Basis of Design Book 2 - City of St. Petersburg

Meeting Minutes (Rev 01)
project The New St. Petersburg Pier
subject Conceptual Fire Safety Strategy Presentation
date 26 September 2012
time 10am – 12pm
place St. Petersburg City Council Offices
present Chris Ballestra – St. Petersburg, City Development Administration
J. Raul Quintana ) St. Petersburg, Engineering & Capital Improvements
Bryan Eichler – St. Petersburg, Engineering & Capital Improvements
Donald L Tyre – St. Petersburg, Construction Services and Permitting (DT)
Rick Dunn ) St. Petersburg, Construction Services and Permitting
Robert Bassett – St. Petersburg, Fire & Rescue (RB)
Phil Guglietti ) St. Petersburg, Fire & Rescue
Tom Gibson – St. Petersburg Engineering (TG)
Mike Conners – St. Petersburg Engineering
Lisa Wannemacher – Wannemacher Jensen Architects Inc. (LW)
Carl Keogh – Buro Happold (CK)
distribution Above + St. Petersburg Pier Design Team
The following meeting minutes represent the items discussed by the team above as a consequence of the fire
strategy presentation given by Buro Happold. For all items within the presentation not mentioned below, the
team made no comment and it is assumed that these represent an acceptable concept to pursue as part of
the piers developing design criteria.
Item
1.0 The proposal for a dry pipe standpipe system for the pier was queried by RB. He expressed
concern that as a consequence of the length of the system (and the pressure losses this creates) it
may take an extended period of time to charge the fire main and that the pressure achieved at the
most remote outlets may be insufficient for fire)fighting. Of particular concern was the pressure &
flow achievable at the outlets within the direct vicinity of the marina. RB stated that boat fires are
not an uncommon occurrence and require the use of foam for effective fire)fighting which requires
a specific minimum flow and pressure to be provided (RB to provide data for this). CK accepted
RB’s concerns and stated that the team would examine the issues to establish the viability of the
dry standpipe system. If sufficient flow and pressure was not achievable then an extension to the
existing municipal hydrant system running out to the pier down 2nd Ave would be considered. In
such an instance a hydrant within close proximity of the marina would be advantageous.
2.0 RB stated that while they have a fire boat, it was not capable of fire)fighting and should not be
considered as part of the piers fire strategy.
3.0 RB & DT accepted that code did not require sprinkler protection for the buildings on the pier under
500ft 2 . They did however request that the team consider sprinkler protection to all enclosed
buildings (irrespective of their size) as a consequence of vehicular access being limited to selected
Fire Dept. appliances. An NFPA compliant sprinkler system, fed from the pier’s domestic water
supply system, would be considered acceptable to the Fire Dept./City.
4.0 Fire vehicle access along the pier was discussed and RB accepted that vehicles opposing the flow
of evacuees would occur in an emergency situation. In instances when the maximum occupancy
were present (NYE/4 July etc.) it was accepted that specific event management would be
employed (to a greater extent than in normal day operation) and that the team would engage the
Cities Risk Management Department to progress these discussions that will feed into the piers
overall management strategy. Tom Gibson to contact Risk Management.
5.0 As part of the pier’s egress analysis, a ‘time line’ establishing the pre)determined attendance times
of the Fire Depts. response would be included. RB stated that the Dept. can provide all information
required by CK in order to complete this portion of the analysis.
Action
RB &
Buro
Happold
Note
Buro
Happold
Design
Team
& TG
RB &
Buro
Happold