Northern Nevada ICC 2018 Amendment Steering Committee

Transcription

1 Northern Nevada ICC 2018 Amendment Steering Committee MEETING MINUTES July 11, :00 pm to 4:00pm Location: 6th floor, Reno City Hall, 1 East 1st Street, Reno Nevada Steering Committee Members Present: Paul Gordon (President of Northern Nevada ICC and City of Reno Inspector), Gary Hames (Director of Comm Dev Storey County), Mark Hauenstein (representing Pershing County and City of Lovelock), Dan Holly (representing City of Reno), Kim Jolly (City of Reno Management Assistant), Shawn Keating (representing Washoe County), Marty Larson (Administrative Consultant to NNICC), Dave Lundergreen (representing Douglas County), Mark Meranda (representing City of Sparks and Steering Committee Chairman), Ray Proffitt (voting member representing Carson City), Danny Sommers (representing Lyon County), Pete Renaud of Storey County, and Corey Coleman New building official for Carson City. A. Called to Order at 1:05pm 1. Introductions 2. Draft Minutes (June 27 th, 2018 were approved with edits). B. Review of International Building Code (IBC) outstanding amendments. The 2018 IBC amendments left to approve were resolved and approved. C. Review of outstanding International Residential Code (IRC) Amendments. The 2018 IRC amendments were reviewed and all that is unresolved are a few. There was discussion of this amendment and the IRC. HERS raters said builders easily hit the 3, yet there are other builders are trying to foam and tighten up the building. But in general all builders are doing a better job to get to 3. Apartments have a hard time hitting 4, custom homes have a harder time hitting 4. Chair Mark Meranda said BANN wanted to stay at 5 ACH and to considered that this would help smaller rural counties with compliance that don t have as much access to raters for testing. Then it was discussed that Code consultant/trainer Eric Makela told Shawn at a training that only 8 states are at 3 and the steering committee is supposed to be looking at things that won t create public health issues. COMMITTEE ACTION: N (testing) (p 4), Dave Lundergreen moved to keep the air changes at 5. Mark H. Amended the motion to be 5 for both the IRC and IECC. It was seconded. All in favor. The next amendment to make a final decision on was the 5800 Feet snow hazard protection issue. Douglas

2 Meeting Minutes of July 11,2018 Page 2 of 5 County only requires snow hazard protection up at Lake Tahoe, (above 6,000 feet since 6225 is Lake level), while Storey County, Carson City, Washoe County use 5800 ft. COMMITTEE ACTION: Paul Gordon proposed going with 5,800 feet elevation, seconded. All in favor. Next there was discussion on page 16 of the unresolved IRC amendments, including to (Wall Space) submitted by Shawn Keating. The placement would be to put in this amendment Right above garages. COMMITTEE ACTION: Shawn moved to adopt it to IRC exceptions, Dan Holly seconded. All in favor. Concludes the IRC. Paul moved to accept the RIC and all amendments as presented. Dave seconded. All in favor. D. International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) Outstanding Amendments COMMITTEE ACTION: Ray Proffitt moved to strike the added language for the licensed contractor entirely and go back to the original wording says it must be a registered design professional, and just go with Code. There was discussion about whether industry was there, and it was confirmed. Seconded by Paul Gordon, all in favor. There was discussion regarding over concerns that a Commission report would not be available before the Certificate of Occupancy. There was agreement that the committee liked the documentation before C of O but it is probably not possible. Also, any Bldg. Official s authority over the construction goes away after Certificate of Occupancy. Everything before that has been done to ensure the homeowner is protected but holding up a C of O is a mistake. (Code says Within 90 days of C of O ). The Commissioning report goes directly to the homeowner anyway, not building division. There is just some bad wording, and if the commission report is addressed in the Plan Review process, and get the report to the owner, then that is fine. COMMITTEE ACTION: It was moved and seconded to strike the amendment and go with Code as is. All in favor. Next there was discussion regarding the air change testing to not exceeding 5 per hour already approved for IRC earlier. Striking all the zones. R Testing State licenses for raters are approved by the Nevada Estate Division (or Board of Realtors) including passing a background check and other things. Dave asked can we talk about what each coded official uses to approve the tester company. by an approved third party. That allows you as a building official.

3 Meeting Minutes of July 11,2018 Page 3 of 5 Summary of the July 10 BANN presentation of amendments IECC 2018 R405.3 Performance based compliance, Section (The bldg. thermal envelope of the 2009 IECC) and The IECC Technical Committee did not support either amendment. BANN s reasoning was explained as the price of insulation is going up too fast, so they want to augment that the cost with solar power on the roofs. Amendments to sections R405.3, R406.2 and for Performance based compliance and on site renewables and meet 2009 IECC requirements. Use Total UA Alternatives under the ERI based compliance, that can lighten up the thermal envelope requirements. Amendments in warmer climate zones where homes have less insulation requirements and their AC units are powered by electricity may make sense, but Northern Nevada has very different insulation and heating requirements due a higher winter climate zone. Homeowners will have higher cost associated with a house with lower insulation values. Instead of the 80 percent furnace to comply, it would take a 90 percent furnace. Cranking up heater due to lower insulation. The Steering Committee agreed that BANN may not be considering that the savings on insulation would be offset by increased size in the mechanical equipment that would be required by manual J and may cost more money. Another negative factor discussed was that a solar system only lasts about 20 years, and once the panels no longer work the house would not be compliant with current IECC requirements. Envelope requirements are very different raters on the IECC TC said this doesn t work as well here in the North as in the south. It might save the builder to use ERI rating method, where they can use trade off s, but they re going to spend more money dealing with the res check requirements then they are going to save. There was conversation that in California they do not allow solar panels on inefficient buildings. This might work in warmer climates because the AC loads can be off set with the solar. The majority of the committee struggled with these amendments. Groups of homeowners could oppose this hybrid process, thinking that they are getting an energy efficient home and do class action lawsuit to building officials. This is already covered in the ERI rating, but this is wasting more energy without insulation. The sentiment of committee and HERS raters was that BANN did not present valid justifications for the amendment. There was then price discussion of installing solar to save money on insulation but whether that was even comparable. A member could not imagine insulation prices rivaling $25K of solar panel installation. Need the cost justification side by side comparison like all the other amendments had. Perhaps we send off the amendments from BANN to a third party reviewer (like Eric Makela) for his opinion. Then, after we have gather enough information, vote on the section by or at the next Steering Committee meeting. The philosophy or theory that because I have solar panels envelope requirements can be reduce is a challenge to this committee. They would not be able to do a Res check. ERI would also fail compliance. COMMITTEE ACTION: It was moved and seconded to approve all the IECC amendments except these late BANN amendments which will be sent for 3 rd party review and opinion. All in favor. E. Steering Committee Chair Mark Meranda announced the Industry Meeting on the entire Northern Nevada Amendment package July 19 th at noon at BANN Offices, on Reno Corporate Blvd.

4 Meeting Minutes of July 11,2018 Page 4 of 5 F. ICC A (ANSI) for new buildings only. There is the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) which conflicts with the 2009 ANSI standard. Mark Meranda said the 2017 more closely resembles the ADAAG. G. Steering Committee Chair asked everyone to review and let us know what appendices your boards plan to adopt in the IBC Appendix. H. Opened discussion on the IRC appendix. Appendix F Radon, Cooperative Extension s radon Staff Susan Howell wants to give a presentation to the Steering Committee to raise awareness and promote adoption of Appendix F. A presentation was given to NOBO, normally 2 hrs long but was condensed to 20 min, Mark saw it. The Steering Committee thought that the presentation would be too time consuming for this Committee considering the amount of amendments under review. A suggestion was made for Susan to get in front of a group from BANN because the builders would bear the cost of this adoption. However, the ICC maps don t identify that Washoe County has high levels of radon. There was discussion about adopting appendix F, but none of the Steering Committee moved to adopt. Building Officials said there was no direction from the Commissioner or Council level after the radon presentation. I. There was discussion on the rest of the Appendix for the rest of the codes and City of Reno Building Official Dan Holly asked whether there was direction on swimming pool covers and barriers. There is a totally separate Pool and Spa Code (Shawn Keating). City of Sparks said they adopted both the Pool and Spa Code (exempts the barriers) and Appendix G of the IRC related to pools. There are some conflicts between ISPSC and Appendix G of IRC. In the ISPSC if you have the electric cover that meets requirements and standards they don t need the barrier requirements. In the IRC the electric pool cover that meets requirements and standards exempts alarm requirement of the residence. Perhaps Reno will suggest an ordinance/policy that is more restrictive that the pool codes. The 2018 IRC has omitted Appendix G and only has the ISPSC to regulate pools and spas. J. There was discussion about future steering committee meetings. Marty will be developing the comprehensive Draft amendment package and a Matrix will result from everything the Steering Committee adopted. Can we put in the draft Table of Contents including Chapter 1 of the codes (Reno, Douglas County do adopt chapter 1 and amend it?) Sparks, Washoe County and Carson City do not adopt chapter 1 because they still must put it in an Administrative Ordinance. Marty will them a word and PDF document as well. When is everyone planning to adopt? Due to elections that may change local elected officials, will wait until after January when the new Boards are inaugurated. Washoe County Manager said probably not adopt until January 1 st will submit, then still be on the 2012 codes

5 Meeting Minutes of July 11,2018 Page 5 of 5 from Jan 1 June 30, Make effective July 1, There are too many things in design and in development currently and legal review before that. City of Reno must go through business impact statement per our Legal team. Which codes do they require on the application for building permits? Application Submittal dates. Except for the master plans (Reno) if they are 50% or more done with the subdivision, we let them stay on the code they started with. A Master is not an active permit when code changes, the plan must change and go with that also. Douglas county has expiration stamp (this code expires June 30, 2019). The committee cancelled the July 25 meeting J. Wednesday, August 8, 2018 is next meeting. Adjourned at 3:56pm.