The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - February 5, 1992 (73)L ov CITY OF LODI AGENDA TITLE: Communications (January 7, 1992 through January 28, 1992) MEETING DATE: PREPARED BY: February 5, 1992 City Clerk RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA ITEM RECOMMENDATION That the City Council review the attached appeal of Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. and take action as deemed appropriate. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following communication was received between the dates of January 7, 1592 and January 28, 1992. Attached is a letter received from Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. (marked Exhibit A) appealing the decision of the Lodi Chief Building Official not to let their company roof over existing shake and wood shingle roofs with Decrabond Tile as per IC80 Report 3009. FUNDING: None required at this time. ift) 'k - 4X&-11) Alice M. Reimche City Clerk APPROVED TT THOMAS PETERSON r6cYc.eQ D�P.s< CFty Mflnagef C0UNC0M8/fXTA.02.'/C0JNC0M cc CONTRACTORS L1C NO bf9906 11350 Monmr Park Placa Rarwlw Cordova. CA 95742 (916 ) 635.6300 (800; 422 1450 JANUARY 2, 1997 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LODI 221 WEST PINE STREET LODI, CA 95241— 1910 DEAR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: APPEAL OF DECISION BY CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL NOT TO LET US ROOF OVER EXITING SHAKE AND WOOD SHINGLE ROOFS WITH DECRATI',E AS PER ICBO REPORT 3409. CURRENTLY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL DOES NOT ALLOW US TO RE—ROOF OVER SHAKE OR WOOD SHINGLE EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE AN ICBO REPORT THAT ALLOWS THAT METHOD OF INSTALLATION. THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) ADDITIONAL WEIGHT: OUR PRODUCT WEIGHS 1 1/2 LBS/SQ.FT. AN EXISTING HEAVY SHAKE ROOF WEIGHS ABOUT 2 1 , 4 GBS . / SQ . FT. WHEN DRY, INCREASING TO 3 1/2 1_,BS . / SQ . FT . VH EN WET. OUR ROOF INSTALLED OVER A HEAVY SHAKE WEI,AiS ABOUT 3 3/4 LBS/SQ. FT., MARGINALLY HEAVIER THAN THE EXISTING SHAKE ROOF WHEN WET AND WELL WITH IN THE DESIGN LOAD LIMIT OF 7 LBS/SQ. F7 . WE FEEL THAT OUR PROL'UCT IS BEING CONFUSED WITH OTHER SO CALLED "LIGHT WEIGH' ROOFING TILES" WHICH WEIGH 6-8 LBS/SQ. FT. AND REQUIRE THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY YOUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 2) CONDITION OF. EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE: DRY—ROT (OR MORE CORRECTLY WET ROT) NEEDS MOISTURE. TO EXIST. IT IS MOSTLY FOUND AROUND THE PERIMETER OF A STRUCTURE, ALONG THE EAVES. OUR METHOD OF INSTAILArION ENSURES WE FIND AND REPLACE ANY DAMAGED WOOD. 3) ATTACHMENT- Of ROOF -. TO EXISTING ROUT' SUB—STRUCTURE: WE INSTALL A LUMBVE GRID SYSTEM WHICH IS ATTACHED THROUGH THE EXISTING WOO€? SHINGLE OR SHAKE ROOF TO THE STRUCTURE; BELOW. OUR ROOF SY 'ri: ? PROVIDES A STRUCTURAL DIAPHRAGM EQUIVALENT TO I14STALLI Nay 15/32 PLYWOOD AND IMPROVES THE DIAPHRAGM CREATE[) BY SPACED SHEATHING BY APPROXIMATELY 300=. 'l rl :l f7 Ci 2278 Pace Ci. Svne D 1160 A Inouatral Ave 1092 fio•a"ce Way 1673 Donbn SL /205 9272 JerG-r�o a, 20 7370 Ogmn,,ity 4d. Surne 0 Ct,xa4CA 94520 ael�w+ k CA 94952 CampoA. CA 95008 Ventum CA 93003 irw*. CA 92718 Sar Diego. CA 92' 11 1415; 627 3693 (70; ,,'ss 9380 14081 378 0450 (8053 650 8682 (714) 58308$4 (6=9', 266 1215 1800` 365 7227 1KC-1 564 -56A (u= 5626222 (W') 682 6676 (800) 433 5644 (80C) W-5404 CURRENT REQUIREMENTS BY YOUR CITY: 1) TEAR OFF OF EXISTING ROOF. 2) INSTALL PLYWOOD OR FILL IN THE SKIP SHEATHING. 3) INSTALL FELT. 4) INSTALL OUR ROOF SYSTEM. COST FOR ITEMS 1-3 IS ABOUT $2700.00 FOR AN AVERAGE HOME IN LODI. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN UNNECESSARY ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. LEAVING THE EXISTING ROOF ACCOMPLISHES THE FOLLOWING: —PROTECTS THE STRUCTURE WHILE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. —AVOIDS DUMPING APPROXIMATELY 30 CUBIC YARDS OF CEDAR (WHICH DOES NOT READILY DECOMPOSE) IN YOUR LAND FILLS. —ALLOWS THE HOMEOWNER TO RETAIN THE INSULATION PROVIDED BY THE EXISTING SHAKE OR WOOD SHINGLE ROOF. —ALLOWS THE HOMEOWNER TO PURCHASE A SUPERIOR ROOF AT A REDUCED COST. 'r'E HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR STRIVING TO PROVIDE QUALITY WORK AND ABIDE BY THE BUILDING CODES. WE PROVIDE OUR CUSTOMERS WITH A 20 YEAR WORKMANSHIP WARRANTY AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLED MORE THAT 50,000 ROOFS OVER SHAKE OR WOOD SHINGLE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS REQUESTED IN YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 1991, I AM ENCLOSING A COPY OF ICBO REPORT 3409 TO SUPPORT OUR POSITION. WE ARE CONCERNED THAT SECTION ?Ud (A) OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED, SPECI�'ICI,LLY AS IT RELATES TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS NOT BEING EMPLOYEES OF YOUR JURISDICTION. PLEASE ADVISE OF YOUR POSITION ON THIS HATTER. PLEASE ALLOW US TO PRESENT YOU WITH DOCUMENTATION TO WZHEREL YOU THE THE FOREGOING CLAIMS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE /MANY BENEFITS OUR ROOFING SYSTEM PROVIDES. X . — AW..SCIEERA'TIONS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CAL—PAC FOOFING CITY OF LODI _ MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY axsrassssate:ssxaxass=xasss::sss:=eeessxxssexasaxa -ic: James B. Schroeder, Community Development Director From: Bob McNatt, City Attorney Date: January 15, 1992 Subject: BOARD OF APPEALS (UNIFORM BUILDING CODE) a3sasssxsxaraxaxara:xxaaxasxaxaxxc=xxsaarssnsrcaaaessssssssssasssasssssssaxs In response to the January 2. 1992 letter from Dan Smuts, Vice President of Cal-Pac Roofing, I have done some research regarding the composition of the Building Board of Appeals. The point he expressed was that Section 204 0) of the Uniform Building Code states that the appeals board shall not be "employees" of the City. Since the City Council, in Lodi Municipal Code Section 15.04.040. has designated itself to be the Building Board of Appeals, Mr. Smuts apparently believes this violates the "no employees" provision. I believe he is incorrect. Under Government Code Section 36501. city council members are "officers" of a municipality, as distinguished from "employees". There are numerous cases distinguishing between "employees" and "officers". (Sharpe v. Los Angeles 136 Cal.App. 732; Chavez v. Sprague 25 Cal. Rptr. 603 Even if these cases and statutes did not exist, the Council could still appoint itself the Appeals Board, since it is not mandatory that cities adopt the UBC in any specific form. The Standard Codes (including UBC) are merely a convenience to establish some degree of uniformity throughout the country. A city is free if it wishes to adopt an entirely different set of regulations or to adopt the Codes with any modifications deemed appropriate. That is what Lodi has done in Chapter 15.04 of the Municipal Code. This Chapter contains several modifications to the UBC. These include LMC Section 15.04.040 which explicitly amends UBC Section 204 to name the Council as the Board of Appeals. As such, it is entirely proper for the Council to act as the Appeals Board for matters involving the UBC. Please let me know if there are further questions. MCNATT City Attorney BM: vc cc: Roger Houston, Chief Building Inspector CDR00FS/TXTA.01V Da"we"suc-No.6"m "no wN.r ft* Phew pm�m WQ JANUARY 2, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF M D I 221 WEST PINE STREET MDI, CA 95241-1910 DEAR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ECEI VE,rr e• ; CITY APPEAL OF DECISION BY CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAI. NOT TO LET US ROOF OVER EXITING SHAKE AND ''400D SHINGLE ROOFS WITI1 DECRATILE AS PER ICBO REPORT 3409. CURRENTLY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL IJOES NOT ALLOW US TO RE -ROOF OVER SHAKE OR WOOD SHINGLE EVEN TIMUGII WE IIAVE AN ICBO REPORT THAT ALLOWS THAT METHOD OF INST71LIATION, THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) ADDITIONAL WEIGHT: OUR PRODUCT WEIGHS 1 1/2 LBS/SQ.FT. AN EXISTING HEAVY S I E A K E ROOF WEIGHS ABOUT 2 1/11 LBS. / SQ . FT. WHEN DRY, INCREASING TO 3 1/2 LBS . / SQ . FT . WHEN WET. OUR ROOF INSTALLED OVER A REAVY SltAKE WEIGHS ABOUT 3 3/11 LBS/SQ. FT., MARGINALLY I1EAVIER T#IAN TIIE EXISTING SHAKE ROOF WIfEN WET AND WELL WITII IN T11E DESIGN LOAD LIMIT OF LBS/SQ. FT. WE FEEL TilAT OUR PRODUCT IS BEING CONFUSED WITH OTI(ER SO CALLED "LIG14T WEIGHT ROOFING TILES" WHICII W F I CM G-8 LBS / SQ . FT. AND REQUIRE THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY YOUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 2) CONCITION OF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE: DRY -ROT (OR MORE CORRECTLY WET ROT) NEEDS MOISTURE TO EXIST. IT IS MOSTLY FOUND AROUND THE PERIMETER OF A STRUCTURF, ALONG THE EAVES. OUR MFT110D OF INSTALLATION ENSURES WE FIND AND REPLACE ANY DAMAGED 44OOD . 3) ATTACHMENT OF ROOF TO EXISTING ROOF SUES -STRUCTURE: WE INSTALL A l,Url B F,R GRID SYSTEM MI I CI I IS ATTACIf ED THROUGH THE F;XISTIrJG WOOD SHING1,17, OR SHAKF: ROOF TO THE STRUCTURE BELOW. OUR ROOF SYSTFM PROVIDES A f3TftUCT(JRAl, DIAMIRAGhl EQUIVIIkEtIT TO IFS STAIAAW-, 15/37. PLYWOOD AND IMPROVES TIIE DIAMIRRGM CRFATF#) RY ;PACED S11FATHI0G BY APPROXIMATELY 300%. n r: n n n n ??s' r to n :.Ptn n 11011 A ln&m rW Avw 1M? (lorwntn *iy 1673 Damon S! M, ps 9777 Jmo-imn r120 7370 OpoorkmAt Rd. Sarm 0 C-("4 CA ofc q Pw -thL�m CA WK1 Camrhnll. CA 05MO 1MnA)ra. CA 93 '13 Lyne. CA 91718 Son "o, CA9?111 o I,,t W77 +f"1 I MI) 7Fc napn Iv)A) 370 0," (WE+S)w *42 (714# 543 ORM4 p9l2g8 1215 fonl) -ra 7+77 (mm 564 7%4 (AM) 562 6222 0800) 981 6676 (800} 433 5544 (MM 548 5404 CURRENT REQUIREMENTS BY YOUR CITY: 1) TEAR OFF OF EXISTING ROOF. 2) INSTALL PLYWOOD OR FILL IN THE SKIP SHEATHING. 3) INSTALL FELT. 4) INSTALL OUR ROOF SYSTEM. COST FOR ITEMS 1-3 IS ABOUT $2700.00 FOR AN AVERAGE HOME IN LODI. )AE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN UNNECESSARY ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO YOUR CON!;TITUENTS. LEAVING THE EXISTING ROOF ACCOMPLISHES THE FOLLOWING: -PROTECTS THE STRUCTURE WHILE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. -AVOIDS DUMPING APPROXIMATELY 30 CUBIC YARDS OF CEDAR (WHICH DOES NOT READILY DECOMPOSE) IN Y O 0 R LAND FILLS. -ALLOWS THE 110ME,OWNER TO RE'T'AIN THE INSULATION PROVIDED BY THE EXISTING SHAKE OR WOOD SHINGLE ROOF. -ALLOWS THE HOMEOWNER TO PURCHASE A SUPERIOR ROOF AT A REDUCED COST. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR STRIVING TO PROVIDE QUALITY WORK AND ABIDE BY TiiE BUIi,DING CODES. WE PROVIDE OUR CUSTOMERS WIT)[ A 20 YEAR WORKMANSi!IP WARRANTY AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLED MORE TIIAT 50,000 ROOFS OVER SfiAKE OR WOOD SHINGLE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS REQUESTED IN YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 1991, I AM ENCLOSING A COPY OF ICBO REPORT 3409 TO SUPPORT OUR POSITION. M ARE CONCERNED TIiAT SECTION 204 (A) OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED, SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS NOT BEING EMPLOYEES OF YOUR JURISDIC^'ION. PLEASE ADVISE OF YOUR POSITION ON THIS MATTER. PLEASE ALLOW US TO PRESENT YOU W I Tf I DOCUMENTATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FOREGOING CLAIMS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE W AH YOU THE MANY BENEFITS OUR ROOFING SYSTEM PROVIDES. V.P. OPERATIONS NORTHERN CALI FORN I A CAL -PAC ROOFING 202.204 UNIFORMSUILDiNp CODE 168a€DMON • 204.205 official after receipt of such notice to make the structure. or portion thereof, intt:tpeetation of this cede, these OW1 be tmd is hereby CMVWd a Bored Of Appeats comply with the requirements of this code, consistingofinembers ►rho arc qualified by experience and training to pass upon I� matters pertaining to building construction and who are m employees of the (f) Liability. The building official, or his authorized representativecharged faith jurisdiction. The building official shall kin ex officio of and shall Oct as with the enforcement of this code. acting in good and without malice inthe secretary to said board butshalt hsve no vote upon trey matter before the board. discharge of his duties. shall not thereby render himself personally liable lorany The B o d of Appeals doU be appointed by the governing body and shall hold damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any actor by reason of office Kits pleasure. The board ftU adopt ruler of procedure for conducting its any act or omission in the dischargeof his duties. Any suit brought against the businessind "I render all decisions and findings in writing tothe appellantwith building official or employee bec oust ofsuchact oromission performed by him aduplicatecopytothe building official. in the enforcement of any provision of such codes or other pertinent laws or ordinances implemented through the enforcement of this code or enforcedby the (b) LkWh hitm of Authority. TW Board of Appeals shall have no authority code enforcement agency shall be defended by this jurisdiction until final fermi• relativeto interpretation of the administrative provisions ofthis code nor'shall the nation of such proceedings, and any judgment resulting therefrom shall k Swill! be empowered to waive requirements of this code. assumed by this jurisdiction. ftledom.;t This code shall not be construed to relieve from or lessen the responsibility of M. 205. It shall be unlawful (of trey person, firm or corporation to erect. any person owning. operating or controRing any building or structure for my coeasraset. enlarge. alter, repair. move. improve, remove. convert or demolish. damages lopersons of property caused by de(ects, nor shall the code Womement equip, on, occupy or maintain m y building of sty oom or cause or permit the agencyor its p&rentjurisdiction be heidas. assurviing any such liability by reason of the inspections bythis issuedunder + same tobedone inviolation ofthiscode. authorized code or any permits or certificates this code. >,a n: •., (g) Cooperation of Other OrMclals and Offices, The building official Wray !:410 `-'' request. m d shall receive so far u is required in the discharge of his duties. the assistance and cooperation of otherofficials of this jurisdiction, r ' �� •" " / •r, .. V Unssh Butldltps of Strttatutns Sec, 203. All buildings orstruct ms regulatedby this code which are strweur- ally unsafe or not provided wish adequate egress, or whichconstituie a ntre hazard, or are odwiwise dangerous to human life are, for the purpose of this section, ; unsafe. Any use of buildingsorstructurea constituting ahazard toufety, healthy welfare inadequate �/ �►,J ` ' public by reason of maintenance. dilapidation. obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage or abandonment is, for the purpose of this section, an unsafe use. Parapet walls. cornices. spires, rowers, tanks. statuary and other " appendages or structural members which are supported by, attached to, or apart of ' • building and which ata in deteriorated condition or otherwise unable to susWrt " '• the design loads which are specified in this code are hereby designated as unsaft building appendages, t l• ••• Ail such unsafe buildings. structures or appendages am hereby declared to be V v public nuisances and shall k abated by repair. rehabilitation. demolition or s r removal in accordance with the procedures set forth in the P&ASerous Buildings Code or such alternate procedures, a may have bee tt ores, maybe d o p e d by this *sdiction. As analternative, the building official. or other employee or official of this jurisdiction as designated by the governing body, may institute fey of w appropriate action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation. Board of Appoala Sec. 204, (a) General, Inorderto hear and decide appealsof of der%, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application ausd 0 T DECLARATION OF MAILING On February 6, 1992 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a copy of the Notice attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown on Exhibit "6" attached hereto. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California. and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 6, 1992. at Lodi, California. Alice M. Reimche City Clerk nier Perrin Deputy City Clerk D€C/01 TXTA. FRM CITY OF LODI CARNFGIE FORUM 345 West Pint Street, Lodi TICE OF PUBLIC HEARM Date: February 19, 1992 Time: 7:30 p.m. For Information regarding this Public Hearing Please Contact: Alice M. Iielmche City clerk Telephone: 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING February 19, 1992 NOTICE S HEREBYGIVEN that on Wednesday. at the hourof 7:30 D.M., oras soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the following matter: Appeal of Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc, 11350 Monier Park Place, Rancho Cordova, California 95742 appealing the decision of the Lodi Chief Building Official not to let their company roof over existing shake and wood shingle roofs with Oecrabond Tile as per I CBO Report 3409 Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Director at 221 West Pine Street. Lodi. California. All interested personsare Invitedto present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to ralsing only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street. at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order Of the Lodi City Council: Alice M. eimche City Clerk Dated: February 5, 1992 Approved as to form: Bobby W. McNatt city Attorney Cal-Pac Roofing. Inc. 11350 Monier Park Place Rancho Cordova. CA 95742 Roger Houston Chief Building Official CAL -PAC ROOFING APPEAL MAILING LIST EXHIBIT B James B. Schroeder Community Development Director CITY COUNCIL JAMES W. PINKEMN, Mayo) PHILLIP A. PENNING Mayor Pro Tel mm (AVID M HINCHMAN IACK A. SIEGLOCK IOHN R. IRsndlrl SNIDER CITY OF LODI Mr. Dan Smuts Vice President -Operations Northern California Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. 11350 Monier Park Place Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 Dear Mr. Smuts: CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET PO. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 FAX 12" 333-6795 February 5, 1992 THOMAS A. PETERSON Ciy Mtln W ALICE M. REIMCHE City Clerk BOB WNATf City Attorney Please be advised that your January 2, 1992 letter appealing the decision of the Lodi Chief Building Official not to let your company roof over existing shake and wood shingle roofs with Oecrabond Tile as per [CBO Report 3409 was presented to the Lodi City Council at its February 5, 1992 meeting. The City Council set the matter for public hearing in the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi at 7:30 p.m. on February 19, 1992. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, divi !IL. 4MVXA_".' Alice M. Reimche City Clerk cc: James B. Schroeder, Community Development Dxrettor Roger Houston, Chief Building Official