Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
5.36 26-0287 Subject: Amendments To The Oakland Fire Code
From: Oakland Fire Department
Recommendation: Adopt An Emergency Ordinance: (1) Repealing Current Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, "The Oakland Fire Code"; (2) Adopting And Making Local Amendments To The 2025 Edition Of The California Model Building Code, California Code Of Regulations Title 24, Part 9 (Also Referred To As The "California Fire Code"); (3) Recodifying Said Code As Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, "The Oakland Fire Code"; And (4) Adopting California Environmental Quality Act Exemption Findings
The adoption of Appendix D requiring road widths of 26’ for buildings that are over 30’ tall pits fire safety needs against traffic safety needs. A strict application means multiple 13' wide travel lanes, which is excessive and results in increased driver speeding. The FHWA has reported that increasing 11' wide lanes to 12' wide increases average car speeds by 2 mph, and increasing from 10' to 12' increases average speeds by 7 mph. This can mean the difference between an injury versus a fatality, in a crash situation.
It is very difficult to mitigate the impact of wider travel lanes with other design details, and this excessive amount of space required has already resulted in some bike/walk safety projects being downgraded significantly. This includes a Lakeside protected 2-way cycletrack between 14th and 17th Street which has already been downgraded to a one-way painted bike lane instead, in order to accommodate OFD's 26' clearance mandate. In 2023 a 100 year old senior was killed in a crosswalk by a hit-run driver there at the intersection of Lakeside and 14th Street. Reducing lane widths and narrowing crosswalk clearances via a Lakeshore cycletrack installation could have made a difference in this case.
Please reject the Appendix D adoption, and instead allow OakDOT and OFD to continue coordinating on individual project design needs on an individual basis, without unnecessarily setting a clearance mandate that can get in the way of this coordination.
The fire code amendments you have submitted lack clarity in interpretation.
Publishing Fire Code Appendix D in full is a violation of ICC copyright. ICC
regularly sues organizes which publish fire code.
Amendment states that Oakland is adopting Chapter 5, section 503. But
Oakland does not specify which 503. Is this California 503 or ICC 503?
If ICC 503 is adopted, how does Oakland propose to resolve conflicts
between 503.2.1 and California Title 24, which is part of California
Fire Code.
California Title 24 specifies 20 feet wide lanes for fire apparatus
access roads, allowing for the inclusion of shoulders when determining width.
ICC 503.2.1 does not allow shoulders to be including when measure the
width of the road.
Which section takes precedence. Is Oakland allowed to delete parts of
California fire code?
The adoption of Appendix D requiring road widths of 26’ for buildings that are over 30’ tall pits fire safety needs against traffic safety needs. A strict application means multiple 13' wide travel lanes, which is excessive and results in increased driver speeding. The FHWA has reported that increasing 11' wide lanes to 12' wide increases average car speeds by 2 mph, and increasing from 10' to 12' increases average speeds by 7 mph. This can mean the difference between an injury versus a fatality, in a crash situation.
It is very difficult to mitigate the impact of wider travel lanes with other design details, and this excessive amount of space required has already resulted in some bike/walk safety projects being downgraded significantly. This includes a Lakeside protected 2-way cycletrack between 14th and 17th Street which has already been downgraded to a one-way painted bike lane instead, in order to accommodate OFD's 26' clearance mandate. In 2023 a 100 year old senior was killed in a crosswalk by a hit-run driver there at the intersection of Lakeside and 14th Street. Reducing lane widths and narrowing crosswalk clearances via a Lakeshore cycletrack installation could have made a difference in this case.
Please reject the Appendix D adoption, and instead allow OakDOT and OFD to continue coordinating on individual project design needs on an individual basis, without unnecessarily setting a clearance mandate that can get in the way of this coordination.