06/14/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

buildings, he said at present there were four buildings that cannot meet the requirement because of Code deficiencies, and would have to e provide automatic sprinklers throughout, or correct the building defi- ciencies. Those four were: Carson Hall, and University Inn, at the University of Oregon; Eugene Hotel, and Eugene Manner. Presently, two of the four are in the process of providing sprinkler systems. Mr. Wick noted the use of smoke detectors would work well with the Master Satellite System in which ~arly warning would prove to be important to keep fire damage to a minimum and to save more lives. Mr. Obie wondered if there was an alternative to enforcing the smoke detector installation other than at the time of property exchange. Assistant Manager noted for Council that any major remodeling of dwellings requires a smoke detector be installed, and this is presently handled by housing inspectors. A second alternative would be to have fire suppression crews inspect, but this would create a problem of increased cost to the City and the problem of whether or not there was the right to enter individual private dwellings. This ordinance was felt to be the easiest and most effective way to approach the prOblem. Manager noted Council could also mandate it by written intent in a sales contract. Mr. Williams expressed disagreement with the need for the City to introduce stronger enforcement procedures than the Uniform Fire Code criterion. He wondered why City Council had to deal with the problem when the National Code does not require such. Assistant Manager said three firefighters on a ladder would not save any lives unless some forewarning existed. He noted the Fire Chief had said there were six instances in the past several e months where a smoke detector had saved lives; five others where the absence of a smoke detector took lives. The main concern was in high-rise structures, in particular. Mr. Delay suggested the significant point was a manpower problem, with advanced warning for protection of individual lives also important. Mr. Williams still wondered if the National Fire Code did not feel it important to include smoke detector installation within the Code, why it was the city's responsibility to add such. Mr. Obie requested legal staff to provide research regarding apartment owners responsibility/liability after a smoke detector is installed. Mr. Wick said a provision in the code required a renter to notify the owner in writing if a smoke detector were defective; the owner then had 10 days to correct the deficiency. Mr. Delay expressed concern regarding the area he represented in which there were many rentals in older frame houses. He felt there should be sufficient pUblicity to ensure installation of smoke detectors in that area. Mr. Wick said the Fire Department automatically inspects any dwelling that has three or more rental units. HCC inspects all others. He noted there were good quality battery and electric smoke detectors available for as little as $10. Either could be installed in existing buildings, but electric smoke detectors are required in all new buildings. All must be UAL approved. Manager again noted the item would be scheduled for public hearing Monday, June 26. - A short recess was taken. 6/14/78 - 4 *~1