HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 6, 1991 (71).4 OF
4 .
c9 P CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATIOI4
AGENDA TITLE: Request of Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. for Uniform Building Code
Interpretation by Board of Appeals
NIEENG DATE: November 6, 1991
PREPARED BY: Community Develcpment Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None required. Information only.
BACKGROUND ll44ORMATTON: At its meeting of October 16, 1991 the City Council was
in receipt of a letter from Lindsay D. Smith, Operations
Manager, Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. appealing a current policy
of the Building Division of the Community Development Department. Specifically, M
Smith was concerned about the following:
1. Refusal to allow reroofing over existing roofing materials with Decrabond
Tile, as approved in the product's I.D.B.O. Report (No. 3409);
2. Refusal to allow installation of Decrabond Tile over spa^ed sheeting;
3. A requirement to install Type 30# felt under Decrabond Tilt.
A indicated by the attached Memorandum from the chief Building Ii.spector, Cal-Pac
Roofing, Inc. has never officially appealed to him on these matters. Mc Smith has
discussed these items with the staff, but has never put his request in writing so
that the Chief Building Inspector could respond and thereby set UD the appeal
process, if necessary.
FUI\DM None required.
J es B. Schroeder
om-n�uni tv Development Director
JBS/cg
Attachment
APPROVED. --
THOMAS A. PETERSON
recyWppapw
MEMORANDUM, City of todi, Cofmunity Development Department
T0: James B. Schroeder
Community Development Director
FROM : Roger G. Houston
Chief Building Inspector
DATE : October 23, 1991
SUBJECT: Uniform Building Code Interpretation Bj Board Of Appeals
On September 19, 1991 the City Manager's Office received a letter from
Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. requesting certain interpretations of the Uniform
Building Code be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. As you know, adopted
Ordinance 1476A sets up the City Council as the Board of Appeals.
On October 16, 1991 the City Council referred this matter back to Staff
for action.
I would recommend the following steps to resolve this matter:
1. Cal-Pac Roofing should appeal, in writing, to the City Building
Official.
2. Cal-Pac Roofing should provide documentation to support their
position.
Once these steps are followed, I will respond to their appeal on a point
by point basis.
If this procedure does not resolve the matter, Cal-Pac Roofing can
appeal to the City Council.
RGH/nl
September 13, 1991
City Mat7rtger
City of Lodi
P-O.Box 320
Lodi, CA 95241
Dear S ir:
f- �f flflf:, l I
W wish to appeal a current policy of your Building Department.
City Matagees Office
Section 204 of the 1988 Uniform Building Code provides the form and authority
for this appeal.
Our appeal concerns interpretations of Chapter 3214 (Appendix) of the above
code, with specific reference to the following:
1. Refusal to allow reroofing over existing roofing materials
with Deerabond Tile, as approved in the product's I.C.B.O.
Report (No -3409) -
2. Refusal to allow installation of Deerabond Tile over spaced
sheeting.
3. A requirement to install Type 301 felt tmder Decrabond Tile.
To offer us the opportunity to review the qualifications of your appointees to
this Board of Appeals, please submit the names of those appointees and their
background at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely, '
Lindsay D
Operations Manager
0
0
o
a
o
0
2278 Pke Ct., :'wile 0
MA IrAntrial Ave.
1092 Florence Way
1673 Donlon St 8205
9272 Jeronimo #120
7378 Opportunity Ad., Suite 0
Concord, CA 94520
Petaluma, CA 94952
Campbe4l. CA 95008
Ventura, CA 93003
Irvine, CA 92718
San Diego, CA 92111
(415) 827-3693
(707) 76!!iwM
(408) 378-0450
(e05) 650.8682
(714) 583-0884
(619) 268-121 t
(800) 3657227
(en 564-7564
(800)5Q5222
(800) 882-6676
(800) 433-5644
(800) 548.5481