06/24/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" , 1 C. Abatement, 1891 Bailey Hill Road i Building report was read with regard to efforts to get the property at this location, owned by Marylhurst College, brought to code. The report indicated deteriorated I condition of the building. Staff recommended that abatement proceed. \ . Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. I i \ \ Resolution No. 2300 '- Authorizing abatem~nt, 1'891 Bailey Hill Road, was read by \ I number and title. \ . , I;. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. ,i . ' Motion carried unanimously. i D. Code Amendments i , 1. Fire i I 2. Structural Specialty I i : 3. Housing , \ i 4. Masonry Contractors i i 5. Mechanical Speciality 6. Swimming Pool I --.--"- .----.----- I Fire Code Amendments - Copies of memo from Fire Chief Ev Hall were previously dis- tributed to Council members .~xplaining changes in the fire codE! to be effected . through adoption of the 1973 Uniform Fire Code and bringing the ci ty code into con- i 'formity with recently adopted 'State legislation. Chief Hajl said amendments in- cluded regulations for fire alarm systems and prohibition of sale of fireworks . inside buildings in add~tion to minor changes clarifying language. I ! i Councilwoman Beal was under the impression that city ordinance prohibited sale of i fireworks entirely. Assistant Manager said that only certain types ,were legal and I regulated under this code. ' ~ \ Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the adoptin of the I 1973 Uniform Fire Code. Motion carried unanimously. Assistant Manager called councii's attention to major deficiency in State legislation with regard to the fire code - it did not require sprinkler systems in structures higher than five stories, providing instead for alternative fire protection measures. Chief Hall explained that the'city by law cannot adopt measures more restrictive than those adopted by the State. He fel t requirements, for sprinkler systems in high-rise buildings important and asked the Council to give all possible help in seeking amendment to the State code in that regard. ' Assistant ,City Attorney John , Franklin added that there ,was some indication the ~tate Attorney General was of the I i opinion that local fire regulations could be more restrictive than the Structural . Speciality Code"in which case the city would probably be able to require sprinklering systems in high-rise buildings. . i Councilman wood expressed concern for safety reasons and favored doirg everything possiDle to gain State amendment if the requirement was not permitted under city regulations. Assistant Manager said a definite response on the Attorney General's opinion would be forthcoming. \ Councilwoman Campbell asked whether plans of high-r.ise buildings now under construction could be adjusted if this code was adopted and was told' that the amendment would have I : ~<:>. be-Flq"qg..:re.troacti.v..e." J.nTf';!?P9ns~..to",Col,l.n~ilman_ Mc.Don,alq '.!3. .ques~ioI'J _?b<?l1,~. pc>s,i tion rof 'insurqnce"people in this regard and whether State or,city would inspect, Assistant , Manager said there had been no response from insurance companies although they had been asked for comment in terms of deficiency points in the city's fire rating. He said the city would continue inspections under State certification. I 0" j ;Councilman Wood wondered what determined the five-story height over which the fire I ;department people thought sprinklering was important. Chief Hall answered that that ; height was within the limit of their cap?bilityfor rescue efforts with an aerial ladder. Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to support the recommendation for amendment to the State Fire Code to require fire sprinkler systems in buildings higher than five stories, if further staff investigation shows . the city cannot make that requirement under its Structural Specialty Code. .,,-...:. y' Councilwoman Campbell felt the cost and risk to builders on structures now being erected should be considered. David Hunt, Eugene Renewal Agency director, said those buildings under cons~ruction in the downtown area were having to meet a much stricter code than that being adopted. He cited fLre protection measures required by the structural code and the heavy penalties if those regulations were not met. So there was no reason to believe, he said, that the buildings under construction i__ ._.__l!9.ll.1d constitute fire hazards. '...- . . --'''-''''.---.- . . -'" -- _'_"__H._.~""__ - .'-~ ,. - ._~ -..,.....-.~<~_.- .-- - ---. ..~.--.- _..-- .- -~ 2.1 , 6(24/74 - 3 l