My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/26/1978 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1978
>
06/26/1978 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2007 2:06:30 AM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:29:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/26/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> ~~~- <br /> Those standing in favor of the revisions numbered 1; those in the <br />. audience standing who were against the proposed revisions numbered <br /> about 200. <br /> Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony <br /> presented. <br /> Assistant Manager said Mr. Mortier had stated very well the concerns <br /> with fires in highrise buildings. That concern has been dealt with in <br /> Eugene, as the code now requires sprinkler systems in highrise buildings. <br /> The proposed ordinance this evening would seek to modify that code <br /> because of economics and the advancement in technology. Regarding <br /> water volume, he said there is a provision in the code that water <br /> volume should be sufficient to provide adequate pressure for ten <br /> sprinkler heads in anyone fire area. He said there were other <br /> alternatives for new construction of highrise structures. The ques- <br /> tion before Council is dealing with the existing structures and <br /> attendent problems. Regarding the question of benefits, he said the <br /> proposed ordinance was trying to weigh the ability to evacuate people <br /> as well as deal with fire supression. It does involve balancing of <br /> interests and the degree of risks the City is willing to accept. <br /> Regarding costs, he said staff was aware that at least in one building <br /> there is a modification bid that represents a substantial savings. <br /> The sprinkler system as proposed with the smoke detectors will cost <br /> substantially less than the existing provisions in the code. The <br /> question before Council is the degree of life safety it is prepared to <br />e accept as a community. <br /> Ms. Smith noted the improvement of smoke detection devices, and <br /> wondered if use of those could provide an adequate system. Assistant <br /> Manager said that staff was suggesting the smoke detectors are a wise <br /> investment. However, he noted the issue is one of evacuation of a <br /> highrise structure. Compliance to the code includes a separate <br /> smoke-free exitway. In considering alternatives to a sprinkler <br /> system, it was found that they would be far more expensive than <br /> installing the sprinkler system. <br /> Mr. Williams questioned if sprinkler systems were so important in <br /> buildings of certain heights, why they were not included in the <br /> National Fire Prevention Code. Assistant Manager said the issues <br /> were offsetting costs, which becomes a local determination of what is <br /> minimum fire defense for a city. The UFC attempts to deal with only <br /> setting a minimum defense level. Determination of costs is felt to be <br /> a local issue, not national. He noted it also involves who serves on <br /> the boards, and compromises made for those interests. <br /> Mr. Williams expressed his concern with locali'ties amending national <br /> codes, feeling it created a "bad scene". He asked if Ms. Niven, <br /> with her experience at the national level, felt this fire code was <br /> different from others and ought to be upgraded on a local level. Ms. <br /> Niven said she could not answer. <br />- <br /> 6/26/78--5 <br /> '+5' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.