Transportation Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. The Building Review Board meeting for 04/21/2025 is now called to order. We'll start with roll call. I'll go down the list here. Branham? Here. Gross? Here. Hoya? Here. Jurjovic? Kronwitter? Nalwala? Yes. Here. Roman, that's me. And Wanner? Okay. So we do have five members here. So we do have a quorum.

So we'll start with the public one, two, 34567. I see seven of us. That's all I have on the list. Anybody

else that Yes, Eric

Houchniss.

Names, please. Eric.

Michael Llewellyn.

You gave me the wrong one. Oh, all right. We got the wrong list, so we'll start over. Branham. Gross. Here. Hansen. Hognis. Here. Hoya. Here. Llewellyn. Here. Nalwala? Yes, here. Raman, that's me. Warner? And Gajara? No? And Howard, here. Howard is a student. All right, so we do have a quorum. So we'll go ahead and get started. We'll start with the public forum first. Our first item of business is a public forum.

Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on matters other than the agenda items today? Those that wish to speak on a specific item specific agenda item will be provided an opportunity to do so at this time. If you want to speak on a non agenda item, this is the time to do so. Okay, we have a few people with their hands up for non agenda items. Members wishing to speak, please state your name and address as you come forward. Please.

Good afternoon. And it really is a good afternoon out there. About time, I'm Ted Bellard. I live at 824 Shiloh in Naperville, co chair of the Naperville Environment and Sustainability Task Force, NEST for short. I'd like to discuss the importance of future proofing our buildings and saving our residents money by adopting updated building and energy codes to help Naperville reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and achieve its climate action goals as set out in the Sustain Naperville 2036 report. Buildings create 75% of Naperville's greenhouse gas emissions. We can tackle this issue in three ways, making our buildings more efficient, reducing natural gas usage,

and transitioning Naperville to a carbon neutral electricity supply. The city updates its building code every six years and the energy code every three years and is currently undergoing this process. NEST sees this as an opportunity for Naperville to improve building energy efficiency. The city can adopt or can accelerate energy savings for residents and businesses in new construction by adopting the Illinois Stretch Energy Code. This code will incrementally increase energy efficiency in new construction and major renovations beyond the base energy code.

The stretch code encompasses both residential and commercial buildings. Adopting the stretch code is crucial for Naperville to achieve its climate action goals.

And the benefits of adopting a stretch code include energy and operating cost savings compared to the base, provides a policy mechanism to address building energy performance and climate goals, improved indoor air quality from tighter building envelopes, better sealed ducts and increased ventilation, increased ability to maintain safe indoor conditions during energy outages by designing buildings with tighter envelopes driving market acceptance, development, and adoption of more energy efficient codes in the future. Now, from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory shows Illinois' residential stretch code will lead to significant consumer savings and greenhouse gas reductions. These impacts include almost $250 in average annual utility savings for the average homeowner, projected investment payback in ten to eleven years, average life cycle cost savings of over $8,000 for newly constructed homes. Residents prioritize saving money and maintaining healthy indoor and outdoor air quality. We can achieve these goals by ensuring building and energy codes set standards for improvements in insulation and air sealing, ensure proper ventilation, be solar ready, and promote electrification of buildings.

In conclusion, the adoption of the stretch code will ensure Naperville is on track to future proof its buildings, save residents and businesses money on utility bills, and minimize the need for costly retrofits in the future. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Bruce Jones, 1124 Langley Circle, Naperville, thirty year resident. Tagging along with what Ted said, I'm part of the Nest group as well. And I'm in charge of the Transportation Committee. One of the things in the stretch codes that Ted was mentioning are EVSE, or electric vehicle charging station, requirements for new construction for businesses.

And what they will do is they will put, when you're building a new building, putting in a new garage for businesses, commercial businesses, instead of just paving it over and putting the cement in and then a few years down the road, tearing it all up to put in conduit because you really want to put electric charging stations in. What this says is put in the conduit, put in the breaker panel, prepare that parking lot, that garage, now with just a little bit of investment so that later down the road, when you really want to have charging stations, all you have to do is pull wires through the existing conduits. So EVSE electric vehicle charging electric vehicle supply equipment ready and capable are in these codes. And if you pay a little money now, it's going to save thousands and thousands of dollars for the building owners because then they don't have to trench and dig up the concrete and re landscape later. Personally, I've been instrumental in installing some charging stations at churches.

I did one ten years ago at the Community Christian Church. And at the time, we did it when they were upgrading their parking lot. They ripped up the parking lot. They put it in. And they were so happy. But then they came back and said, well, it's so popular. We want 10 more. And it's like, oh, shoot. Now we've to rip it all up or put in some trenching. And it's just going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars.

So the codes will help save money for the building owners because at the rate of expansion that charging is necessary here and the folks who drive electric vehicles go up, it's going to save a lot of money. The other thing is that a lot of people come into Naperville from out of town. They don't have charging stations at apartment buildings and apartment complexes and some lower cost areas. But a lot of people come in would be able to charge at a business. If they could do that, they can afford an electric car.

I bought an electric car because it was inexpensive. I just bought a Bolt for $17,000 but I'm going to get back some money from the rebates. 2020 '3 Bolt, 250,000 miles or two fifty miles of charge. People can afford these cars, and they're going to get more and more affordable. So prepare now. Allow these codes to go in so that the new construction, at least, prepares for the future. Thank you.

Can we ask a question? Sure. There's a question. Hey, Bruce.

Bruce, I got a question. Which codes do we need to have? Is it the stretch codes or the

These are the stretch codes.

Stretch codes. Because I thought Illinois had passed DELL: an infrastructure part of their codes.

That was for residents. So for residential houses and some townhouses, it was just for that. But it had Did it nothing make it

up to the apartments? Because I thought when I read on it, it didn't make that

JOSHUA It didn't any changes to the building codes of commercial businesses. But stretch codes do.

Okay. Yeah. Thanks.

JOSHUA Thank you. Anybody else for the public forum? All right. So with that, we have a couple items to consider today. First is the approval of the meeting minutes. And so do the commissioners have any questions or corrections on the 04/16/2025 meeting minutes? No. I'm hearing no, so I'd like to motion to approve those meeting minutes. Do I get a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays? Okay, no nays. So the meeting minutes are approved.

The second item of business today is to consider a requested variance to section five-1E-two subsection two of the Naperville Municipal Code prohibition of CPVC and PEC for domestic water supply piping, BRB case 112. So with that, I'd like to give it over to the city staff to make their presentation, please.

You.

My name is Mark Dudash, chief building official for the city in Naperville. BRB case number 112 includes a request by Heinz Acquisition LLC for a variance to section five-1E-two subsection two of the Naperville Municipal Code to permit CPVC and PEX for domestic water supply piping. Following my opening comments, the petitioner's attorney will provide an overview of their request. Staff's recommendation is to deny the request for the variance to the city of Naperville's amendment to the 2014 Illinois Plumbing Code prohibiting the use of domestic plastic domestic water piping. Copper has long been regarded as the preferred water piping material and has been installed in thousands of homes and businesses in Naperville.

City Council has repeatedly upheld this requirement despite several challenges to this ordinance since its adoption in 1996. We make this recommendation in order to maintain the current level of quality in our domestic water distribution systems. Again, staff's recommendation is to maintain this current amendment to the Illinois Plumbing Code and to deny this variance request. Staff is here for questions.

You. Go ahead please.

Thank you. Good evening. Russ Whitaker, Rosenovind Whitaker, 445 Jackson Avenue, Suite 200 in Naperville. I'm here this afternoon on behalf of Hines concerning the redevelopment of the property located at 1200 East Deal Road in the city of Naperville. My firm has done a lot of land use and zoning work in Naperville over the last fifteen years, literally hundreds of projects.

Heinz is a little bit unique. We certainly see a lot of national homebuilders in Naperville. However, when we're doing commercial other development projects in Naperville, we usually are working with local regional developers. Heinz brings unique level of experience to the city. The sixty five year old company operates on an international scale with 5,000 plus employees across 30 countries.

Heinz is headquartered in Texas. However, its Midwest region operates from an office office in Chicago. Heinz owns and operates $90,000,000,000 in real estate across a diverse portfolio of property types. We can see in this slide that Heinz reach extends from industrial to office, housing, retail, and mixed use communities. On the residential side, Heinz focuses on multifamily development.

Heinz has developed 87,000,000 square feet of multifamily space encompassing over 60,000 units. That's more than the total number of living units in the entire city of Naperville. You may recognize the building in the top image of this slide. Locally, Heinz was selected to redevelop the McDonald's campus located of the Oak Brook Mall. 1 Oak Brook Commons is a very recognizable mid rise tower that is hard to miss along the North Side of I-eighty 8.

In Naperville, the city council has already approved plans for Hines redevelopment of 1200 East Diehl Road. The property is located across the street from Freedom Commons. You may recognize the property as the derived building. Hines plans a mixed use development with two seven thousand five hundred square foot commercial buildings located along the Deal Road frontage and a five story residential building on the southern portion of the property. The existing parking deck will be repurposed providing parking for both the commercial and residential users.

The building code variance that we're seeking this afternoon is specifically limited to the proposed residential building. This rendering provides some perspective on the character of the planned development. In the foreground, you see the boulevard entrance to the property. To the right of the screen, you see an all brick, single story commercial building fronting Deal Road. We anticipate that this will be a restaurant.

You see outdoor seating directed depicted along the entrance drive. In the background, you see five story residential building which incorporates brick elements that evoke traditional Naperville building blocks. It's otherwise a flat roof structure that incorporates large windows, balconies, and some more modern building elements that are reminiscent of the broader I-eighty 8 Tech Corridor. Wanted to provide a little bit of introduction about Heinz and the project so you guys had some context for the more specific variance request you were looking for this evening. I'm not going to stand up here and talk to you about the details of the building code.

That's beyond my level of expertise. So I do want to introduce Elliot Milliken. Elliot is going to dive deeper into the specifics of the variance request this afternoon. Elliot is the Vice President of Conceptual Construction for Heinz. He's responsible for preconstruction services including budgeting, design, subcontractor contract negotiations, and material purchases for mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, and building management systems. Elliott has a Bachelor's of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A and M. He's a registered professional engineer. Before joining Heinz, he was in the design industry as a mechanical engineer for about twenty years. So with that, I'd ask Elliot to kind of take over the rest of the presentation.

Thank you, Russ.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. So this is a snapshot of Heinz's experience. This is around the country. And what I want you to pay particular attention to is, in this, we've hit every region and we've hit every climate in the country. And we've also gone internationally, but focused particularly on North America here.

So we've played in these regions. And all of these shown here are using CPVC and PEX A as their piping material within the facilities. And these are all what I would consider Class A residential buildings. The images here, I just want to highlight the quality that we have in these structures. We're not attempting to cut corners by eliminating copper from the entire scope of the plumbing design.

We want to maintain quality. Our job is to maintain quality at Heinz. And when we focus on quality, there are two things we're paying attention to the impact to the occupant. And so that includes safety and also just how it feels, if it looks or feels cheap. And what I want you to see here is this is not installed in any cheap manner. We're still routing the pipe at 90 degree angles. It's coordinated with other trays. Nothing is run loosely. So this is work we can all be proud of. And the second thing in quality, addition to how it impacts the user, is just the risk profile.

I want to show you in this presentation that we always weigh all of our decisions with how it impacts the risk profile behinds. Heinz is still a privately held real estate company, and it's one of the largest privately held real estate companies. And so we are out to protect the Heinz brand and protect the Heinz family since it is all 100% owned by the Heinz family. So this slide is key in setting up our conversation today. It's just a color coded diagram to show what we propose.

I want to make very clear, we are not seeking to eliminate copper piping from the job. Our variance is very specific and strategic in how we would like to deploy PEX A piping and CPVC. So in the top diagram, this is what we proposed, just a simple diagram to show the scope. So first of all, we're not going to impact city infrastructure. We're not touching anything outside the building. We have no intention to change anything there. We come in. We do have a booster pump on this building because we're at five floors. So we need to boost the pressure a little bit. But we're not boosting it so much that we need a pressure reducing station at any point in the building.

So it's still operating at what the industry considers low pressure. And so the main pipe, the main horizontal distribution pipe, the black pipe running horizontally in level one, we want to keep that as copper. So that sees the highest pressure even though it's operating at what the industry considers low pressure. We want to maintain copper there. This is the Heinz standard. This is not the industry standard. You see below, I've shown what we see in most regions in The US. The industry standard is to maintain CPVC out of the booster pump. On Heinz projects, we do go a step above. This is just protecting the Heinz brand and Heinz reputation.

The part of the pipe that sees the most vibration and most pressure, we do want to keep that as copper. But from there, when we go vertical, the green piping, that's where we would propose using CPVC. Still a rigid pipe, very strong, good reputation in the industry, and we do not see this as a compromising quality. So we would seek to use CPVC in the vertical distribution going to the units. And then we would have an isolation valve as we enter each residence.

Isolation valve is shown in black because we want to maintain metallic valves throughout the project. In most cases when CPVC or PEX is used in a project, they will continue using plastic valves in that application. So here we are not requesting that as part of the variance. We want to maintain metallic valves. The one thing I'll say about plastic valves, they always work once.

And that's the best thing I can say about them. So we want to maintain metallic valves, to maintain the integrity of the project. And then downstream of that isolation valve, when we're within the residential footprint, we would then distribute with PEX A piping. That's what we would propose. So why PEXA? So not all PEXA is created equal. There's PEXA, there's PEXB, and PEXC. We're just going to we're going to compare PEXA and PEXB here. PEXC is a very cheap product. I've never actually seen it used in a residential application.

But PEX B is quite prominent. But I want to tell you why we're proposing PEX A, why we believe it's the stronger product. PEX A, the fittings are the same size as the pipe, the inside pipe diameter, so you don't get restrictions in flow. So it's a higher quality for that reason. PEX A can handle high pressures.

So everything we're deploying here, where we would apply it, is well within the operating pressure that the pipe will be seeing. And, oh, and the final advantage to PEX A, it is plenum rated. So the industry term for that, it has the 2,550 flame smoke rating. So you can run it in a return air plenum. Now most of our routing of this will not be in a return air plenum.

It'll be in ceilings where there is no air movement. But once in a while, you end up with this piping, maybe in a vertical fan coil closet, something like that, where it is exposed to a non sprinkled space with airflow. And so we need to maintain that rating. PEX B does not maintain that flame spoke rating. So here, Heinz is requesting a variance to city of Naperville's local amendment that requires all piping for domestic water distribution be copper. Oh, we lost our PowerPoint. Have an IT expert.

There we go.

Just

stay right there. The variance we're requesting, it aligns with the state plumbing code. So state of Illinois has adopted international plumbing code as its standard plumbing code, and it has amendments to that code. And so it's within the amendments that copper is required. And so this falls in line with international plumbing code.

It also falls in line with the Uniform Plumbing Code. So I forget the exact distribution, but it's just over half the states in The US have adopted the International Plumbing Code as its base code. The rest of them have adopted the Uniform Plumbing Code. So within The US, all the states have adopted one of these two codes as their base and neither code rejects the use of these piping materials. So within codes, one thing I want to highlight, code is typically not going to dictate materials that can be used.

In some cases it will tell you materials that cannot be used. A good example is a high rise typically cannot be built out of timber construction. So wood frame, timber can go up to the low rise elevation, but not above that. So sometimes code will eliminate material options, but it never isolates material options to just one option. Typically, it leaves room for innovation within the code.

Codes do not typically test and certify. So a good example here is, you know, if architectural building code requires a one hour wall for a fire separation, the code doesn't tell you what that wall has to be made out of. It relies on other testing standards to certify and test those products to tell and then they tell you what materials and specs are required to maintain that one hour rating. So the key here is we would like for the code to be open for innovation and allow other products. So in support of the proposed variance, I'd like to highlight that what we're proposing, it does comply with both the state and international plumbing codes.

What we're proposing, we believe, is safe, and we'll get into the details on that in a minute. It is not a compromise in quality, and I hope the pictures were able to show that. Our proposed use is strategic. We're not just asking for plastic pipe throughout. We're very clear in the type of pipe we want to use, PEX A being the highest quality of the PEX products.

And we're only using it in specific areas. And where the quality really matters, in the moving parts, the valves, we want to maintain metallic parts there. We'd certainly see an added value there. And finally, these materials are more economical. Be very transparent.

We see this as a 6 figure savings to the project and well into the 6 figures. We don't think it'll be a million dollar savings, but it's going to be north of $500,000 You saw the scope of the project. It's a very nice project. Regardless of the pipe material, it's a very nice plumbing job. And related to the economic concerns, you all know the world we live in right now.

Exposure to tariffs, opening up to different product types help us be a little more competitive in the market for all trades. And another item we'll get into further details on in a moment is just the environmental impact, the life cycle assessment cost of these. The PEXA product and the CPVC products have a lower environmental impact in their manufacturing process. So advantages of CPVC and PEXA, smoother interior service on these pipes. And so what leads to Legionnaires' disease is the growth of a biofilm on the inside of the pipe.

And the two things that lead to Legionnaires' disease are stagnant water and water storage temperature. So if you store the water too low, you're exposed to growth. And if you don't have water moving, you're exposed to growth. And so that lack of water movement, the smoother the interior surface of the pipe, the better it is for preventing that growth. And copper pipe, wonderful product.

Not going to bash copper pipe at all. It can have pitting issues with the oxidation process when air gets into the pipe during maintenance or during installation. So long term, bottom line is no pipe material is perfect, but what we're proposing does have advantages in some cases. CPVC and PEX A are more flexible. So installation is easier.

More flexibility and they install faster. PEX A also does not kink. So it's a more resilient product so that when you're doing the 90 degree turns, don't have to add fittings. So fewer fittings, fewer potential leak points, we see that as an advantage. And so now we're going to address one by one the city staff challenges to PEX.

So we do appreciate providing that in advance so we could speak to those points. Lower heat and UV resistance. So while that may be the case, we want to make very clear that everything we're installing here is within conditioned space. We will not be exposed to freezing temperatures. And they are operating well within their pressure limits.

This is a low pressure installation, so we do not have exposure there. Potential chemical leaching. International Code Council, State of Illinois, and even State of California, we wanted to highlight State of California, which tends to be the most rigid on a lot of code positions, has found PEX A and CPVC to be acceptable for potable water applications. In the Illinois state EPA is the authoritative source and permitting of water connections throughout the state. And historically, they have approved these products.

And low pressure tolerance. This is a low rise development, so we are operating an industry, what the industry regards as low pressure as it is, so it is well within the operational limits of the material. Rodent damage risk. So rodent damage, this is something that has not been an issue on Heinz projects. I spoke to one of our construction managers about this, and he said one of the first contracts we sign when we open up a project is pest control.

And so this is something we seek to manage. And in addition to that, all these pipes are behind with the exception of the pump room, all of the pipes are within walls or in ceiling cavities. So not exposed, very difficult to get to. And finally, that it's not as rigid. So the fallacy here being that maybe the piping will sag.

So this construction type, being a wood frame construction, we have joists on 24 inches centers, wood studs even closer than that. And so holes are drilled. We will have spacing at no greater than 24 inches centers for all piping distribution. And one of the images I showed earlier, I forgot to highlight it, we actually had PEX routed in a concrete structure. And there, the contractor had installed hangers on three foot intervals that you could see there to prevent the pipe from sagging.

So it's not the intent for this piping to be laying on the ceiling. It will be supported on regular intervals. So lower durability. CPVC being more brittle and prone to cracking over time, especially in extreme temperatures. Did I jump a slide?

Did I just do this slide? I've lost my place. Okay. So again, being in an indoor environment, everything is within the building envelope. We will not be exposed to any extreme temperatures, freezing or heat.

Low pressure and heat tolerance. The product rating, again, we're well within its operational certification. So we're well below what it's rated for. Solvent and cement joints. This one's interesting.

So solvent on CPVC does require a minimum two hour cure time before you activate the pipe. But what I want to highlight relative to the soldering process in copper, which is immediate, the total install time is still less. So while the curing time for the solvent does take time, when you account for the entire labor of the installation, it's still much faster than a copper installation. More susceptible to freezing damage. Again, CPVC will be within conditioned space.

Even in above the Top Floor where we have distribution piping on Level 5 of this facility, I want to make very clear that our building envelope, the insulation, is actually on the bottom side of the roof deck. So we're not insulating above the ceiling with an open attic cavity, call it, that's exposed to the elements. The entire, what we would traditionally consider attic space, is conditioned space. It is within the insulated envelope. UV sensitivity.

So again, this is true. These would not be suitable for outdoor applications, but we have nothing installed outdoors here. And then the last one, environmental concerns. Manufacturing of CPVC and PEX A actually has less impact on the environment than copper piping does. Getting into the details a bit here, so you look at the embodied carbon of a product. So everyone's familiar with operational carbon. You think about your car driving down the road and the gas mileage it gets. That's what you're using as you're using the product. So that's the product in operation. The embodied carbon is what it takes to build that product.

So how much energy that affects the environment goes into the construction of that product. And so CPVC and PEX A, the environmental impact is about half, slightly less than half that of copper. And so even though copper is available to be recycled, the overall impact is still greater with copper. So in conclusion, Heinz is requesting this variance to allow the limited deployment of CPVC and PEX A at 1200 Deal Road in a manner that aligns with international and state plumbing codes. And I would also say that aligns with Heinz standards.

We believe that we've shown in this presentation that the defense of ordinance five-1E-two lacks strong justification. And we believe the code should leave room for innovation here. The use of CPVC and PEX A are an industry standard all over the country, and we've shown that in different project types. These products do not compromise the quality or risk profile of the project. We take this very seriously.

And I stand here with confidence telling you we stand behind these products and how we deploy them. And right now, just the economic environment, we're weighing every dollar we put into a project. And so that's why we're here today. We have an opportunity to have a more economical product that we feel like is just as good and can be used wisely. And then finally, the embodied carbon of copper is two times that of CPVC and XA on a whole life cycle basis. So with that, that concludes the formal presentation. Be happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much. I think it was a good detailed presentation. Appreciate it. You did answer some of the questions I had. I have some new questions also. But I'm going to open it up to the board members if they have any questions. And I'll go last. Any questions on my right?

Yeah, hi there. Thank you for the presentation. One question I had was, know, Heinz, reputable name. You guys have a great reputation. Does the amendment proposed ensure that everybody not just Heinz maybe someone who would potentially look to cut corners are we ensuring that what's amended is going to require that as well

so good question this is what we're requesting is a variance So a variance is specific to a project. It's not universal as a code amendment. So the if the request was approved here, we would be allowed to use it in the format that we've proposed for this project, but it would not allow any other project to use it. You would have to come back and you would have to amend all of the codes for it to apply to somebody else. I mean, I think at the end of the day, maybe this is an example of where you look at it and you say, here's somebody who's responsible.

We've got a reputation. They've got a long history. Let's actually see if there's a problem because at the end of the day, we're not using it for any city infrastructure. We're using it all for private infrastructure. And so I would almost say this is a great opportunity for a test case for Naperville to say, okay, it's been thirty years since we instituted the local amendment. Let's allow somebody to innovate, see what they do, see if there's negative impacts. And at that point in time, we can come back and revisit more globally with our codes.

Thank you. Any other questions on my right?

Yes. I wanted to know a couple of things. When you were talking about the CPVC and the chemical bonding of joints, I'm just not familiar enough with PEX material to know how is that joined. Is that a heated connection? Is that a

sort MICHAEL happy to speak to that. So it's known as a solvent. So it's not an adhesive. Don't think of it like a glue. It's actually a chemical process. So it's a chemical weld. It, I can't speak to chemistry, but it uses a chemical process to make the adhering between the two connections. So think of it as a weld. It's not a weld, but it is a chemical process that creates melting the two layers that come in contact with each other through a chemical process.

Following up on that, as you've got metallic valves and so forth connected, is that a solvent based connection? Or what type of connection is

that? No. That's a good question. So there are some options. There are some metallic valves that come with pre manufactured CPVC ends on them so that they can be made clean to a CPVC pipe. There are others where the contractor has to make that in through their own creativity.

And then lastly, is part of the anticipated savings because you're not having to insulate this

pet's No, no. We would still insulate anything required to be insulated by code would still be insulated, absolutely. Yeah, wonder if there was a statement in there that said that it is a more insulated material, which it is, but we would still insulate per code.

Yeah. And I would just add, we've we're substantially down the road on this project. So the project's been bid out. Through the bidding process, we looked at the union contractors who we looked to the union contractors that built Oak Brook for us and we had them provide bids for the plumbing services. We had them bid some alternatives and it was through that process of bidding with the union contractors that we got to that difference of about $600,000 in cost with the as the PEX and CPVC as designed and shown in the presentation today.

Do you have any questions? No, I don't. No? Go ahead.

So following up on the first question, I think what was the real gist was is you showed two not proposed piping schemes, but two piping schemes. One proposed and one was sort of the industry standard. And my question was, is this top one, is this what we're going to be this is what you're going to be held to? This isn't just a

That's correct. This is exactly what we would do.

So when Naperville comes out to inspect, this is what they should expect to see.

This is exactly what

they would see. Okay. Cool.

All

right. And also, I'd like to say good presentation. You answered a couple of questions I had For researched the Oak Brook Tower that's there, was that built with this PEX?

No, it was not. We stuck with the industry standards in the region for that project. And it was all metallic on the domestic water.

So Oak Brook has an all copper ordinance also then?

I don't remember that off do? The top of my

Okay. Thank you. So

I would just note that it's an entirely different construction type in Oak Brook too. So that's a steel frame building whereas here we've got a wood frame building. So we honestly looked at whether there was an opportunity. When we were first looking at this project, the sort of vision was, hey, let's look at what we did in Oak Brook. And the economics had just changed so fundamentally since Oak Brook was initiated.

The cost of steel, by way of example, was so through the roof that even if Oak Brook had been if we were trying to rebuild Oak Brook, which is getting 5,000 plus a month in rents, we wouldn't be able to duplicate Oakbrook in today's market. So I think from that 2020 timeframe to today, whether it's just cost inflation with goods and construction services or tariff concerns, we're in a different economic environment where what was doable a couple years ago is fundamentally not buildable today.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And finally, do you have any other projects or that is using the Chicago water source that does with PEX? I know everyone's concerned about the Legionnaire type of and the microbial growth and all that stuff.

All of our Chicago projects are metallic 100% on the investment plan.

So this would be the first one.

That's correct.

I would note though that this is Oakbrook and then Naperville are really the new footprint multifamily development for Hines. I think the so there's not been a lot of opportunity to use it in the Chicago market. In other markets, Michigan, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, I mean to me comparable environments right there's nothing different from a weather standpoint of Milwaukee or the markets I just talked about and what we have in Chicago. So, we've instituted this type of program in those markets. They've been operational for eight plus years and there's been no problem.

And so, I think based on practice not necessarily just in the Chicago market but on projects that are comparable to the Chicago market and we could extend, you know, it's Colorado. There's projects up into Canada that are using this sort of format with PEX and CPVC. So I think there's you know, I don't have a Chicago example to cite for you but I have markets that are very much comparable to Chicago.

All right. That's fine. Thanks.

Howard, did you have anything? No. I've got a few questions. I'll go quickly, hopefully. I appreciate this piping scheme that you showed here. And what I'm noticing here is in the critical components, the main header and the valves, you've got copper. And that tells me, hey, copper is the best in the critical components. Let's use copper. My question is, in the other areas where we're proposing CPVC and PACS, are we getting less than what we would get with copper?

I wouldn't say it's less than what we would get. It's rated for these applications. This is the intended use. It's not rated to be a main distribution in a high pressure riser. That's not what it's meant to be applied for. So our intent is to apply it what it's tested for.

And I guess I would go a step further. And I would say the industry standard is below. And so you have an operator in Heinz that's saying, we're going to take the industry standard. We're going to up it. And we're going to institute some higher level protections because that's the standard we would like to operate with. So I think it's not that you're getting less. It's that Heinz is trying to stay above what is industry standard.

So you would not recommend the industry standard? You would recommend the Heinz standard?

No. If your code is what I would call typical, what we typically see, we would still deploy the strategy in the top scheme. This is what we do on our projects. Our main distribution pipe is a copper pipe in our projects downstream of the booster pump. Whether it's high rise or low rise, we want to maintain that.

Okay. Next question was, you mentioned the PEX A was 500 PSI. What is standard for copper?

Good question. I don't know off the top of my head.

Okay. I'd like to get an answer to that. And then you did mention in the specific project, there's a potential savings of a half 1,000,000 to a million dollars. That's labor and materials, I assume?

That's correct. That's all in. That was the total VE.

Okay. And then environmental impact, I didn't understand that because obviously you have a lot of wastage when you're putting piping together and stuff like that. Copper can be recycled. When a demolition occurs in a building, you can recycle all the copper. How can it be economically not economically, environmentally better to use PEX or CPVC when copper is so people steal copper. It's valuable, right?

It's a valuable material. It is the manufacturing process. So think of it as the electricity, the fuel burnt to generate the process that manufactures the pipe has twice the impact on the environment as CPVC and PEX A.

Okay. So you're talking more manufacturing side

Oh, the manufacturing. Versus Yes. That's what I'm saying embodied carbon. So it's what goes into the making of the product, not when it's in operation. Understood.

And then with PEX and CPVC being more DELL: flexible, any water hammer issues potential? Is it better? Is it worsened for water hammer?

No. We do have our engineers provide water hammer arresters where applicable when needed. But no, we have not had we still have supports at regular intervals. We're not allowing the pipe to be run loosely. We do want to maintain the integrity of the pipe and its supports within the wall cavities and ceiling cavities.

Okay. And then you mentioned protecting from freeze and heat being in a conditioned environment. What happens when an HVAC system fails? I'm on vacation, my HVAC unit fails in my house. Would I want to have a

house in copper or is it okay to PVC in PEX? Well, if you allow an environment to freeze, you're going to pop either pipe.

Either pipe, you think? Yeah. They're very similar as far as chances of that happening? DELL:

Yeah. So just a quick anecdote. I live in Houston, where you've probably heard the stories of the freeze we had a few years ago. I popped copper pipes in my house. You know, everyone was popping pipe. It didn't matter what you had. If you're not protected from the elements but the key here is my pipes were run-in the attic outside of the thermal envelope. So I was not protected from the elements. Had it been run within the insulation, it wouldn't have frozen. It would have been protected.

And my final question is, any issues with the dissimilar materials where you're combining copper with CPVC, with PEX?

No, not with PEX and CPVC because those are inert. The dissimilar materials are between metals when you have dissimilar materials

Aluminum and copper. Yeah. Yeah.

That's right. Thank

you. I have no more questions. Anybody in the audience have any questions, public testimony for this specific item?

I do have one follow-up question.

Oh, yes. Go ahead.

So you mentioned you had value engineering done by your contractors in Oak Brook for this material. I guess this being not typical to the Chicago area, are the contractors qualified to install this and have they been trained or is this something new to them?

So PEX A does require training. It has specific fittings that all the manufacturers offer training for.

I mean, at the end of the day, we're hiring a union shop to do work. I mean, they're qualified professionals. So this is a material that's permitted under the state code, right? To be clear, unless there was a local amendment in Naperville, we would be able to build pursuant to that bottom diagram. So given that it's permissible throughout the state without a local amendment, I would think that union plumbers would be trained on this material. But I know we'll probably hear from them in a little bit.

Okay. Yeah, I didn't understand if this is a union job or not. It's not my spot. I just don't understand how they've been trained in this since it's not typical. Thank you.

And then I had a question about just the economical part of it and how would PEX piping be more economical because it's exposed to potential leaks and durability issues opposed to that of copper piping?

Well, the first cost is more economical. And in the presentation, it was my goal to make clear that we don't think it is more vulnerable to leaks and other long term issues.

Any other questions from the board? Go ahead.

Yeah, just one last question. So the main benefit of copper with those heavier loads of water travel, what's kind of your main benefit why you would use it versus PVC?

That's where you're exposed to the most vibrations in the system is downstream of the booster pump. If we didn't have a booster pump, it'd be a different story. Then I might be here requesting CPVC for that main horizontal distribution. But we're tall enough that we need that booster pump. And so we'd like to maintain that integrity there.

Any questions from the public regarding this item? Please come up.

Bruce Jones. Are there health effects with the plastic piping and providing your drinking water? I've read a couple of things which say that there may or may not be some health effects of running your water through plastic versus copper.

Doctor. JAMES think the for the answer to that, we look to professionals, right? We look to professionals who don't just write codes for Naperville, but we look to professionals who write codes for the entire country and for the globe. Right? They write inter we're talking about international codes have determined that this is safe. The state of California, which we all know has a requirement for everything, has determined that this is safe. There is there's nothing out there that should scare this board about the safety of this product based on the studies that had been done and the international organizations that have adopted this standard and deemed it safe.

Anybody else? Any other questions? All right, thank you. So I wanted to first of all thank the staff and petitioner for all the information. We got a lot of good information. Yes, go ahead, Mark. And least

we got public testimony on this, right?

Yeah, that's what I was asking for, the public testimony on this item. Anybody else? Oh, sorry, go ahead.

There's a few of

us here in the audience. Thank you. Paul Hennerlong, Naperville. Thirty eight year plumber. You know, Naperville has got standards way better than anywhere across the country. We're number one. And I don't know why Oakbrook is better than us, that they get copper, but we want to skimp on our codes here. There's no justification for it. It's about money, like he said, right? Money isn't something you give a variance for.

Unforeseen circumstances and stuff like that, that's what a variance that's what you get with a variance. This is just cost. This is just trying to save money on Naperville's codes and lowering our standards. Well, have a lot of respect for their standards. Us, as in Naperville, have a lot of respect

for ours.

And this job is in Naperville. I think it's only prudent of them to respect our codes and our standards going forward. I'd hate to see this set a precedent for you know, there's a question of, Okay, what about others? Well, this sets a precedent. Then everybody's going to come in for it.

We're almost at 100% build out. We don't need to start trying new things when we know what we have works, and it works well. Going from copper to plastic, back to copper and valves, and then to another plastic, why? It's all about to save money. And let me tell you, anyone that lives out of this state and out of these other states that just go by an industry standard, you ask them which house is built better, or which apartment building is built better, or which commercial building is built better.

And they'll tell you. Know, Naperville knows how to do it. We do it right. And, you know, I'm in the business. And, you know, when we get outside general contractors that come in, they love coming to the Midwest because we build things right here. And so I just want to reiterate that. I don't want to get into his comments towards staffs. I'm 100% with staffs' comments. I don't know that he addressed them all thoroughly, but staff is on the money. Their recommendation is to not give this variance, and I'm 100% with them. Thank you.

You.

Good afternoon, everybody. Jim Mansfield, 1982 Ridgemore Drive in Bartlett. I've had the luxury of working in Newtown for the past thirty three years. I'm a licensed plumber. I'm also qualified as an inspector. And I carry RPZ license. So I'm very proud of it. Built many homes in your town, along with apartment complexes off Ogden Avenue. Worked for major builders, Krug, Crestview, you name it. I built all through here through my whole time.

Like Paul said, you guys live by a higher standard than most of the towns. And in order at the end of the day, it's about the residents. The cost should not come in effect with your residents on this. And there were some pretty good questions up here as far as what do you do with the pipe when you take it out. It's a petroleum base.

It's non recyclable. You can't you've got to have special needs to take that, and you just can't dispose that work there. DuPage County know that area very well. There ain't nobody that and I'm aware of the Oak Brook Building also. But there's nowhere here, including the county, unincorporated, that approves PEX piping around the surrounding areas of your town. So why would you change? For a cost, At the end of the day, your responsibility is to protect your residents, and I'm here to oppose this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Jim Majerowitz. I'm a licensed plumber, state of Illinois, a licensed plumber, city of Chicago, a licensed plumber in Indiana. I'm also certified in plumbing engineering with American Society of Plumbing Engineers. I sit on both of the codes or all three codes that they listed in their presentation. All right?

I've developed those codes with along with them. And I want to make it perfectly clear that codes, when they're written, are a minimum code of standards, a minimum code of standards, minimum. And they'll also say and this is usually in the front of all of them where it's to protect public safety and health. That's why we're here testifying right now. The rest of us that were up here first, Paul and Jim, are up here because it's in the building department.

It's a public safety and health issue. All right? And when you start mixing materials, you know, well, copper alloy valves are better than plastic valves and everything. It just throws a red flag up, all right, from my perspective as a plumbing engineer, all right? And I just can't understand why you got mix and mass systems when you looked at Oak Brook Terrace Tower.

Was it 32 stories? It's right down the street here. That's all copper pipe in there, all right? And it's not springing leaks all over the place. For some of us that have been around for a while, if you would look back to 1990, sixty Minutes everybody knows what the program sixty Minutes is?

All right? And they had product just like this, where you put it on a hose barb, you put a clamp over it. All right? And they and, oh, and in sixty minutes, the advertisement for these companies that manufactured this stuff said it was better than sliced bread. That's how it gives you an idea how long ago it is, you know.

And the people in Southern California and Texas and everything else found out about materials like this. They'd come home, and their whole house would be a shower. Cisnaro in Texas bought into this, and they were putting it in underground for their water service besides in the houses. It couldn't keep up with the leaks. You guys watched sixty Minutes Better Than Sliced Bread?

I hope you did. All right? So full hour, not a small presentation. All right? Now, so that everybody in the room knows, there's a letter issued April 14, a couple weeks ago, not even, all right, about PFAS and water.

And they're telling people that you've got to do something about it. This is from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. And we're putting the material in that's very close to what they list as PFAS. So I would think that a letter from the Illinois Department of Public Illinois Environmental Protection Agency would trump what they're talking about. We're here to protect the minimum remember, minimum code of standards to protect public safety and health.

And then the Environmental Protection Agency of Illinois is warning everybody about this. So I would stand in support of the building department here because they have, in Naperville, an existing code that's a minimum code of standards with copper tube in it. And that's why it's in there, to protect public safety and health. Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you.

So just a couple of concluding remarks. We've got a developer with global experience. We've got a developer who has used this product across the country and internationally for coming up on ten years. The product has been certified as appropriate or the I shouldn't say that. The product is allowed under the international codes, under the uniform codes, under the state codes.

The IEPA has not said anything about PEX being an unsafe product. That's fear mongering. So let's just set what was said about that aside. This has nothing to do with PFAS. Heinz is before you in the city of Naperville looking to make a $100,000,000 investment.

You don't make a $100,000,000 investment. You don't work globally as a family owned company owning $90,000,000 billion dollars in assets and make unwise decisions about the type of infrastructure you're going to put in your buildings. We're not asking to change standards for public infrastructure, doing everything in terms of public infrastructure as Naperville would have us do it. So when we're talking about public health and safety, I think that's a little misguided. What we're talking about is private property.

We are building a building for ourselves. We're going to we will certainly be housing residents of Naperville, but the application of these materials is specifically limited to private property in a $100,000,000 investment that we're making. If it wasn't safe product, if it wasn't product that was going to withstand the environment, we absolutely would not be suggesting the use of this product in our buildings. We have buildings that we showed pictures of all over the place. Oak Brook may not use PEX and CPVC, But we can look at buildings across the region which are high rises that do use this material.

If someone's going to suggest that these are not high quality buildings, I would be happy to have an argument about them about that assertion because that's just not the case. I heard statements about we don't need to start trying new things. Why would you change? It's 2025. We're changing everything. The corridor is changing. This is an office building today. We're converting it to restaurants and residential. The corridor has 30% vacancy. There is need to change.

We are constantly changing in Naperville, and I think the better argument to these gentlemen is that Naperville innovates. Naperville took the lead on smoking in restaurants. It wasn't a state standard, but Naperville stepped up and took a lead. We know that know that we have a housing crisis. When we want to watch sixty Minutes, let's let's listen to sixty minutes and hear them talk about a housing crisis in terms of supply and in terms of pricing.

Well, you know what we're trying to do? We're trying to bring down the price of housing. We're trying to add supply, and we're trying to do it in an efficient manner so that we can provide that housing in a cost effective manner. So, I think it is important that we change. We innovate with the types of ways we heat buildings. We innovate with the types of ways the gentleman from Nest, they want us to generate electricity in different ways. They want to talk about moving off of gas appliances. We're constantly innovating to suggest that this is what we've done forever, so should we should just continue doing it that way because that's the Naperville standard? I think that's shortsighted. I think we're in front of this board.

We addressed every single one of the reasons that staff put up as a reason to hold on to this legacy requirement. We outlined why it's safe. We showed you international institutions which have found it safe. And I think based on all of the evidence we've presented you, this board should make a recommendation that we allow this as a test case. It is in an incorrect statement to say that a variance creates precedent.

If you look at the law, the law says that a variance does not create precedent but is looked at on on the specific facts of each case. So, we're not setting precedent here. We're taking an opportunity to create an efficient means of construction in Naperville to continue innovating. You've got a good partner to do it with, and I would respectfully request that the commission vote in favor of the request today.

Let me ask you a quick question. When you say test case, we're not going to know the results within a day or two. This a long term. Do you wait five years, ten years, fifteen years to see the longevity of the change that we potentially make? How long does that test case take?

Who bears the risk of being that case? It's a 100% on Heinz. There's nothing that the city is going to own. If there's a problem with the infrastructure in this building, who is responsible for repairing it? It's Heinz. They're the only one at risk on this. So, mean, I'm saying it's a test case because this is the first one you're hearing. This would be the first example in Naperville. But Naperville let's be honest, Naperville is not breaking new ground. We know that this is happening in Michigan. We know it's happening in Wisconsin. We know it's happening in Minnesota. We know it's happening in California. It's a test case in Naperville, but this is not a test case. This is a standard that's been adopted across the country.

Just one final question for you is what's the total cost of the project?

Roughly $100,000,000

$100,000,000 so half $1,000,000 to a million dollar savings what are the ramifications if you don't get this accepted?

I think it's highly likely that the project will continue to move forward. But I would think the way to respond to that is and I was when I heard some of the other presentation in public comment, I was a little taken aback because one of the biggest problems we're facing in the development world today is new regulations that add cost and then how do we begin to recover cost. So, when we talk about electric charging stations, for example, the state did impose a mandate and the mandate says that all spaces must have conduit run. The in Naperville here on this case, we're not just going to run conduit. We're actually going to install electric charging stations, it's much more beneficial.

In Oak Brook, they've installed charging stations and they specifically manage the charging stations through operations and procedures. But and I just totally lost my train of thought. What was the

The ramifications.

The ramifications. So my point was the state mandate on conduit on all multifamily developments, that was about a 500,000 to a million dollar add on a project like this. So it's not just a little cost. And so I think we're constantly being hit by additional costs and it's imperative that as we continue to raise the bar and we continue to ask more on developers and builders that we find ways to also help them. And it might not be a cost savings that's going to be, you know, two or 5% of the total cost of construction, but if we can find some cost savings that are, you know, a half a percent here and a half a percent there, that's meaningful.

I mean, a million dollars on a construction project like this is meaningful. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have spent the last month of our lives and all day today preparing for a hearing like this. So, I think the fact that we're here, the fact that we flew Elliot in from Houston in order to present to you folks today says that this is absolutely meaningful to the project.

Elliot, did you have something you wanted to add?

Just one last comment regarding quality. There are two things every property owner fears, whether you're a developer or personal property. Number one is fire. No one argues that. Number two is water. Okay? Water damage adds up quick. You have to relocate residents. We are not taking this lightly. We feel this is a proper amendment to the code, proper change. We're not taking on risk or compromising quality or compromising the residents with this proposed change.

Thank you. Any other questions from the public, from staff, from the board, anybody?

Jim again. Copper may be around for a long time, fifty some years in buildings in Illinois, and some a little longer than that. How long has other materials been in? Short period of time. Copper's still got a strong track record.

And it's still going strong. And there's a fifty year guarantee on it as of today. So what's happened in the plastic industry over a short period of time, recent period of time, they reformulated the plastics. So it's not the plastic. The plastic that you buy today is not the same plastic you buy bought twenty years ago.

And then they come from Europe with this material that they're talking about. And they go, we've been using this for forty years in Europe. Neglect to tell you that Europe doesn't use chlorine in water. And once you took that material and you brought it here and you started putting it in with chlorinated water, it started to fail. And then not that long ago, they came up, we're going to put a chlorine inhibitor in, layer in the pipe that they're talking about.

And that's the answer for that. And it's only a short track record that they have. Longevity, we don't know yet on that because it's still being tested today. Along with the CPVC, it's still being tested today because it's not like copper tube. It's been tested for over fifty years.

It's a very they might say that it's oh, we started putting it in in the '70s. Well, they started putting copper tube in long before that, all right? And then the plastics have been reformulated in recent time. So they're still in the test mode with these different types of materials. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Once again, thank you to everybody who presented today. Lot of information. I'm not sure I personally am ready to make a decision at this time. I'm proposing that we motioning that we table this discussion until our next meeting on May 21. That'll give us some time to digest all the information, deliberate, understand. And like I said, both sides made very good presentations. And I think really good questions were asked and answered.

So I'd like to make a motion to table till next board meeting. Can I have a second, please? I'll second. Okay. Anybody ayes? Aye. Aye. Any nays? All right. So with that, we'll motion it until the next meeting. Thank you, everyone. So with that, let's transition over to old business. Is there any old business that needs to be discussed today from anybody? Okay. Any new business that needs to be discussed today?

Okay. Thank you. With that, I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Second. Yea's. Any nays? All right, with that we're adjourned. Thank you.