nevada state board of architecture, interior design...

Nevada State Board of Architecture, Interior Design & Residential Design May 1, 2013

Southern Nevada Building Officials Local Amendments Regional Interpretations All jurisdictions in Southern Nevada

▪ Clark County ▪ Nye County ▪ City of Las Vegas ▪ City of Henderson ▪ City of North Las Vegas ▪ City of Boulder City ▪ City of Mesquite ▪ Clark County School District

Local Amendments Technical Committees

IBC (3 groups), IRC, UPC/UMC, NEC, IECC, Pool Unlimited committee representation Jurisdiction/Industry Voting April 2012 – Sept 2012

Steering Committee Review Format/Justification/Amendment Criteria Sept 2012 – Dec 2012

Building Officials Approval Jan 2013 – March 2013 Includes public comment period.

Adoption by each jurisdiction

AMENDMENT CRITERIA Topographic

Geologic

Climatic

Special Uses/Occupancies

Correlation with other models codes/state laws

Unique systems not anticipated

Regional Consistency

Errata

Major Deletions from Local Amendments: Plumbing Code Amendment restricting Plastic Piping

1980’s thru 2009: Plastic Piping not allowed in Type I and Type II Buildings

Building Code Amendment to allow under certain circumstance

▪ Rated chase/shaft

▪ Soda/Bar/Chemical/Medical

Criteria/code applications/sealing penetrations

More restrictive sprinkler requirements in S-1 occupancies Goes with model code requirements

Occupant Notification M-Occupancies Deletes the option for manual activation of alarms in mercantile occupancies.

Will require notification at all times: occupied/unoccupied

Conflicts with NFPA 72,

Security Grilles A-2 and A-3 less than 300 and B,F,M,S occupancies

Add Provisions for Smoke Removal Systems: To facilitate smoke removal in post-fire salvage and overhaul operations,

buildings and structures shall be equipped with natural or mechanical ventilation for removal of products of combustion

403.4.7.1. Design requirements - Fans, Fan Belts, Fan Motors & Ducts 403.4.7.1.3 Power -Standby Power Source Enclosure, Power sources

and power surges, Secondary power supply 403.4.7.1.4 Status indicators and controls 403.4.7.2 Control diagrams 403.4.7.3 Special inspections for smoke removal 403.4.7.3.1 Scope of testing 403.4.7.3.2 Qualifications 403.4.7.3.3 Reports 403.4.7.3.3.1 Report of filing

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT:

Section 403.7 requires Smoke Removal, however no design provision are provided, this amendment provides design and inspection requirements.

Provides consistent in design applications throughout

the region. Allows for exceptions for minor projects and

applications where a smoke removal system does not already exist.

[F] 410.7 Automatic sprinkler system. Stages shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. Sprinklers shall be installed under the roof and gridiron and under all catwalks and galleries over the stage. Sprinklers shall be installed in dressing rooms, performer lounges, shops and storerooms accessory to such stages. Exceptions: 1. Sprinklers are not required under stage areas less than 4 feet (1219 mm) in clear height that are utilized exclusively for storage of tables and chairs, provided the concealed space is separated from the adjacent spaces by not Type X gypsum board not less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) in thickness. 1.2.In buildings where an automatic sprinkler system is not otherwise required by other sections of this code, sSprinklers are not required for stages 1,000 square feet (93 m2) or less in area and 50 feet (15 240 mm) or less in height where curtains, scenery or other combustible hangings are not retractable vertically. Combustible hangings shall be limited to a single main curtain, borders, legs and a single backdrop. 2.3.Sprinklers are not required within portable orchestra enclosures on stages.


2009 only deleted sprinklers from portable orchestra enclosures Deletion of Exception No. 1 (same as 2009):

▪ Could result in partially sprinklered buildings, which is not consistent with the high level of protection in Southern Nevada

▪ NFPA 13, as currently adopted and enforced in Southern Nevada, does not permit the omission of sprinklers identified in Exception No. 1.

Modification to Exception No. 2 ▪ For an otherwise fully sprinklered building, Exception No. 2 to could result in

partially sprinklered buildings and be in conflict with NFPA 13. ▪ However, for a building that is not otherwise required to be sprinklered,

Exception No. 2 is a valid allowance. ▪ Concern that a sprinklered building could contain a non-sprinklered stage.

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: Add exception to Section 703.4 as follows: Exception: A fire barrier, fire partition or smoke barrier may use non-rated glass and automatic sprinklers to achieve up to a 1-hour fire-resistance rating when all of the following are provided: 1. Automatic sprinklers are provided along both sides of the glazing and/or doors, or on the room side only if there is not a walkway on one side. The sprinklers shall be located between 4 inches and 12 inches (102 mm and 305 mm) away from the glass and at intervals along the glass not greater than 6 feet (1829 mm). The sprinkler system shall be designed so that the entire surface of the glass is wet upon activation of the sprinklers system without obstruction;

1.1 The glass wall shall be installed in a gasketed frame in a manner that the framing system deflects without breaking (loading) the glass before the sprinkler system operates; and

1.2 Where glass doors are provided in the glass wall, they shall be either self-closing or automatic-closing; and

1.3 The sprinklers used to protect the glass wall and/or doors along the fire barrier, fire partition or smoke barrier are served by systems separate from the sprinklers protecting the room or space. The system shall be dedicated to those sprinklers used to protect the fire barrier, fire partition or smoke barrier

1.4 The fire barrier, fire partition or smoke barrier does not exceed a 1-hour fire-resistance rating.

JUSTIFICATION: This change recognizes some of the unique designs or systems not

specifically anticipated by code found here in Southern Nevada. Alternate Methods of Construction may still be considered, this

exception recognizes that closely spaced sprinklers served by dedicated zones, provides a level of protection equal to and greater than that allowed by code.

The application of sprinklers to protect 1-hour rated assemblies is still

allowed by code for Atriums in Section 404.6 and the wording for this level of protection is taken from that section.

This exception would not apply to fire barriers, fire partitions or

smoke barriers with a fire-resistance rating greater than 1-hour.

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: 709.4 Continuity. Smoke barriers shall form an effective membrane continuous from outside

wall to outside wall and from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, deck or slab above, including continuity through concealed spaces, such as those found above suspended ceilings, and interstitial structural and mechanical spaces. The supporting construction shall be protected to afford the required fire-resistance rating of the wall or floor supported in buildings of other than Type IIB, IIIB or VB construction.

Exceptions: 1. Smoke-barrier walls are not required in interstitial spaces where such spaces are designed

and constructed with ceilings that provide resistance to the passage of fire and smoke equivalent to that provided by the smoke-barrier walls.

2. Smoke barriers used for elevator lobbies in accordance with Section 405.4.3, 3007.4 7.2 or 3008.117.2 are not required to extend from outside wall to outside wall.

3. Smoke barriers used for areas of refuge in accordance with Section 1007.6.2 are not required to extend from outside wall to outside wall.

4. Smoke barriers used for smoke control zone boundaries in accordance with Section 909.5 are not required to extend from outside wall to outside wall.

JUSTIFICATION: This amendment is needed to address unique designs not

anticipated by code in Southern Nevada. Many of the facilities found in Southern Nevada, requiring smoke

barrier walls to be continuous from outside wall to outside wall is impractical.

Many smoke control system employ passive smoke barriers as well

as pressurization method zones that are wholly within a building where the smoke boundary walls do not intersect with the outside walls. The use of an outside wall is not required to make the system functional and provides no additional benefit.

Automatic Sprinkler Systems REVISE AS FOLLOWS :

[F] 903.3 Installation requirements. Automatic sprinkler

systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the International Fire Code Sections 903.3.1 through 903.3.6.

All subsections to Section 903.3 are deleted

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: This proposal is to have automatic sprinkler design

requirements regulated by the Fire Code. Aiding in code correlation, by limiting the number of

amendments that need to be adopted into the IBC. Intended for code correlation between the Building and

Fire Codes Provides consistency in regional interpretation and

application of the codes.

Fire Detectors; Duct Detectors; Delayed Egress Locks; Elevator Emergency Operations; and Wiring

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: [F] 907.3 Fire safety functions. Automatic fire detectors utilized for

the purpose of performing fire safety functions shall be regulated by the International Fire Code. connected to the building's fire alarm control unit where a fire alarm system is required by Section 907.2. Detectors shall, upon actuation, perform the intended function and activate the alarm notification appliances or activate a visible and audible supervisory signal at a constantly attended location. In buildings not equipped with a fire alarm system, the automatic fire detector shall be powered by normal electrical service and, upon actuation, perform the intended function. The detectors shall be located in accordance with NFPA 72.

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: This proposal is to have fire alarm design requirements

regulated by the Fire Code. Aids in code correlation, by limiting the number of

amendments that need to be adopted into the IBC Correlation between the Building and Fire Codes Provides consistency in regional interpretation and


Initiating Devices/Fire Alarm Devices REVISE AS FOLLOWS: [F] 907.4 Initiating devices. Fire alarm initiating

devices shall be regulated by the International Fire Code. Where manual or automatic alarm initiation is required as part of a fire alarm system, the initiating devices shall be installed in accordance with Sections 907.4.1 through 907.4.3.1.

All subsection to Section 907.4 are deleted

JUSTIFICATION: This proposal is to have fire alarm design requirements


amendments that need to be adopted into the IBC. Code correlation between the Building and Fire Code Provides consistency in regional interpretation and


Occupant Notification Systems REVISE AS FOLLOWS: [F] 907.5 Occupant notification systems. Occupant notification systems are regulated by

the International Fire Code. A fire alarm system shall annunciate at the fire alarm control unit and shall initiate occupant notification upon activation, in accordance

with Sections 907.5.1 through 907.5.2.3.4. Where a fire alarm system is required by another section of this code, it shall be activated by:

1. Automatic fire detectors. 2. Automatic sprinkler system waterflow devices. 3. Manual fire alarm boxes. 4. Automatic fire-extinguishing systems. Exception: Where notification systems are allowed elsewhere in Section 907 to annunciate

at a constantly attended location. All subsections to 907.5 are deleted

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: This proposal is to have fire alarm design requirements


amendments that need to be adopted into the IBC Intended for code correlation between the Building and

Fire Codes Provides consistency in regional interpretation and


Fire Alarm System REVISE AS FOLLOWS:

[F] 907.6 Installation. Fire alarm system installation

is regulated by the International Fire Code. A fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 72.

All subsections to 907.6 are deleted.

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: This proposal is to have fire alarm installation

requirements regulated by the Fire Code.

Aids in code correlation, by limiting the number of amendments that need to be adopted into the IBC.

Intended for code correlation between the Building

and Fire Codes Provides consistency in regional interpretation and


REVISE AS FOLLOWS: 1008.1.9.11 Stairway doors. Interior stairway means of egress doors shall be openable from

both sides without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. Exceptions: 1. Unchanged 2. Unchanged 3. In stairways serving buildings other than high-rise buildings not more than four stories,

doors are permitted to be locked from the side opposite the egress side, provided they are openable from the egress side. Except for exit discharge doors, the stairway doors shall be automatically and capable of being unlocked simultaneously without unlatching upon any of the following: a signal from the fire command center, if present, or a signal by emergency personnel from a single an approved location inside the main entrance to the building; activation of a fire alarm system or a fire sprinkler system in an area served by the stairway; or failure of the power supply.

4. Unchanged 5. Unchanged 6. Upon approval of the building official, stairway doors opening directly into sleeping units,

dwelling units or tenant spaces are permitted to be locked from the side opposite the egress side, provided they are openable from the egress side. The doors are permitted to unlock without unlatching only upon signal from the fire command center, if present, or a signal by emergency personnel from an approved location inside the building.

JUSTIFICATION:

In accordance with NAC 477.283.2(j), the Nevada State Fire Marshal specifically amends Exception No. 3 to Section 1008.1.8.7 of the IBC to permit stairway doors in non-high-rise to be locked from the stairway side provided they are capable of being unlocked in a fire emergency or power loss.

SFM wants to prevent cases where occupants and/or firefighters become trapped

in stair enclosures. Therefore, the proposed changes to Exception No. 3 are required for compliance with NAC 477.283.2(j).

In addition, many of the casino resorts, malls, hospitals and other non-high-rise

buildings in Southern Nevada do not have a single main entrance; rather, it is common for these facilities to have several “main” entrances

There is a security and insurance risk for stair doors to unlock automatically upon

alarm, when the access door is directly into privately owned residential units, leased or owner tenant spaces

Residential units that are not always there (e.g., vacation home) are at risk of

intentional or unintentional alarms providing free access to their unit / tenant space. In this arrangement, only trained personnel (either fire department or facility personnel) can provide this necessary access .

FOOTNOTES TO TABLE 2902.1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PLUMBING FIXTURES

a. The fixtures are based on one fixture being the minimum required for the number of persons indicated or

any fraction of the number of persons indicated. The number of occupants shall be determined by this code.

b. Toilet facilities for employees shall be separate from facilities for inmates or care patients. c. A single-occupant toilet room with one water closet and one lavatory serving not more than two

adjacent patient sleeping units shall be permitted where such room is provided with direct access from each patient sleeping unit and with provisions for privacy.

d. The occupant load for seasonal outdoor seating and entertainment areas shall be included when determining the minimum number of facilities required.

e. The minimum number of required drinking fountains shall comply with Table 2902.1 and Chapter 11. f. Drinking fountains and service sinks are not required for an occupant load of 50 15 or fewer. g. For business and mercantile occupancies with an occupant load of 15 or fewer, service sinks shall not be

required. g. Where water is served in restaurants, drinking fountains shall not be required. In other occupancies,

where drinking fountains are required, water coolers or bottled water dispensers that provide water to occupants free of charge shall be permitted to be substituted for not more than 50 percent of the required drinking fountains.

h. In each bathroom or toilet room, urinals shall not be substituted for more than 67 percent of the required water closets in assembly and educational occupancies. Urinals shall not be substituted for more than 50 percent of the required water closets in all other occupancies

g.

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: Provide correlation with the 2012 Uniform Plumbing

Code (UPC), which is to be adopted and amended in lieu of the 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC).

Provide relief to the Southern Nevada business community from potentially punitive drinking fountain and service sink requirements.

Assembly Occupancy fixture count remains the same

as 2009 and previous code adoptions.

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: [P] 2902.2 Separate Facilities. Where plumbing fixtures are required,

separate facilities shall be provided for each sex. Exceptions: 1. Separate facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and

sleeping units. 2. Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant

spaces with a total occupant load, including both employees and customers, of 30 15 or less.

3. Separate facilities shall not be required in Group M mercantile occupancies in which the maximum occupant load is 100 or less.

4. Separate facilities shall not be required in Group B occupancies in which the maximum occupant load is 50 or less provided a single toilet facility is designed for use by no more than one person at a time.


The proposed amendment modified Exception No. 2 to raise the minimum occupant load that requires separate facilities for males and females from 15 to 30.

A new Exception No. 4 to allow a single toilet facility for

business (Group B) occupancies with a maximum occupant load of 50.

The intent of this amendment is to provide potentially

significant economic relief to small business owners (of various occupancies).

REVISE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 3113 -SHADE STRUCTURES 3113.1 – General 3113.2- Definitions – SHADE STRUCTURE, SHADE STRUCTURE GROUP 3113.3 – Design and Construction – Frames, Shade Coverings, Height,

Area 3113.4 – Location – Separation between shade structures, Separation

between shade structure groups 3113.5 – Means of Egress 3113.6 – Automatic Sprinkler Systems 3113.7 – Fire Alarm & Detection System 3113.8 – Fuel-Fired Equipment 3113.9 – Lighting 3113.10 – Fire Protection Report

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: Used through Southern Nevada

Due to sunlight, heat and UV exposure Not well defined in the code Resulting in situations where they must be

constructed in accordance with predominant building Intended to address structures attached or in close

proximity Allows for situations were shade structure(s) are

exempt from sprinklers Small, open to atmosphere (50%),distance/combustibility

No-open flame.

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: 3401.7 Automatic Sprinklers in Existing Buildings. Automatic sprinkler systems in

accordance with Section 903 and designed per the Fire Code shall be provided in nonsprinklered existing structures at the locations described in Sections 3401.7.1 through 3401.7.3.

Where these provisions result in partially sprinklered buildings, durable weatherproof

signage shall be provided at the Fire Department Connection(s) clearly indicating that the building is partially protected with fire sprinklers and clearly identifying the portion(s) of the building covered by the fire sprinkler systems.

Where required by the fire code official, the underground fire service and fire sprinkler lead-

in to the first portion of an existing nonsprinklered building shall be sized to a minimum Ordinary Hazard Group II sprinkler design for future expansion of the fire sprinkler system to cover all other portions of the building.

3401.7.1. – Additions - Sprinklered Addition, Nonsprinklered Addition 3401.2 – Alternations – Sprinklered Alterations, Nonsprinklered Alterations 3401.7.3 – Change of Occupancy – Sprinklered Change of Occupancy, Nonsprinklered

Change of Occupancy

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: Reduction in requirements from previous code adoption/interpretation Sprinklers, if required, may be installed in the Addition, Alteration, or

Change of Occupancy area Historically, required sprinklers throughout Driven by changes in the economy Partially sprinklered buildings are safer than non-occupied structures

Fire Barriers used to separate in lieu of Fire Walls Does not apply to E (daycare), H, I or R occupancies

REVISE AS FOLLOWS:

3401.8 Fire Alarm Systems in Existing Buildings. Fire alarm systems,

installed in accordance with Section 907 and the Fire Code, shall be provided in existing structures at the locations described in Sections 3401.8.1 through 3401.8.3.

3401.8.1 – Additions 3401.8.2 – Alternations 3401.8.3 – Change of Occupancy

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: Reduction in requirements from previous code adoption/interpretation Fire Alarms, if required, may be installed in the Addition, Alteration, or

Change of Occupancy area Historically, required alarms throughout Driven by changes in economy and remodels more than new work Partially sprinklered buildings are safer than non-occupied structures

Fire Barriers used to separate in lieu of Fire Walls Does not apply to E (daycare), H, I or R occupancies

Structural Changes

REVISE SECTION 202, DEFINITIONS: STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION. The visual observation of

the structural system encompassing the structure, foundation elements and soils within the influence zone of the foundation elements by a registered design professional for general conformance to the approved construction documents. Structural observation does not include or waive the responsibility for the inspection required by Section 110, 1705 or other sections of this code.

JUSTIFICATION/Intent: This modification clarifies the scope of structural

observations.

The as published text to be interpreted as only being applicable to the superstructure.

Geotechnical design assumptions have a significance to the entirety of the structural design.

Addition of foundation elements and soils will provide for

a complete structural system to be part of the observation plan.

Insert a new section 1803.2.1 to address use of slabs on ground to resist structural loads:

1803.2.1 Use of non-structural slabs on ground to resist

bearing loads. Where bearing loads are proposed to be resisted by non-structural slabs on ground, all of the following conditions shall be satisfied:

Structural calculations shall be provided to show the slab

can adequately support the proposed load. The maximum allowable subgrade bearing pressure below

the slab shall be no greater than 500psf unless a greater value is justified in a geotechnical investigation report.

JUSTIFICATION: Reasonable to utilize non-structural slabs to support minor

loading from attachment of architectural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing components

Allowable slab capacity can be demonstrated through

calculation.

The 500 psf allowable soil bearing limit Non-structural slabs on ground are typically exempt from

structural design and special inspection requirements in the code.

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: Revise Section 1803.6 and add new items as follows:

1803.6 Reporting. Where geotechnical investigations are

required, a written report of the investigation shall be submitted to the building official by the owner or authorized agent at the time of permit application. The geotechnical report shall include, but need not be limited to, the following information:

List of item required in a geotechnical investigation Items 1 -27 Unchanged (re-numbered/re-organized) 28. A statement that the grading plans and foundation plans have been

reviewed and are consistent with the stated geotechnical design criteria.

JUSTIFICATION:

This statement would ensure that the geotechnical engineer is able to verify compliance of the proposed work with his/her geotechnical design criteria. A geotechnical report submitted without this statement should be considered preliminary and should not be approved until the geotechnical engineer performs the required review and submits the required statement.

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: Add a new section 1808.10 as follows:

1808.10 Minimum Distance to Ground Faulting. The minimum distances from

an occupied structure to ground faulting are as follows: 1. The minimum setback from a Holocene active fault shall be fifty (50) feet. 2. The minimum setback from a Quaternary active fault shall be five (5) feet. 3. No setback shall be imposed when the geotechnical report establishes that no

fault or fault zone exists on the project. 4. For single lot single family residences, the fault location may be approximated

by the geotechnical engineer through historical research. A setback of at least fifty (50) feet from each side of the historically approximated fault edge shall be established.

If, through exploration, the fault location is defined, historically approximated, or

if the geotechnical report imposes a no-build zone, then the fault and the minimum setback shall be clearly shown to scale on the grading plan, plot plan, and final map; no portion of the foundation system shall be constructed within that zone.

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: This amendment is proposed for re-incorporation

into the 2012 SNBCA. A nearly identical amendment existed in the 1994 and 1997 UBC as well as the 2000 and 2006 IBC. An administrative oversight inadvertently omitted this amendment during the 2009 IBC code review process.

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: 3405.2 Substantial structural damage to vertical elements of the

lateral force-resisting system. A building that has sustained substantial structural damage to the vertical elements of its lateral force-resisting system shall be evaluated and repaired in accordance with the applicable provisions of Sections 3405.2.1 through 3405.2.3.

Exceptions: Buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category A, B, or C whose

substantial structural damage was not caused by earthquake need not be evaluated or rehabilitated for load combinations that include earthquake effects.

One- and two-family dwellings need not be evaluated or rehabilitated for load combinations that include earthquake effects.

JUSTIFICATION: Nevada is the fifth most seismically active state in the country. Nearly, every single family dwelling submitted to Clark County is

an engineered system. This may be an acceptable approach to conventional construction methods. To allow the vertical elements of an engineered lateral force-resisting system to be ignored when a building has sustained substantial structural damage would seriously jeopardize the lateral load carrying capacity of the building. To ensure a safe-built environment, the vertical elements of a lateral force resisting system must be evaluated and constructed in accordance with structural provisions of the IBC. This proposed is intended to address the local geologic conditions of Southern Nevada, which meets the SNBO amendment criteria.

REVISE AS FOLLOWS: 3405.3.1 Lateral force-resisting elements. Regardless of the level of

damage to vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system, if substantial structural damage to gravity load-carrying components was caused primarily by wind or earthquake effects, then the building shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 3405.2.1 and, if noncompliant, rehabilitated in accordance with Section 3405.2.3.

Exceptions: One– and two–family dwellings need not be evaluated or rehabilitated

for load combinations that include earthquake effects. Buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category A, B, or C whose

substantial structural damage was not caused by earthquake need not be evaluated or rehabilitated for load combinations that include earthquake effects.

JUSTIFICATION: Nevada is the fifth most seismically active state in the country.

Nearly, every single family dwelling submitted to Clark County is an engineered system. This may be an acceptable approach to conventional construction methods. To allow the vertical elements of an engineered lateral force-resisting system to be ignored when a building has sustained substantial structural damage would seriously jeopardize the lateral load carrying capacity of the building. To ensure a safe-built environment, the vertical elements of a lateral force resisting system must be evaluated and constructed in accordance with structural provisions of the IBC. This proposed is intended to address the local geologic conditions of Southern Nevada, which meets the SNBO amendment criteria.

Added Appendix O

Guideline for Evaluating Liquefaction Hazards in Nevada

Added Appendix P

Guideline for Evaluating Potential Surface Fault Rupture/Land Subsidence Hazards in Nevada

JUSTIFICATION/INTENT: Added language to IBC as an appendix

chapter to address compliance with NRS 278.580(b) dealing with hazards relating to seismic activity.

Questions?

nevada state board of architecture, interior design...

Documents