06/26/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~~- Those standing in favor of the revisions numbered 1; those in the . audience standing who were against the proposed revisions numbered about 200. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Assistant Manager said Mr. Mortier had stated very well the concerns with fires in highrise buildings. That concern has been dealt with in Eugene, as the code now requires sprinkler systems in highrise buildings. The proposed ordinance this evening would seek to modify that code because of economics and the advancement in technology. Regarding water volume, he said there is a provision in the code that water volume should be sufficient to provide adequate pressure for ten sprinkler heads in anyone fire area. He said there were other alternatives for new construction of highrise structures. The ques- tion before Council is dealing with the existing structures and attendent problems. Regarding the question of benefits, he said the proposed ordinance was trying to weigh the ability to evacuate people as well as deal with fire supression. It does involve balancing of interests and the degree of risks the City is willing to accept. Regarding costs, he said staff was aware that at least in one building there is a modification bid that represents a substantial savings. The sprinkler system as proposed with the smoke detectors will cost substantially less than the existing provisions in the code. The question before Council is the degree of life safety it is prepared to e accept as a community. Ms. Smith noted the improvement of smoke detection devices, and wondered if use of those could provide an adequate system. Assistant Manager said that staff was suggesting the smoke detectors are a wise investment. However, he noted the issue is one of evacuation of a highrise structure. Compliance to the code includes a separate smoke-free exitway. In considering alternatives to a sprinkler system, it was found that they would be far more expensive than installing the sprinkler system. Mr. Williams questioned if sprinkler systems were so important in buildings of certain heights, why they were not included in the National Fire Prevention Code. Assistant Manager said the issues were offsetting costs, which becomes a local determination of what is minimum fire defense for a city. The UFC attempts to deal with only setting a minimum defense level. Determination of costs is felt to be a local issue, not national. He noted it also involves who serves on the boards, and compromises made for those interests. Mr. Williams expressed his concern with locali'ties amending national codes, feeling it created a "bad scene". He asked if Ms. Niven, with her experience at the national level, felt this fire code was different from others and ought to be upgraded on a local level. Ms. Niven said she could not answer. - 6/26/78--5 '+5'