'll ask a follow-up question after we get through ducks, I think. All right, Steve, I think you had potentially a video to show us or some more details. Yeah, if I might uh share my screen, and I'm going to attempt to to do that here. Can you see my screen? Okay. Yep, we see it. Okay, perfect. Uh I'm going to play a couple um videos here. This is some research that we did at our research center um located in Richburg, South Carolina. And uh specifically looking at decks.

And decks have two vulnerabilities to them. A fire that starts underneath and a fire that starts on top. And of those two, the biggest vulnerability is the fire that starts underneath. And so you can see uh in the top video uh this deck is constructed of non-combustible posts and joists and and the uh with a wood uh walking surface. And then in the bottom video, it's all uh combustible products.

And you can see the significant fire that developed underneath the all combustible deck versus the one on the top. and and uh so when you build a deck with non-combustible materials uh it simply cannot ignite even from a fire underneath or embers that land on top and spread the fire to the structure.

If you just look at the the video on top uh even though the the uh underlying uh framing material wasn't part of the fire, those deck boards are still combustible and can allow for the fire to spread to the house. And then uh this is more of a uh just a demonstration than a research um uh project that we undertook.

But in in looking at the area that surrounds the house when embers land and ignite uh that combustible materials, whether it's that wood pile or the wood mulch or um the wood stairs, you can see how significant of a fire can develop and quickly lead to the loss of the structure. So, deck is one of the more vulnerable components.

Um, and when you're building brand new is the time to build with the right materials to to get that level of resilience that's needed to withstand these highintensity fires when we experience the most structure loss. Uh, Neil, back to you. Thank you, Steve. I'll stop sharing. Any questions from the room or folks online?

Uh, no questions on the videos that were just shown, but I guess, you know, to address uh, Mark's comments about his expectation of what this cost structure looks like versus what you're showing in front of us, whether Kimmy or Steve, if you can speak to this. What's the sample size? What's what's the data set that is driving the numbers that we're seeing in front of us?

And you know, can you speak to not only the quantity but like the geographic scope of that so we have a sense of where this data comes from compared to what Mark [clears throat] was describing before he left? Yeah, I'm happy to start with that and then I'm sure Steve can build off of it. So again, this was a a research project. We've done it in a couple of different iterations at this point. So, one, as I noted earlier, was based off of a home, a a single structure based in northern Montana.

A second one was done in California. And then the third iteration was retrofitting cost analysis also done for California. Um, and so the standard home is a,700 well, 1750 square ft, I should say, doublestory. The deck is slightly elevated. It has, you know, standard residential primary structure, two bedrooms with an attached garage unit to it and assuming a defensible space around that structure as well.

The defensible space was not calculated into our analysis because then you're starting to look at mature tree growth and and actual vegetation management. So, we kept our analysis to the 0 to 5 foot home. But the home prototype was based off of a general sample size for what we noted as kind of a a assumed representative structure common for a family residential unit in these geographic locations.

There is subtle differences in terms of supply, contractor needs, uh liability that a contractor would charge for overhead, demand within the market itself. So all of those variances need to be considered within that price. But again, you're looking at a relative increase of anywhere as you know in your case 1 to 2% sometimes it's 2 to 3% on some of those materials.

But again I would underscore that the home itself is representative for a standard single residential family unit that you would see commonly found I would assume in Arizona as well as other places in the West. I have nothing to add to what Kimmy just said.

I've got a comment regarding the decks and um when I was with the fire department, we did our own impromptu deck burning um and uh we found that even deck material that was considered fireresistant um would go up in flames because it's got a um uh um [clears throat] oilbased I guess component to the product.

Um even I mean we put stuff underneath the decks, we put stuff on top of the decks, coals and surprisingly the material that um was least resistant to fire which um is only in its uh fresh phase is red is redwood. But as soon as redwood deteriorates and as people do not maintain their properties then it turns into a combustible product.

But um there's a lot of materials out there that even are even even the fact that they're considered fireresistant or maybe even non-combustible when they're impacted by sustained flame for a long period of time, they can still combust. So, the big issue um is yes, non-combustible material, but it's also what people put in store on their decks because that's really the main issue that comes into play for the um direct fire or ember impact that comes on.

And we can't um um I guess create a policy or or rules for what people do on their properties, but we can mitigate by building standards up front. Yeah, I think that's a Oh, see Steve, you seem like you're going to jump in there. I don't want to cut you off. Go ahead. I can follow up.

I was just going to underscore what you just noted that I I certainly agree with that statement and that uh when we think through what leads to the types of disasters that we've seen, what we call commonly now these urban conflrations or when a wildfire transitions into an urban setting. And by urban, we're talking about home structures, not urban versus rural, but actual where homes are located or the built environment.

It's very important to note that at that point, it is the homes themselves that are the source of fuel. And so when that radiant heat, the intensity of the BTU being released by the burning home itself and the objects within it, again, it just underscores the value that what is considered resistant can often not last in terms of the duration of that heat and the intensity with which that nearby burning unit is ignited.

And so again, underscoring the value that sometimes the non-combustible isn't only increasing the survivability of the structure itself, but it does yield long-term benefits in terms of the maintenance and durability of those products. Um, but Steve, you were going to say something. Yes, and I too agree with what uh you just said. uh those uh like ignition resistant materials, those composite uh decking materials, they do what they designed to do, resist ignition.

But when they are sustained heat to them for a period of time, they will ignite and they actually are more combustible at that point than regular wood and create a significant problem that can lead the fire right to the house.

And once a deck uh which is typically a large area of fuel ignites, uh you know, firefighters that are looking to defend a house, uh have to make split sec second decisions on whether they have uh or they feel that they can actually make a difference and put the fire out on the deck before it reaches uh the the structure and leads to its ignition.

and and so they have to evaluate whether they should expend their valuable resources, their personnel and the water that they carry on the fire engine to suppress that fire or move on to the next structure that they could potentially defend and save. And um and when it comes to I can say during my time as a firefighter that when a deck ignites it, we just write that particular house off and move to the next one that we can actually uh make a difference on and save. Thank you both.

I think uh uh Mark, I'll I'll jump back to you in just a second, but I think following up on that, that is a great summary of kind of our intent on moving from an ex ignition resistant standard to a non-combustible standard. Yeah, go ahead. Um just to kind of put this in perspective, we're all talking about wildfires that occur in the summer, high temperatures, low humidities.

um you know when we typically think of wildfire season um an example that really put this um to perspective for me and I'm sure people have heard of it but in October 29th to 30th of 2012 during Hurricane Sandy a whole neighborhood burned down with 127 structures burned started from an arcing power line got into a home it's raining there's uh flooding on the streets, the fire apparatus can't even move around. So here you are in a condition when nobody would think about um burning.

But due to the fact that these the um direct flame imprintment infin impingement from radiant heat um and also um spotting, you have a whole neighborhood burned down.

Um so that's where it's really important to have this non-combustible materials on there so that we don't have an incident like that which is out of the realm where people are even thinking right and and as we have had lots of discussions with community development around the challenge of recognizing a lot of the science and lessons learned from some of the urban confilrations show that you know structure separation distance can be a driver of fire spread.

How do we balance high density desires of our community with smart construction? And and that just sends us right to moving into the non-combustible material design. One question, this would be for you, Steve, on um my understanding of the wildfire prepared home. Uh, plus, you know, we're we're talking about changing the WOOI code to kind of match building standards that that uh that that [clears throat] program would be uh advocating and um and driving the necessity of.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that that prepared home program would also, you know, outside of the scope of our um our coding conversation, but at least like relevant to Mark's comment about uh what people do with the space underneath their deck is that in order to get, you know, we can build to that standard, but then there's also a component of IBHS or another certified representative coming and certifying the home in person, and that would be a time where that type of materials or that type of conversation about how and what to store under decks would happen.

Uh so the standard um if it's put in place uh through your um local ordinance uh then it is something that and I'll defer this to uh Neil that they would check for I think at the time of construction and final of the structure. Um and and that's a ongoing maintenance thing that uh combustible items are not stored underneath uh the deck and and as we come out if a homeowner applies to our program we send out a third party evaluator. That is definitely one of the things that we check and note.

Correct. The wildfire prepared home plus certification requires um it does involve storing, you know, materials under the deck or it even involves not having parked vehicles within a certain distance of your house on a red flag day like a camper or something.

So, there's there's components to the wildfire prepared home plus certification that aren't being put into our code because that's really something up to the homeowner to take some of those decisions on things outside of the construction materials that they're going to need to think about. and and like you both have said, regular ongoing maintenance. That is something that we only have so much control over. All right. Any follow-up questions for Kimmy and Steve?

I know they they got to sneak out of here by 9, I think. Thank you guys for recognizing our Mountain Standard Time. I know we had a some funny business there. [laughter] Thank you for your time today, Steve and Kimmy. Thanks for having us. Thanks for your input. I appreciate it. Good luck everybody. Okay, so getting back into let me walk through this updated document real quick with you guys if that's okay.

Um, again, happy to have expanded conversations about what's behind the walls, that's not something I'm familiar with, but as far as the siding, I've got the printouts right here. Um the cost difference from what Mark was talking about this LP smart side compared to Hardy planks is very minimal.

Um, it's in the the install of this material that I think creates challenges because they're two different types of of installs on how you know the fiber cement is a more sensitive material to nails and screwing and and you know things that that could potentially create damage if it's not sealed just right and it vibrates. It can crack over time. So, it non-combustible does have its challenges compared to some of these other materials when it comes to install.

But um for the folks that I've spoken to that that took that time to do it right, they've been very happy with it. Um as far as its fragility that was also mentioned, um I was speaking to a homeowner that has Hearty Plank on the side of their house. They've had it uh since I think four years now. and their kids.

The story he told me, this is a survey sample of one, [laughter] just to be clear, they have a a uh um volleyball net on the side of their house and the volleyball is constantly hitting the side of the house and the Hardy plank is held up just fine. Um so, you know, samples are sample of one, but example real world here in town. Um eaves and sophets, uh we just came up with some numbers online.

Our current ignition resistant construction 2 says that um it should be boxed with 5/8 uh wood and if we transition to using non-combustible that then does increase and just using um some online calculators for square footage of of covering in the eaves um we came up with 1680 um as a max I believe let me find my sheet here let's see 5/8 inch plywood sophet at $3 to $5 per linear foot. Non-combustible fiber cement or metal sophet was $5 to $13 per linear foot.

So, there's a lot more overlap than we were calculating here. We went with um you know maxing it out at $13 per linear foot. So, that came up with a max increase there um of 1680. Um gutter covers, we already require metal gs, metal gutters, so there's no change. But the covers um for that square that that linear feet, we're estimating about $500 at the time of construction for a gutter cover. Um non-combustible zone.

So we looked at numbers transitioning from uh mulch and wood um and wood fencing to a gravel and a metal fencing. And that's about $2,500 price difference from some of the numbers we came up with. Windows. Um, there's a couple different options in our current ignition resistant 2 and in our proposed non-combustible set and uh, one of the overlaps is 20-minute fire resistant glazing for dual pane. Um, so technically there is no change if they want to keep those in there.

Roof assemblies, class A roof assembly, no change. Doors, uh, gutters themselves, decks, and I forgot to put vents, there would be no change as well for the vents. Um the deck again that that can significantly increase cost depending on design but um a deck is not a requirement of a single family dwelling and I think there's ways we can think about how we design our homes differently to avoid some of those challenges. So this is Mark Shy.

Um you know listening to all this conversation the fact that this is for new construction and new additions I mean really this is an easy problem. just pass it and move on. Um and then we know for the future we're going to have these uh developments that are going to be fire safe. The problem is the existing structures. That's where the real issue that comes into place um you know occurs. And so to me I mean let's just move on.

let's pass this thing and then I don't know what the uh the role of the committee is for the next level which is going to be the greater challenge and that's the existing homes and what can we do to prevent those from burning down. So I mean I'm going to make a move to a motion to um pass this thing um you know to go ahead and go forward with it. I'll take your motion. Um I want to add a comment as well.

I think that I think that uh Mark earlier's cost analysis is somewhat a an overall cost comparison versus just uh the individual components. I think we are losing some of that in some of these analysis. Um when we yeah that cost isn't getting added into the into the energy side and it's not getting added into the fire side. It is what it is. I get it. But I think that, you know, if if we're looking to save cost, the fireside is not the place that we can do it.

Um, just because if we lose the insurance, what's the point of having a home? Um, we can't get a mortgage, you can't get those kind of things. So, um, I think that we I agree with you that we should move this forward. I'll second that motion. um and we can have more discussion, but I think that uh if we're going to save cost and homes, we have to find other places to do it or we're not risking everybody's um decision.

And I think the existing home component of it um is not under our jurisdiction at this point, this committee's jurisdiction at this point anyway. So I think there is an issue there um that needs to be resolved, but that's not our work. So at this time, so any other discussion on this uh on this uh fire code information?

Uh the only additional comment that I I'll make is just to to echo the the additional um comments from Mark and Dave, but I I find the I find the the arguments outlaid by uh by Kimmy and forgive me, who is the uh who's Steve? Um Kimmy and Steve on looking at this.

Yes, there is a there is a short-term increase in cost of construction that is undeniable and yes, we are probably missing stuff in the aggregate like you mentioned Dave, but to me the the overall cost savings in the aggregate in the long term is going to far outweigh this like you mentioned Dave for just the solveny and continuation of availability of insurance for the sake of people being able to get mortgages.

And I just, you know, for the numbers that we're seeing and even if, you know, I was to inflate those numbers to to try to give Mark's, you know, concerns about them some credence, you know, COVID and inflation has done more to increase the price of homes and make it unaffordable to buy a home in Flagstaff than any of these adjustments realistically will.

And these adjustments over the long term are going to protect Flagstaff, especially if we're able to do this for things that are getting developed on the southwestern portion if there's additional developments going in there because those are going to become at least an intermediate you know uh solution to to Mark's point about uh you know protecting existing structures that don't have this standard built to it.

If we can create new neighborhoods that are, you know, a part of the expanding footprint of the city of Flagstaff that are built to this standard, I think you mentioned this, Neil, in one of our earlier meetings on this topic. That in itself as a neighborhood becomes a place that slows the fire down and that as a whole is going to have cost savings in avoided damages from wildfire, cost, from postfire flooding that I think will far outweigh any of the uh short-term hits that come from this.

So, I agree and I'm I'm ready to move forward. Any other discussion? All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Okay. Sounds like we have everybody. Uh motion passes. I think I think again that the fireplace isn't the negotiable portion of this of this standard. I just don't think we have any legitimacy in doing that when when we can't get insurance if we do. Thank you. What's our next uh thing? Rick Neil, do you want to continue any other discussion about action items?

Um it seems as though we haven't covered HBAC filter. Yeah. Um real quick, just want to cover what Chief Gayard said in chat. You know, obviously we'll continue to work towards better understanding some of these other costs. Um but I've just got notes here like the the true install costs. We'll continue to dig into some of those.

if there are behindthe-wall challenges that we're not factoring into the the WOOI code that are in different parts of the code, we'll get together and we'll start digging through that. But the the question since we've got a little time here was HVAC.

And so the idea is, you know, for about five years now, we've been giving out air purifiers when we either have enough supply where we put out applications or when we get calls of people that are having issues with prescribed fire or wildfire smoke, we will when available, we'll bring them an air filter. So the thought is if you have an HVAC system, a gas blower in your house, you've got a filter in there.

But the little bit of research and tiny bit of engineering skill that I have has told me that uh if you put a one-inch thick filter in that filter cabinet and you try to get a heperated 1-in thick filter, it's not good for your system because to filter the air at that high quality for that small of a space, it can bog down your blower and degrade your system over time.

So, the idea is if we can figure out, can we increase that filter cabinet via our code to 3 in or 4 in or whatever size it needs to be to allow residents to just slip in an heperated air filter when there's a smoke impact, put their system on research and not need the plug-in filters. Um, handing somebody a heperated air filter for their furnace is a lot cheaper than a plug-in standalone unit.

Um, so that would enable us to scale up our program with a lower cost and then just set up homeowners for success. Do you guys uh have any thoughts on, you know, should we be exploring that further? Do you know anything about HVAC systems? Because when I've everything I've been able to find when I've called some HVAC folks is it depends.

And uh and and so I haven't really been able to nail down is this something that would significantly change costs because then they have to build different vent systems. Um, so I don't know Dave if or anybody online that's built this sort of stuff. Do you guys have any thoughts on, you know, is that something we should continue to pursue or um, you know, it's it's outside of the scope of our WOOI code at this point? But it's just something that we've been looking for feedback on.

My my take is I'm not I'm not an HVAC guy. I'm a structural guy, but uh my take is is that that air quality is an issue, but it's um it's not I don't think it's uh I don't think it should be a required building component um that has cost.

I think different people have different sensitivities and so if my child is sensitive to smoke I probably think about that before I before I build or when I change my you know a system next but um I think this is an opportunity where we could save cost potentially by by I mean again everything's optional right it would be better than what our standard is and so I think that uh I I think that We've seen some things that are listed as quote unquote optional so that people know that there is an option.

So that's how I would prefer to take that piece of it just cuz again the problem with with the contractors right now is a lot of them are just super busy. It's that time of year where we're coming out of winter. I think it depends just means don't bug me right now. So, um I hate to say that, but I think that's that's just the nature of where we are in in the construction world this time of year. So, um that would be my preference, but again, I'm not an expert.

So, if somebody has a better justification for making that happen. But again, um whereas I think the um fire code piece, the woo code piece has a direct impact on the whole community, I think what you're talking about now impacts individuals one-on-one and if they want to save the money there, they have that right. [snorts] Gotcha. Thank you, Neil. If I may jump in just a bit.

Um, this is Rick and speaking as a building official, um, in my knowledge of the International Mechanical Code, if if the board were interested in pursuing an amendment to require a a a minimum level of air supply filtration. It would be an interesting challenge among us, including the board, to write an amendment to that point. Okay. To my knowledge, nothing. There is no minimum standard in the code that requires a minimum filtration. So, it'd be an interesting challenge to write an amendment.

Copy. Thank you. Yep. This is Mark Shy, and I agree with um having it be an option um based on the individuals or family's personal needs, you know, if they have somebody that's impacted by particulate matter. Um, you know, when it comes to respiratory issues, um, being a prescribed fire practitioner for many years, um, a lot of the issue is not necessarily the fact that we've we've got smoke coming in, but it's when and and how the burns are taking place.

Um, and the appropriate time, the appropriate wind vectors and everything that comes into play. Um, so I think just as a practitioner, we need to be better at how we do that, which will have less impact on the community, but I don't think we need to go down that rabbit hole of um trying to figure out, you know, filtration needs or minimum standards um for HVAC.

So optional and education, potentially getting some information out to the builders on what they could be doing versus, you know, what they're required to do. I agree. I think it's I think this is a much more personal situation. Yeah. And I think in the in the absence of having anything beyond it depends on that. You know, I I find the the notion of being able to like better increase the scale with which you all try to reach out to people who have sensitivities.

um you know going from the idea of trying to go from a standalone unit to a filter for the sake of you know leveraging economies of scale would be attractive but in the absence of knowing how much we realistically could scale because of just what the you know standard HVAC stuff from you know old to current or you know um new construction it it'd be tough to I think move forward on that.

I also think that I also think that families know what they're doing and if they uh if if they have sensitivities and they don't have the house set up for it, they leave town. I mean, it's just there's lots of options surrounding that component. So, I think we leave that leave that out as a requirement for now. Got it. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. All right. I think I'm okay. All right. It would seem as though we have run through the action items um for the board.

Is there any desire to continue any further discussion with the action items at this time? Not for me, Mark. Not for me. Okay. Uh then it would seem as though we've concluded action item or sorry, uh agenda item number five. Uh we'll move on to agenda item number six. And this will be forformational items to or from the board members and staff and for future agenda item requests. Um to that point I would say that uh last night Amy Trestler sent out the draft amendments.

Has anybody reviewed them or received them? Received not yet reviewed. Okay. Um Mark Hawat sent us a email last night. Were you included in that email? No. I would ask the board if there is any desire to continue any discussion among the amendments as proposed as they are drafted at this time. If they're along the scale that we've already discussed and uh agreed with, then I don't see a need. Okay. Mark did bring up some valid points.

um trying to figure out the proper way to figure out if we want to continue discussion or not among the board. Um is there any discuss is there any desire among the board to continue these uh these board of appeals meetings for further discussion items? If you think that some of Mark's comments on the proposed amendments that were sent out last night were substantive and worth going into, then I think that warrants a discussion. I'd be curious what those substantive points are.

Um, that's that's all I would say on that. Okay. What what is allowed for distribution to this group um under open meeting law? I know we can't I know that if Mark would have responded at all, he might have been in violation of that. So, how can we get those comments in the public space so we're not violating them? Dave, I will have to look into that with Amy on Monday. I truly don't know. I get it and I don't know either.

So, um, if we can get that information, I think again, I mean, there's a balance here, right? I think we're all kind of, um, in that boat and we want to we want to do what's right, but we want to, uh, do what's right by the town as well. So, um, I think I don't know that we need more meetings to discuss, but I think we need more time to review.

Um, and then I think we could maybe have one quick short meeting, maybe even a week from today if that's feasible to to give our our to make a motion to proceed. Thank you, Dave. Um, we do have two public outreach meetings next week. Next Tuesday, we will be at Murdoch Center from 11 to 1 and Wednesday, we will be here in this room from 4:30 to 6. Um, I will work with Amy considering uh Mark Hawat's uh comments from his response email.

Um, we will uh consider whether or not we want to schedule another board of appeals based on Mark's comments. And it looks like Jenny has her hand raised. I'll give Jenny the opportunity now. Thanks, Rick. Hi, folks. This is Jenny Neman with the sustainability office. I was just going to comment on the open meeting law um because we work a lot with commissions.

Um the two ways to get really those materials out or are for it to be agendaized in the meeting packet or for it to be brought up in the meeting and so the commissioner would need to be at the meeting to share those comments. So that's pretty much it um in terms of that we want it to be in one of those public forums in that p published agenda or not. So, yeah, just wanted to throw that out there for the commission to consider.

Um, and you know, for the most part, we really put, you know, staff plans and staff kind of, uh, the the meeting materials in the agenda items. I've never seen us put in a commission member email. So, I think it really is that public discussion at that commission. Can we can we put it in the minutes of this meeting? No, because it's not actual public discussion if it's not said at the meeting. But we have Commissioner it's been said and we have we have that on the agenda.

It doesn't really I don't know. I I'm I don't know the law. If the comments are said at the meeting, we can 100% put them in the minutes. They just need to be verbalized at the meeting. So I got a question. If uh Mark as a private citizen brought those questions up at one of these public forums, is that something that then can come back um you know to the board for comment because you might get comments at the public meetings that need to be discussed.

Then you have to add them to the next agenda. Yeah. Yes. Um I believe that the nature of the two public outreach meetings next week are not agendaized.

they are simplyformational and I would like to if there's any major comments from those meetings I'd like to hear those as well I think but again I I I'm comfortable point we will be compiling questions and answers at those meetings right thank you how does the rest of the board want to move forward then I think uh I think uh we'll Rick what I'm hearing from you maybe we wait for staff to tell us that they're ready for a formal approval and provide the final correct um concluding all the concluding these uh board of appeals meetings.

It seems as though we are ready to um recommend moving forward with uh the amendments as they're written. Um following uh meeting discussion um following public uh outreach next week, we will reach out to the board uh and consider whether or not we want to continue uh additional board of appeals meetings. Uh that will be late next week. That sounds good. I'm not ready to necessarily approve the the draft as presented to us last night. So, it seems as though that's what I'm hearing as well. Yeah.

Any discussion? Any further discussion among the board? So, we'll wait to hear from staff on the next meeting, Rick. Uh, correct. Yes. All right. Do we have any more items that need to come up then? All right. Uh, do I have Are we ready to adjourn, Rick? If I call for a motion. That is That is your option at this time. [laughter] Any second? Second. All in favor? I I I. Thank you everyone. have a great day and hopefully we can get this wrapped up soon. Thank you. Thank you everybody.

Have a good weekend.