Correspondence Lib&D 76, Q(-(A- ,ovp-24,1-605b---7
•
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
August 16, 2001
Gary Firestone
Ramis Corrigan Crew & Bachrach, LLP
1727 NW Hoyt Street
Portland, OR 97209
Re: Authority Under UBC/UFC for Sprinkler Systems Upon Additions, Alterations or
Repairs
From: Robert F. Blackmore
Tarlow Jordan & Schrader
Dear Gary,
We have received and read the legal opinion from the attorney for Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue
regarding sprinkler systems in relation to alterations of existing buildings. First of all, Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue has no authority within the Uniform Building Code. They do, however,
have authority under the Fire Code. Their statement that a partially sprinklered building may
result in a false sense of security and may lead fire fighters to assume that the entire building is
protected is valid. But the Building Division is still limited on the authority to require a full
system. •
We have talked with the Fire Marshal, Jeff Grunewald, about the possibility of permitting an
alternate method of construction in lieu of sprinklers. This would entail the owner to hard wire
smoke detectors in the entire building to current code standards instead of a partial sprinkler
system. Currently, they are only required to -provide battery operated smoke detectors in existing
buildings. We have talked with the owner about this and he is very receptive to the idea. We
have suggested this because the fire death, and the property loss, were direct results of inoperable
battery operated smoke detectors. These detectors were located between the kitchens and the
bedrooms, which were permitted under the code they were built to. The tenants have habitually
removed the batteries from them because of the sensitivity to smoke and fumes from the kitchen
ranges. If these were hard - wired, this would not have been possible without removing the
electrical wiring connections. The new smoke detectors are also equipped with a "hush button"
that allows the occupant to temporarily silence the alarm in case of accidental alarms caused by
incidental cooking heat and smoke. These are usually about 10 minutes in duration and do not
disable the alarm's ability to function properly. Had these apartments been provided with these
types of detectors, we believe there would not have been a death and property damage would
have been minimal because the tenants would have been alerted of the fire much earlier.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
The City of Tigard firmly believes that providing hard -wired smoke detectors not only in the
altered areas, but retrofitting them throughout the entire building, will provide the degree of
safety that the Fire Marshal is seeking. Our opinion is that if the Fire Marshal believes he has
recourse to require the building to be fully sprinklered, then it is up to TVF &R to pursue that
through their legal channels. Our proposal would negate the fire Marshal's concern about
partially sprinklered buildings and the problematic issues of fire fighting tactics.
The City of Tigard is of the opinion that the building official has the authority to grant this type
of a modification under Oregon Structural Specialty Code Section 104.2.8, Alternate materials,
alternate design and methods of construction.
Mr. Blackmore makes a statement in the last part of the third sentence of the second paragraph of
his letter that states, "and will not result in the existing portion becoming less safe." This is either
a typographical error or it seems to support the City's opinion. Chapter 34 of the building code
says alterations can be made without requiring the rest of the building to meet code as long as the
alteration does make the rest of the building more unsafe than it was before.
We also do not agree with the rationality of a partial system making the rest of the building more
unsafe than it was before the alteration, as stated in the second to last paragraph of the second
page.
We do not believe the City can deny permits for the alteration of this project if the plans conform
to the code requirements we have the authority to enforce. Requiring conditions of a building
permit without having a firm code basis to enforce our action could result in serious liability to
the City.
We urge you to review the correspondence from Mr. Blackmore closely and hopefully we can
resolve this issue and end up with a much safer building than before.
You can reach me at (503) 639 -4171 ext. 311 if you need any information that will help you.
Sincerely,
/47,4,A
Gary Lampella
Building Official
c. Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development
Bill Monahan, City Manager