HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 3 RETROFIT BLDGS. 06-20-88TO:
WILLIA~I HUSTON, CITY PIANAGER
FROM:
COI~JNI~ DEVELOPHENT' DEPARTHENT
SUBJECT:
RETROFIT OF BUILDINGS TO COBIPLY WITH UNIFORH FIRE CODE PROVISIONS
FOR SPRINKLER S¥SI'~S
RECC#~ENDATION
·
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND
Councilman Edgar at the City Council's meeting on June 20th asked that staff
explore the possible retrofitting of structures to comply with the recently
introduced provisions of the Uniform Fi re Code related to requirements for
automatic fire sprinkler systems. *Councilman Edgar had made a similar request back
in November of 1987 prior to final adoption'of the 1985 Uniform Building Code about
retrofitting existing structures wi th open attic areas to include fi re and draft
stops. .
According to the Fire Department and Building Division there would be several major
problems if a requirement to retrofit existing buildings with fire sprinklers was
to be considered.
1. The Building Division does not have accurate records to determine how many
structures would not meet the provisions of the 1985 Uniform Fire Code. The
only way to determine this information would be to conduct an interior visual
inspection of all structures generally built prior to 1985 or to review each
building permit file.
Interior visual inspections of most apartments and commercial buildings in the
City could be a very time consuming task since all inspection requests would
have to be coordinated through a property owner. Given current inspection
workloads in the Department, the Department currently does not have the
available man-hours or staff to conduct such inspections or record review and
to complete the necessary inventory catalog of results.
City Council Report
Retrofi rtl ng
June 20, 1988
Page two
e
Code requirements which establish minimum acceptable levels of health and
safety are developed wi th awareness of the cost of provisions and the
constraints they may impose on design. An Ordinance requiring retrofitting to
meet the sprinkler provisions in the 1985 Fire Code could be an extremely
expensive investment for a property owner as follows:
A. High costs due to additional work required 'to install the piping .in
concealed areas and/or in an acceptable manner as far as appearance.
B ·
Additional water supply lines will usually be: required to be installed
all the work to the public water mains.
Roof and/or floor structures may have to be reinforced to carry the
additional structural load of the sprinkler system.
D. The roof and/or floor structure may not be high enough to' allow the
installation of the sprinkler system and may require a complete or
partial rebuilding of the structure.
E. Business disruption depending on the amount of work to be done both
i nsi de and outsi ue of buil dings.
.,
Based on the above concerns the actual need for an ordinance requiring retrofitting
would therefore, have to be determined as precisely as possible including an
analysis of what buildings would be required to be retrofitted and what materials
would be acceptable for such draft stops. The City would also have to make a
finding that such an ordinance was needed for. life safety as opposed to property
protection.
Staff feels that current codes adequately protect the public health and safety and
would not recommend adoption of a retrofit ordinance. In addition, the Department
does not currently have adequate staff to conduct an inventory of all existing
buildings or record review to determine whether they possess fire sprinklers.
L16yd Dic,~ ~
But.1 dt ng~Offi ct al
CAS: pef
Attachments:
~Chrlstine Shingleton CY
Director of Community Development
Community DeveloPment Department