HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/2001 Adjourned Meeting / Study Session 11 5
CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
ADJOURNED MEETING - STUDY SESSION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 13, 2001 - 7:30 A.M.
POLICE STATION /LEGAL CENTER - 200 SOUTH 3 STREET
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett,
Henry Beauchamp, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims
Absent: Council Members Lynn Buchanan and Larry Mattson (excused)
Staff: Glenn Rice, Acting City Manager; Larry Peterson, Assistant City
Attorney; Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic
Development; Al Gillespie, Fire Chief; Don Blesio, Police Chief
(present after 7:50 a.m.); Doug Maples, Code Administration
Manager; Jack Lovell, Supervising Code Inspector; and City Clerk
Roberts
Others: Barbara Cline, Don Moen, Howard Moore, and Bill Maier, Council
Economic Development Sub - Committee members from the
construction industry
2. REVIEW OF UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION CODE AMENDMENTS
• Bill Cook introduces the code amendments for discussion
Bill Cook displayed a typical set of plans that his staff reviews to ensure that the
building is designed and built to "codes ". He also displayed the five books that
comprise the 1997 Uniform Building Codes (UBC). He stated that a committee
was formed with a goal of reviewing the UBC to determine amendments for our
local codes. Cities may amend the UBC for clarification, but the local codes
cannot be made less restrictive than the UBC. Mayor Place interjected that the
State Legislature is asking the state to adopt the International Building Code.
Doug Maples stated that in the WAC it is identified as the UC, in our ordinances it
is identified as the International Building Code (IBC). The Committee was asked
to utilize the International Building Code as an alternate process. It is contained
in Section 104.2.8 in the Building Code, Section 103.1.2 in the Fire Code and
• Section 105.2 in the Mechanical Code; the Plumbing Code does not have it in it.
He reminded Council that the City does not do electrical review or inspections;
that is under the purview of Labor and Industries.
• Council reviews the amendments
Council Member Barnett stated he has four areas of concern: (1) power of law
enforcement officer; (2) right to enter; (3) limitations of authority of the Board of
Appeals; and (4) power to adopt supplemental regulations.
116
FEBRUARY 13, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING
(2) Right to enter
Council Member Barnett directed Council's attention to Chapter 1 of the Building
Code where it talks about the right of entry. He said it is basically the same in the
other codes; however, the Fire Code has been written separately using different
language. He suggested that the right of entry used in the 1997 UBC Chapter
104.2.3 could be incorporated into all the ordinances. The last sentence could be
changed from "If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the
remedies provided by law to secure entry' to read "If entry is refused, the building
official, or authorized representative, may apply to any court of competent
jurisdiction for an inspection warrant authorizing access to such property. The
court may, upon such application and a proper showing, issue the inspection
warrant for the purposes requested. "Council Member Barnett stated they should
have to get a warrant. Mr. Maples agreed, stating his understanding is that was
the remedy provided by law. It was the consensus of the Council to accept this
modification.
(4) Supplemental regulations:
Council Member Barnett commented that the authority of the Building Official to
adopt supplemental regulations was changed in one of the codes, but did not get
changed in all the codes. He asked that the other codes be changed to make it
uniform in all the codes. He stated he would like to see the language changed to
what is on page 42 in the Uniform Housing Code. The new language would read,
The building official shall have the power to render interpretations of this code
and enforce rules and supplemental regulations to clarify the application of its
provisions. Such interpretations, rules and regulations shall be in conformity with
the intent and purpose of this code." Mr. Maples concurred.
(1) Power of law enforcement officer:
Council Member Barnett pointed out that the term law enforcement officer is used
in lieu of police officer in the Fire Code, which he doesn't object to; however, he
noted it was not used in all the ordinances. He asked if it is needed in the other
codes. After discussion about the ordinances having different language in them
but the same intent, Larry Peterson offered to bring back standard wording for
Council's review that can be utilized in all the ordinances.
(3) Limitation of authority of the Board of Appeals
Council Member Barnett voiced his concerns with the language on page 6 in the
Building Code relating to administrative provisions that cannot be appealed to the
Board of Appeals. Mr. Maples addressed this issue stating he researched this
further after an earlier discussion with Council Member Barnett. The
administrative organization of the Building Department is in part one of the
ordinance, and regulations and enforcement of rules, which relates to the
technical portion, is part two of the ordinance. Chapter One of the ordinance
relates to the purpose and organization of the ordinance and defines terms
contained in the ordinance. If there were an appeal, it would be on the technical
merits and not the administrative portion of the Code. The administrative portion
is the Council's responsibility to address. The technical portion is the
2
117.
FEBRUARY 13, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING
responsibility of the Building Code Official. For example, if he were to deny a
certificate of occupancy, there is a mechanism in the ordinance that allows that
decision to be appealed to the Board of Appeals. It is a ten -day process. The
Board would hear the technical merits that he based his decision on to deny the
certificate and hear from the appellant his side of the issue. Bill Cook interjected
that perhaps the word procedural could replace the word administrative. We don't
want this Board to have to hear procedural issues. Assistant City Attorney
Peterson urged the Council to maintain the language in the ordinance that limits
the power of the Board of Appeals to interpret the Code and not be able to waive
any regulation or requirements in the Code. Council discussed the appeal
process, including who makes the final decision — Council or the court.
• Comments from the Committee Members are heard
Also discussed was the composition of the Board, increasing the membership to
seven from five to add a Washington State plumber and journeyman mechanical
contractor. Mr. Moen had a concern about being so specific as to require a
journeyman mechanical contractor. He asked if the word "shall" is necessary
when speaking about the composition of the Board. Mr. Peterson stated he
would look at that language again.
Discussion ensued regarding the relationship of the size of the building to the
parking requirements and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. For
example, Mr. Moen pointed out that when the Catholic Credit Union was built,
they allowed for storage in the basement and since that space was calculated
into the total size of the building the parking requirements were increased. A
restricted certificate of occupancy could have been issued that would not allow
that space to be occupied by people and then not be included in the parking
requirement calculation. Mr. Maples interjected that the parking requirements are
contained in the zoning ordinance. Mayor Place suggested that perhaps a
meeting could be arranged in the future to discuss this issue. Council Member
Sims suggested that more people from the construction industry should be
invited to attend that meeting. Acting City Manager Rice suggested that Doug
Maples work with the industry and then bring back their results. Mr. Maples
suggested using this same committee to look at that issue.
• Executive Session re Pending Litigation
At 8:50 a.m. Council adjourned into Executive Session for approximately 10
minutes to discuss pending litigation with immediate adjournment thereafter.
3. ADJOURNMENT TO FEBRUARY 20, 2001 AT 7:30 A.M. AT THE POLICE
STATION /LEGAL CENTER FOR REVIEW OF IRRIGATION STUDY
Following the conclusion of the Executive Session the meeting adjourned at
9:25 a.m.
3