06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

building like the Medical Center, he said, was because of the sleeping areas in housing structures. It would be more hazardous trying to awake people in the event of a fire at night, and practically impossible to get them out, whereas office buildings would have "people up and walking around." He said if a building such " as the Medical Center was remodeled to more than 25% of its market value, under the terms of this amendment it would have to be sprinklered throughout. The five-year deadline, he added, was the same limit included in the sprinklering ordinance adopted in 1956, and a two-year extension was granted in that case. Councilman williams was still troubled that the Eugene Medical Center would not come under the provisions. He thought there would be problems getting people out of that building because of patients being anesthetized or in wheelchairs. Mr. Wick agreed but said there would not be the risk involved as in the living type occu- pancies. He added that the fuel load - bedding, furniture - in living occupancies was much greater than that in an office building which would have metal file cabinets, desks, etc. Councilman Bradley noted the amendment called for systems throughout the structures, including basements or cellars. He wondered if attics would be included. Mr. Wick explained that the present ordinance requires sprinkler systems in basements in. Fire Zones 1 and 2. This provision was included in this amendment because of some Group H occupancy buildings in other fire zones. It was understood the ordinance could be changed to avoid the ambiguity with regard to attics. Comm Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to schedule public hearing 6/18/75 at the June 23 Council meeting on the amendment. Motion carried Pub Hrng unanimously. Assistant Manager explained provisions of the code amendment (see committee minutes above). Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. - Council Bill No. 876 - Amending Section 8.200 of City Code re: Sprinklering high-rise buildings was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilman Williams said his impres~ion of policy used in the past was that the only time building code requirements were triggered was when improvements amounting to . something like 50% of the value of a structure were added. He said he was not familiar with the five-year phase-in provision for remodeling to 25% of the value of a building. Assistant Manager explained that a five-year period was given for basement areas when the central business district fire defenses were being brought to a higher level; a two-year extension was added to that beca~se of economic conditions while the renewal project was going on. Wendell Wick, fire marshal, said the 25% was used in this amend- ment because sprinklering is being required in entire buildings; the five-year phase-in covered basement areas because they were located in more hazardous fire zones. I~A..2 Councilman Hamel expressed concern about the tremendous burden these requirements would place on senior citizens on smaller incomes. He wondered if there was any other way to accomplish the protection without jeopardizing those people's ownerships. Assistant e Manager said that in comparing the fire hazard involved in these types of buildings staff felt the resulting protection and adequate fire suppression should have priority. Although there were some subsidized rentals that would be covered, there were a number of other structures where no low-income elderly were involved and the life hazard existed. 6/23/75 - 4 3 '34