02/09/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Ms. Schue asked for a response on the health question and was advised by Mr. Page that these include: 1) off-gassing from man-made materials; and 2) natural gas pollutants and by-products. Measurements are being monitored at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Health hazards occur in buldings that are extremely tight but no evidence has been seen in super-insulated new homes and the houses that complied with the proposed code. The council review in 1984 would ensure that there were no health hazards. Ms. Wooten responded to the conflict of interest question and had been advised by Mr. Long, City Attorney, that belonging to non-profit associations or corpo- rations does not constitute a conflict of interest. Mr. Long concurred. Mr. Lindberg asked for a staff response to a suggestion from the Rental Owners Association that code violatiorr processes be modified. Mr. Long responded that the proposed ordinance becomes part of the housing code and follows the same process of notice and hearing before an order of compliance is entered. Mr. Lindberg asked if there was discretion and leeway in the amount of time given and was advised by Mr. Page that the period of notice has varied, depending on the severity of the conditions. e Ms. Smith said the question was raised about possible errors and the need for technical advice on insulation standards for floors and ceilings. Mr. Page said that the standards were proposed and circulated last spring. . 'EWEB considers them cost-effective and will finance them. The process does include an appeals process and a person could challenge the EWEB inspector and forward it to the City. Mr. Obie asked staff to directly address R-30 in the ceiling. Mr. Page responded that R-30 was the equivalent to 9-1/2 inches of fiberglass batts. The cost to EWEB of adding R-30 to no insulation is a three-cents-per-kilowatt-hour saving over the life of the structure compared to the cost of new generation of five cents per kilowatt hour. Mr. Obie asked why R-19 wasn't used. Mr. Page said that R-11 was cheaper and cost-effective but R-30 remained substantially more cost-effective than new generation and was required by the State Building Code. Mr. Obie asked for the amortization period of insulating at R-30 and was advised that for materials only and adding R-30 to a currently uninsulated attic it was less than one year, and for a contractor, two years. Mr. Lindberg asked if precedents existed in other areas of the code for having an appeals process. Mr. Long advised that most regulatory ordinances are accom- panied by an appeals process to the council level. The process required would be an appeal of an inspector's decision to the building board of appeals and then to the council. Mr. Lindberg specifically addressed the concern of more bureacratic waste and asked whether the appeals board would be made up of citi- zens. Mr. Long responded affirmatively. Mr. Obie commented that during his involvement with the energy board and ordi- . nance, he had been intrigued with mandatory weatherization because of the offsetting costs relative to the building of new generation plants. If the ordinance passed, this community would spend approximately $25 million weather- izing homes, but to create that amount of energy $75 million to $100 million - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9 Page 11