Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - July 13, 2010 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 A. Roll Call by City Clerk An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, July 13, 2010, commencing at 7:00 a.m. Present: Council Member Hansen, Council Member Johnson, Council Member Mounce, and Mayor Katzakian Absent: Mayor Pro Tempore Hitchcock Also Present: Interim City Manager Bartlam, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Johl B. Topic(s) B-1 Receive Presentation on Insurance Services Office Report Regarding the Building and Safety Division (CD) Interim City Manager Rad Bartlam briefly introduced the subject matter of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) report regarding the Building and Safety Division. Building Official Dennis Canright provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Community Development Building and Safety overview. Specific topics of discussion included the role of the Building Department, enforcement of State mandated codes, recent natural disasters, earthquakes in Haiti, Mexicali, and Chile, history of seismic events in and around Lodi, ISO building code effectiveness grading schedule program, community classification number, administration of codes, review of building plans, field inspections, commercial permits, residential permits, Lodi classification compared to other communities, benefits of low grade, and overview of the Building Department keeping Lodi safe. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated the comparative numbers reflect other communities within the State of California. In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Canright stated there are community benefits across the board for having a 3 rating versus a 7 or 8 rating. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Canright stated the evaluation is free and ISO comes in every five years or so to do an evaluation. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Canright stated the new requirement mandates all new residential developments to have sprinklers. He stated sprinklers will be required for renovations if the structure is a complete tear down. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated the cost of the sprinklers is approximately $3,000, which is nominal compared to the cost of saving lives. He stated insurance companies govern codes and want less losses and while there may be water damage from sprinklers the overall cost savings with the sprinklers is greater. Mr. Bartlam stated new requirements generally stem from specific occurrences and the Southern California fires may have contributed to the creation of the new sprinkler requirement. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated the grading system is in reverse in that a lower number is better than a larger one. Continued July 13, 2010 In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated insurance is primarily based on the location of the structure, although some insurance companies may provide discounts or incentives for sprinklers and other similar safety features. In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Canright stated retrofitting in Lodi is not required unless the hazardous use possibility is increased in a building, supporting walls are knocked down, or occupancy is increased. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated the Building Division staff tries to talk with residents in advance to address any concerns that may be arising at a later date with a particular project. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated public outreach includes meetings with the Chamber of Commerce, developers, and contractors, as well as the public information that is made available online and at the counter. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright and Mr. Bartlam stated the ISO number for the amount of inspectors the City should have is 10, although the City looks at the overall workload and inspection time needs. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated in his experience the developers feel positively about the Building Division performing inspection services previously provided by the Fire Department because of the efficiency and the single point of contact for the entire process. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated the Building Division inspections are all up to date. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Canright stated the Fire Department does not have to perform inspections by appointment only but it may be a time savings to know that someone is home. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated there are currently two inspectors and they are performing approximately 15 to 20 inspections a day. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Canright stated if the Building Division were to fall behind on the inspections there would be an ability to bring in part-time contract persons from a firm to assist with the backlog if so desired. In response to Mayor Katzakian, Mr. Canright stated the sprinkler requirement is nationally based and the individual states have adopted the requirement as well. In response to Mayor Katzakian, Mr. Canright stated the City's water infrastructure should not need to be changed for the sprinkler requirement as there is not that much of an impact of the requirement on the City of Lodi. In response to Mayor Katzakian, Mr. Canright stated in Southern California some insurance companies may take into account sprinklers in the home when providing policies. In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Canright stated the biggest challenge for the Building Division is disabled access for existing buildings. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Canright stated there are six different options to the cool roof requirement, ventilation is one option, and there are ongoing challenges with that option. N Continued July 13, 2010 In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Canright stated California has a tendency to want to lead in the industry and regulations in the State have increased by over 500% since the 1990s. In response to Myrna Wetzel, Mr. Canright stated the aisles in commercial buildings are larger due to the disabled access requirements, the proximity of a fire hydrant is irrelevant with respect to the new sprinkler requirement, and an existing building remodel may require sprinklers depending upon the circumstance. C. Comments by Public on Non -Agenda Items None. D. Adjournment No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 a.m. ATTEST: Randi Johl City Clerk AGENDA ITEM B ', CITY OF LODI ,. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION im AGENDA TITLE: Receive Presentation on Insurance Services Office Report Regarding the Building and Safety Division MEETING DATE: July 13,2010 PREPARED BY: Community Development Department RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation on Insurance Services Office Report regarding the Building and Safety Division. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Due to the recent release of the Insurance Services Offices (ISO) evaluation of the Lodi Community Development, Building & Safety Division, the Departmentwould like to take the opportunity to explain the evaluation process, results and benefitsto the City of Lodi. ISO is an independent statistical, rating, and advisory organization that serves the property/casualty insurance industry. ISO collects information on a community's building -code adoption and enforcement services, analyzes the data, and then assigns a Building Code Effectiveness Classification from 1 (highest) to 10 (lowest). The City of Lodi received a score of 3. The presentation will demonstrate how current code adoption, ISO classification, and working with the community ensure greater public safety. FISCAL IMPACT: Not Applicable FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not Applicable Attachments APPROVED: K&6alct Bartlam Community Development Director nterim City Manager 111 NORTH CANAL STREET SUITE 950 CHICAGO, IL 60606-7270 TEL(312)930-0070 (800)444-4554 FAX(312)930-0017 December 30,2009 M i . Blair King, City Manager City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 RE: Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Lodi, San Joaquin County, CA Dear Mi. King: O ' D P CITY OF i! We wish to thank you and Dennis Canright for the cooperation given to our representative, Reed Speare, during our recent survey. We have completed our analysis of the building codes adopted by your community and the efforts put forth to properly enforce those codes. The resulting Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classification is 3 for 1 and 2 family residential property and 3 for commercial and industrial property. The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) is an insurer -supported organization with the primary mission of providing advisory insurance underwriting and rating information to insurers. There is no requirement that insurers use our advisory material. Insurers may have adopted, or may be in the process of adopting, an ISO insurance rating program that will provide rating credits to individual property insurance policies in recognition of community efforts to mitigate property damage due to natural disasters. These insurers may use the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classification we have recently developed for your community as a basis for the credits used. While individual insurers may use different credits or different effective dates, the ISO program will apply credits to new construction within Lodi that has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy in the year 2009 and forward. We have attached a copy of our report which provides additional information about our classification process and how we have graded various aspects of your community's building codes and their enforcement. We want to highlight the fact that the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is an insurance underwriting and information tool; it is not intended to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive building code enforcement program nor is it for purposes of determining compliance with any state or local law or for making property/casualty loss prevention and life safety recommendations. If you have any questions about the Classification that was developed, please let us know. Additionally, if you are planning on any future changes in your building codes or their enforcement, please advise us as these changes may affect our analysis and your community's grading classification. Sincerely, Building Code Department (800) 930-1677 ext. 6208 Enclosure cc: Dennis Canright,Building Official. 221 W. Pine St., Lodi, CA 95240 w/enclosure Lodi BL&AM Cocle ap*rtAqmxy I ZWO09 Evalua#ion f r i Table of Contents Tab Description Section 1 Executive Summary Section 2 Background Information Section 3 Code Adoption Section 4 Education, Training and Certification Section 5 Staffing Levels Section 6 BCEGSTM PointAnalysis Section 7 Natural Hazards AppendixA Natural Hazard General Information ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 Jam: Lodi County- San Josquin State: CA Survey Date: 120 2009 Not all corrrrrrunbm hm rigorous building codes, nor do off oxmiunI erdbrm their codes witty equal oommitrwt Yet the effectiveness of local building codes can have a profound effect on how #* sures in yow =nmunity wig #ere In a hu icane, ea qu*^ or ager neural disasW. [dies ooroducted i`alNawing recent natrarai disasters ooruc*rded that total losses might have been as much as 517% fess if all shxtm in the arae had met currant hAft cedes. Buildirq*Dde enkwcunent can have a n>xe w ln&x nce on the eoDnornic wail- mhV of a MAdpft and the safely of f#s dbm lrrsmnoe Services Mice (ISD} his dist h amongst oorr munitim with Clive t iiding-code adoption and enfor rr o t through a o wnpmhensW program called the Building ODde EffeodverWW Grading Schedule (BCE T"'), ISO is an independent statistical, rating, and advisory organization that serves lira pWartykamotty kamm a industry. ISO oollects inkwmation on a oor wun s t lding-oode adoption and enforcement services, aradyzes the data, and then assigns a Builift Cade E#feotimness Omffkabon from 1 to 18. Class 9 represents exernplary oan wnbwa to bulidlr' -code enkrosmerrL The oonoept behind IB EGSvu is simple. MWk0e bias with w+eH nfioraed, update ODdft derrrorrs rte below loss expWmcef and their dbane Im urancs raves can refect #hat. The prospect of nAnimWng cats ophe-elated damage and ultimately lowering kw urance oasts gives communities an incerdm be enforce Ow k bullding codec rigoraurly. The followfrag maragamerd report vis amW speciftwhy for Loch based on a BCE ST" survey conducted on 1ZSIII This report can help you evaluate your carr omitys buodit-code enforcarw t services utiIWQ bendlnoddng doft oolkKled #hrouglrrout the country. The report is designed tD give your managernert team an expanded prospecdve for deaft Wath the important Is& SMMnft effecM building anode enbwmea This is aaoornpilshed ttwoko oornperiisorrs of your code errformernerrt to that of often In your arm and sUft. The analysis goes [wilier to allow you to compare your jurWktw W others across the ommtry with similar penyi t, plan mvlew and Inspection activfty. l ,0 thanks you for your partldpdon WW wa an000age you to We advantage of the it tion ocrrtained In this report to assist in making decisions ung the level of code ent`arDww t gest suited for Lodi, The survey conducted ha msusfted In a BCEGSTm class of 3 for 1 and 2 family dwellings aid a dew for all ofhm oonstrx;tion. More Inforo aWn regarding how this reowd survey compares to previous surveys is located in section 6 of this report MID PROPERTIES, INC 2006 SECTION 1 PNCE 1 of 1 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 121012009 ISO *DkKb inforrnatieon frim oomrnunbes in ft United S las on theif adoption and meant of building codes. ESO anaiym the data using its EUIding bode Effedhwess Grading Schedule (B GS1m) and then assigns a BCEGSIm Clessffkatleon rumber to the wnmunh . The motion number ---which ren s *= 1 to 11--measums a jLdsdli T s omff&nent to the adoption and enforuement of buAding codes affecting #te construoton of now buiir kW. Class 1 indicates the most favorable motion of oornmitrrtwO to the adoption and erdbmamer d of building odes. ISO's oomrnilrrmt th polling each building code int agency on a pular basis is Important to the progm m — periodic surmging helps determine if a cornmu * has made any sigrnifi nt changes s1noe its last SM evaiva#bn. This or;oing eW is designed to re-evaluate each community at approximate 5 -year irdarvals or sooner if changes kxllcate a poWM mAsion 10 the cWnifioation number. The propose of this report is fourfold: 1. To summarize a communly s. scoring under the ca3tedon oor ined In the I GS'r" T"' PMgram. 2. To identify oppasoities for comrnunitiee deWng to improve th BCEGSTm classification number . To assist a om munity in undwslanding how cater jLffWIdIkwm with similar needs address building code adoption and enkoDi ment. 4. To provide Fund napping Mon Important in plarinkV and developing a sustainable oommur city. ISO has evaltalml over 7,000 building oode enfonmment agencies earow the United States. In each of ftse communities. three elemerrts of building code adoption and enfbmernent are revievrad. These t#tree elements are the adminisimfian of codes, plan mvievw and field inspectim IAdministratl;on cf Codes: ISO evakoWs the adrnkM M support Ibr oade erdDrownard within tine jurisdi n -- the adopted buRdkV codes and the rrodil r ms d tow oodee Uvough on2nanoe, code erdorcer qualifications, eqedence and education, zoning p m*lons, con &A uiltler kewng requwaments, public awancess programs, the bulk!'ft departn erft pEdcipation in oode dwmk inert aclivitles, and the admWAsUaM policies and prooec ww. This section rep mwnts 54% of the analysis in to E EG T" Program. QISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 2 PAGE 1 OF Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 Plan review division: Consideration is given to determine staffing levels, personnel experience, performance evaluation schedules, and the level of review of construction documents for compliance with the adopted building code of the jurisdiction being graded. This section represents 23% of the analysis. Field inspection: Consideration is given to determine staffing levels, personnel experience, performance evaluation schedules, and the level of the agencys review of building construction. This section also represents 23% of the analysis. The information necessary to determine the BCEGS11 classification number was collected from the community building officials through a combination of on-site interviews and completed questionnaires. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 2 PAGE 2 OF 2 Jurisdic : Lodi County; San Joaquin Stata: CSA Survey DoW.12fflr 9 i ftoognl that building codes are oonUnUW Wrig reviewed and updaWd W relfect emerging technabw and best pWiods, tie BCBGSTM program encourages communities to make every eti`ort to adopt the west edition of one of the building codes wi< UA ate. The program is senAw to the reality that building code adopfion is not always a Iorml issue, nor do to wheels of pnVmw turm mpk9y all the time. To receive ma)drnum BC GST" credit for this my impoir a1Yt secllon a ocrnmunity must adopt end implemerd the revised oode wee lava years of the publication of the bukdirrg OD& As detaitad in Figure 8-1 beb , eight p * is are the nwdmurn awaiWAs for the adoption of a building code. The final Wcu!Won to determine a Jurlsdkbwo s BCEGST" dassffmWn err o s V* rho of the paints poe53ble and the pair b eamed In the bukft code adoption section as a factor for all other points earned in the systam. Tharefbire, a jurisdiction v*xi rrg the latest building code wilt haw a ratio of 1 and no adjustrnerd will be n wde to the points eanu d, A depwhm t arKorcing a tmMing code that was pushed sic years prior to the surety date wuM have a ratio of 6.08 or .86 so the juftdkbon would receive orsdl# far 88% of bw points earned art the evaluattipn pr000ss. Fig 3-1 CMWtQ for SU Cade Adoption Poirft if the published date of the listed codes is within 5 years of the data of the grading: Bulilding Codes} addressing commercial and /or resid"sI construction................................................................. 8.00 points If the punished date of the listed codes is within 6 years cf the date of the grading: Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential oonstrucHon..................................................................... 6.86 points If the published date of the listed codes is within 10 years of the date of the grading: Building Code(s) addressing commerckil and Aor residential construction .... ................................................................. 2.21 paints If an earfer edltion of the listed codes is adopted: Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential cor'�uorr .............................................................. 0.55 point #SSD PROPr;RMES, INC 20D5 SECTION 3 PAGE 1 OF 7 Jsdin: Lodi County: San Joaquin Stile: CA Survey late: 121 OM For dep*m rb ey ed In 201}7 the BCEGSTm program uses itw following as ft WW edilion of Binding oodas available. Fig. 2 LOW Edition Available d Publisher Publican Date Cornmaraal BukkM Code [CC 1 NEPA 2006 { 2006 RmWendW Bu li Code iCC 2006 Fig. 3Y Bullding Codas Adopted by Lodi The fotlpvuing is 0 first of many `Benchmarldrig inforrrratiW sections located in ibis repot#. The purpose cf ft ben marking klommkm is to provide daW 150 hm colladad In ##m oaurse of its evakgtions of Code enfor erfinerd Curls thrcughotit the country. The data emuld not be a sidered a standard tart rather infarrrtadon which allum you to o=pare opera#ians in Yom' jurisdiction to those card by od1el'' jurisdic#3orts with similar oordboon& Bad inkmakn wM be dlstirQuished from altw inkana#ian in this report by ft letter B precKft the table or %ure number and a grin BendwnarMV Id mailon liar above to We or f0m iBenc11rriirkirlco information Table B 3-4 BC WT*w paints mmrded compatiaon AdoPftdBum Publisher Publication Oats Adopti Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 Item 108. Additional Code Adoptions: This section reviews the adoption and enforcement of electrical, mechanical, plumbing, energy, and wildland urban interface codes. Adopted codes are evaluated by year of publication including amendments and enforcement efforts. Table 3-5 details the criteria for earning points under this section. Table 3-5 Criteriaforsub-code adoption points If the published date of the listed codes is within 5 years of the date of the grading: 0.67 point for each of the five subcodes If the published date of the listed codes is within 6 years of the date of the grading: 0.33 pointfor each of the five subcodes If the published date of the listed codes is within 10 years of the date of the grading: 0.18 point for each of the five subcodes if an eariier edition of the listed codes is adopted: 0.004 pointfor each of the five subcodes ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 3 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Lod County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 For departments surveyed in 2007the BCEGSTM program uses the following as the latest edition of sub -codes available Type of Code Publisher Publication Date Commercial Electrical Code NFPA 2005 Residential Electrical Code NFPA 2005 Commercial Plumbing Code ICC / IAMPO 2006/2000 Residential Plumbing Code ICC / IAMPO 2006/2000 Commercial Mechanical Code ICC 2006 Residential Mechanical Code ICC 2006 Commercial Fuel Gas Code ICC / IAMPO 2006/2000 Residential Fuel Gas Code ICC 2006 Commercial Energy Code ICC / ASHRAE 2006/2001 Residential Energy Code ICC / ASHRAE 2006/2001 Commercial Wildland Urban Code ICC /NFPA 2006/2002 Residential Wildland Urban Code ICC / NFPA 2006/2002 ASHRAE— American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers ICC- International Code Council IAMPO — IntemationalAssociation of Mechanical and Plumbing Officials NFPA — National Fire Protection Association ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 4 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 Type of Code Publisher Publication Date Adoption Date Commercial Electrical Code NFPA 2005 2008 Residential Electrical Code NFPA 2005 2008 Commercial Plumbing Code OTHER 2006 2008 Residential Plumbing Code OTHER 2006 2008 Commercial Mechanical Code OTHER 2006 2008 Residential Mechanical Code OTHER 2006 2008 Commercial Fuel Gas Code OTHER 2006 2008 Residentiai Fuei Gas Code OTHER 2006 200% Commercial Energy Code OTHER 2007 2008 Residential Energy Code OTHER 2007 2008 Commercial Wildland Urban Code OTHER 2007 2008 Residential Wildland Urban Code OTHER 2007 2008 ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 5 OF 7 fin: Dodi cmay. Sari Jceq* Stag CA Survey Datm 12AY 000 Benchmarking Information Tatem B U ad;lclitkwW oOde adoption Type of SW>4COft BCE STm PC*ft awded BCEMTN Points pole County Awerage Me* Average Fletio iW Ave e comaodw EMmOW 0.67 0.67 0.47 0.43 0.49 pa5k wen l EkmbicW 0.67 0.67 0.47 0.43 0.42 corrrrr►errfal Pkvnbing 0.97 0.67 0,34 0.38 0.38 PUnbing 0.67 0.07 0.34 0.38 4.38 Commerdal Fuel Gas 0.67 0.97 0.34 0.38 0.36 ReskW" Fuel Gms 0.67 0.67 0.34 0.38 0.36 Commsnr w Mmhankxr 0.67 0.67 0.34 0.38 0.42 RWdentiet finical 0.67 0.67 0.34 0.38 0.42 COnune k Energy 0.67 OW 0.84 0.47 0.34 Residential Enemy 0.67 0.07 0.64 0.47 0.35 C&nmerdal lhbein WlldlwW 0.67 0.67 0.36 0.37 0.19 ftsklerM i Urtn WWAM 0.07 0.87 0.39 0.37 -r-0."19 stern 110. AADKMSOM ID adapted *kW,, The C program enomwages timely mitt u mrrod Fed adop rr of the latest edition avakble of the bAft cede. It is not unmmmon for a Jwtsdi ibn io Woo a ecde and thea nx dWy i# In sonre way. The owd oommon rnmDdlt atiorm are admiroBtab+e, which the BCEGSTm pmgrom is not overly concemed wilkt. Some jurkwfficb", haver, mVxW to sbudurat aspects of do mode. Mins m viewed as favambte when ft irate mm is le shangt m the code. Due W the d imly and uVem of fin%* doWm*ft the eftd on a cods Of a sic acUm which meWam the oodre, no parW aedit ids avpeR" 1'or #ft-ssWm Noted however, ttsat due to the k mut: (POWS credited in mton 105 x 0.125 x 4.0) the poidrris awarded tr this Mm are reduced 9 ft latae# bulldtng oWe Is not adopledd and ergbmed. There Is a dhd camqk&n heMeen the pomb owned for fim adapted hutldtrrg oWs aW the pots affable far this eet#ian, When nfoditbon serves to ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTK)N S PAGE 0 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Lod County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 1219=9 weaken the intent or effectimnm of the adopted building code r+9la W to shx;Wral aspects or natural hazard mitigation futures, no points will be awarded for this mcgon. Benchmarking Information Table B M COMParison of Paints Earned for Seton 110 Updating the adopted codes to the iahmt code published by a nationally recognized building code development and pubilcation organization within 12 nlonft cf the publication of the oode is beneficial for the jurisdk%on. It proviolm the latest and most modern technology for natural hazard mitigation, This sactioo allows the opportunity to rawgnlze the timely amended adoption of a nationally promulgated buildkV code Benchmarking Information Table B 3-10 Point Earned for Timely (within one year, cf the publication date) Uri-kneWW Code Adopti BCEGSTw BCEGST" Oxntry Mate National State Points Points Average Average Average Points awarded p9wible Average Commercial 4 4 1.77 2,05 2.51 Residential 4 4 1.77 2.03 2.23 Updating the adopted codes to the iahmt code published by a nationally recognized building code development and pubilcation organization within 12 nlonft cf the publication of the oode is beneficial for the jurisdk%on. It proviolm the latest and most modern technology for natural hazard mitigation, This sactioo allows the opportunity to rawgnlze the timely amended adoption of a nationally promulgated buildkV code Benchmarking Information Table B 3-10 Point Earned for Timely (within one year, cf the publication date) Uri-kneWW Code Adopti ►ISO PROMIRTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PACE 7 OF 7 BCE T" SCE STv County State %tronal Points Points Average Average Average amrcW ble Commercial Adoption Bonus 0 1 0.10 0.14 0.17 # sidentlattion Bonus 0 1 4.10 0.14 0.14 ►ISO PROMIRTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PACE 7 OF 7 Jurisdic n: Lod County. San Joaquin State: CA Surrey Datw 12Mr2 The Building Code mese Grading Sdxdule revtm the Wols availwble to a building oode deparonerd to detwni what level of prokw; ion the jurisdiction has decided to offer. In this section via review the quaftations of the code pert persowl. By mWntWning h tly qty, well trained sWN the bukNV code edonaemed department is better equipped to enoaurage the corm ucblon of code oom Wd buildings. The BCEGSTm pmgmm does not mandate any level of #raining cerW+ation or experienoe but it does reoogr&s the bodmiciii and evolvirtg mature of construction code enfarcernent. Therefore, M% of the availakft points in the aelysis adze deper4errt on education, training and eqxrkmm. The evalc a ion is much dh*m led. For inter , credit can be owned for hours of training lateen, dollars spent on trahM it ntives far outside training, and h1rhV mquirerrre d& After review of this Mrrr►etion a bt WVV code departrne rtk may determine that a higher caliber empkWe or more inowttives to current employees could assist them in pmformirtg their duties more efficlerntly and profar i n*. The number of personnel is an ImpoftM factor when comparing and omvlating educa#lon and trahft. To starickwdtw ftm numbers he repot# oonwrts all employees to full tirne. Therefore a deparkmertt with two U time cede enfcr rs the number of employees wip be two, if a department has five full time code eriftwoers and weven pert time code errf m" each working h rdy hours per week the depertmwt will sew as eight mid arta half ernployees. LDdi empioy+s 4kOO code enknxwwl personnel. This steft revel is wpjW to one code erdarcer wnt per reel kr each 14249-75 n or one rode enforcement personnel for each 456.75 permits #sued. If the jurisd iarr was divided equally, each code enfo w would be responsible for an area of 3.06 square m1es. Tabie 4-1 displays the MI and the average number of hours spent in it hIng by code erfom nnent pemnnel in Lodi. Training is broken down Into flour categories; a maximum of 1.25 pmts may be eared for the first 12 hares of training in aQrinWxative aspects of code enkroamwd, legal aspects of code erddvwnwV4 and being nwkwed in cede enforoec mmt. The first 60 hours of training in ted *al aspects of oode enkrowwt may also earn maxhwm credit of 4.25 points. To reowm the max um a%sbble points in this ares each employw roust Wn a mWimum of 96 hours per year and d w sluhject must follow the details above. ISO has developed training kegs to aunt you in d*V the tragi of building code enforcers. The kgs can be dolvaded from our web site www.Wankigabon.00m. CM PROPERTIES, WC 2OD5 SECTN 4 PAS 1 OF 5 JuriedMon: il.odi County: son JoagWn Statim CA Survey DaW IM T" 4-1 Tral ft hDM for U di I Toil hours icor depwrmnt Aver a hours,of framing Adrninitive 72 TechnW ! 228 Benchmark i n9 1nCormakion Table B 42 C=paftn of average hours of tradr*Q Buikft oode effamwroM deparlm" may choose to ernoUsize bet oarnmbwM to tminlnp and OWmiglon through incenkiwe% sLmh as fug owffmkm, emm fees, and confinuhV educafim or prov ing Woo v+as 1br outside WnN. The lbllowft table Is broken down for residential grid =nnwdal cw&ucUm wW hkoW the Inoerrtivas p uwMed by Lodl. *ISO PROPERTIES, INC 200 SE ]•ON 4 PAGE 2 OF 5 Your everw hours of bvinog YOW C tlly wmMp hours of ham ft Your SbMe aver hours of #!fining Naftwl svemp hours of training Adrrkfttra ve 6.00 14.62 20.41 14.62 Lepi &OD 8.37 14.13 8.47 AAenloring MOD 16.88 35.62 .24.83 Techrikel 56.60 42.79 53.32 42.89 Buikft oode effamwroM deparlm" may choose to ernoUsize bet oarnmbwM to tminlnp and OWmiglon through incenkiwe% sLmh as fug owffmkm, emm fees, and confinuhV educafim or prov ing Woo v+as 1br outside WnN. The lbllowft table Is broken down for residential grid =nnwdal cw&ucUm wW hkoW the Inoerrtivas p uwMed by Lodl. *ISO PROPERTIES, INC 200 SE ]•ON 4 PAGE 2 OF 5 Jurisdktbn: Lodi County. San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 1219200$ Table 4 BC C Tm p&ft eamed by Lodi for training incentives i6D PROPERTIES, MC .2045 SECTION 4 PAGE 3 OF 5 Commerdsi Points eamad 149"nfiai Points owned Depvhvyt pays for omtficgkm and exam few Yes 0.5 Yes 0.5 Provides mm" for outside tkV ori NO 0 Nb 0 pap.for =ftft educ affon Yes 0.5 Yee 0.5 i6D PROPERTIES, MC .2045 SECTION 4 PAGE 3 OF 5 Table B 4.4 Ompwkon of Raining incentive pdrft Commercial:Vc4:% l C�� * % h" % Nath a Stara % % % of rimft W pay for moo"" a "arn i 86.61 "IN 10.61 0 5.M 4x88 42.21 of Depa twft VW pans roger M For outside Ux*ft. or man 53.33 44.77 121.10 33.33 25.0 113.04 % of Dqmhartts VW pays for amftft educedon 86.67 17426 1 1 M 63.33 140.48 144.79 i6D PROPERTIES, MC .2045 SECTION 4 PAGE 3 OF 5 Jurisdidon: Lodi Survey Date: 1219120W County: San Joaquin State: CA Hiring only cardfsed code enforcement employees or allowing a short probationary period for new hires to earn their certification are valued prat does which elevate the quality and oonsssfew►cy of the code enforcement process. The following two charts compare your jurisdiction's policies regarding aerffication with #tase of other departments within your county, state and across the country, The charts represent the percent of plan reviewers and inspec rs that held appropriate certification for Vie dufies fty performed at the time of tate Latest BCEG Tm survey, B4,5 represents oornmerclal work and 84.6 represents residential work. 100% 90% 70% 60% 50 44% 30% 0% 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 7l 617% 5414 ► "y�0 30% 70 10% 0% 84.5 Commercial Duties Performed Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Fuel Gas MYour Jurisdiction ■County 13 State ■NatEonal 046 Residential DuLtles Performed Buil ng Elettrkal Mechanical Plumbirng Fuel Gas dYour.lurisdicUan ■County 13State ■National 180 PROPERTIES. INC 2006 SECTION 4 PAGE 4 OF 5 M - •I� ►t �-a If I F� F• I I I i I Buil ng Elettrkal Mechanical Plumbirng Fuel Gas dYour.lurisdicUan ■County 13State ■National 180 PROPERTIES. INC 2006 SECTION 4 PAGE 4 OF 5 Jurisdidon. Lodi Survey Date: 1 191 009 County: San Joaquin State: CA Requiring oetfication as a conditn of empioyrnent is aro important factor. However, the evolving nature of the building technology and the wide variety of situations encountered by plan reviewers and inspectors dictate the need for wntinuing education. The following two cMrts are based on the period of dyne allowed to complete the acquired amount of oon#lnuing education requirements for building inspectors in order For there to renew their license 1 oertfication. Information In these charts represents data gaihered across the oountry. A4 Building Certification Renewal Period Commercial MlYear 0 Years m 3 Years O> 3 Ysars ■ WI Required 4r8 Building Certification renewal Period Residential ■ 1 Year O2 bears 0 3 Years I3> 3 Years ■ Not Required ISO PROPERTIES. INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 5 OF 5 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin Stabs: CA Survey Vats: 1 I9f200S cction 5 Staffing Levels One of the most iregwntly asked quesdom Imm conwrtunity adrninistralnm and bultding c#FicWs is: How many Inspectors arrd pian raeviewm do vans need to supply the desired level of service to our mmmurfty? This sadion will provide valuable k&rmation to assist In this vital decision. The BCEGS schedule uses the fallowing bendlWarks to calcuEete #re stafling levels; 10 ins pectiians per day per full flare ka eckw 1 ownrnerdal plan review per day per full tine plan reviewer • 2 reeklentiall pian reviews per flay per till time plan reviewer These are average numbers of the entire departnvmt over the course of a year. Sonw inspectors because of the type of work they are assigned will exceed these benchmarks while others WN not be able 10 reach d wm. ft same Is true of plan reviewers. The fact is that tfirese benchmarks have proved to be realistic over the course of surveying 14,000 code enf6rcement depart rxents. However, we reale that your community may have varying circumstances and may want to base staffing decision on other irrWmalion. In the following set of charts we have scoured our database to And comtrrunities that are of similar size, and population to ya+ur communilly to provide data that may be helpful in your decision process. The next key element of staffing decision Is the workload; again vm queried our reomis. to find oommunities with similar number of perrrribs issued, inspec Ions and plan reVem completed. This data can be useful in f inher defining yow staffing levels, Realizing the Borne jurisdictions cover vast area while others are metropolitan vm did some cakslatior s and arrived at a unique cahbaM of permits per square mile, You may find tt l this category affords benchmarking opportunities that lake irrto aomunt workload and trarrel tlrne for your inspecting staff. Table 5-1 Your communl1v fags into the followhm rannes Po Macron > 25,000 crare files 7.1-21.0 Permits Issued 1,001 - 2 Q00 Number of Irmpecdons conducted 2,201 - 5,700 Plan reviews oonducted > 1,400 Permfts per Square Mile > 17.00 01`SO PROPERTIES, INC 2006 ECTION 5 PAGE 1 OF 8 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Data: 12A9f2009 The lnfcmmWn In Charts 86.3 through 85-14 depicts the staffing levels of your jurisdiction along with the average stdfing lever of all the communities dint fall within the range for each oWegoryr as defined in Table ti -1. To stander&ze these numbers this report converts all employees tc full tires equivalents. Therefore, in a depadment whirr two full time employees the number of personnel will be two. If a deparbrsent has flue full time Dods enforcers and seven part time code enfomem each working twenty hours per wesk the depawnent is considered to have eight and one half full time employeas. The data Is further broken down by the responsibiNes of each code enforcer. For exam* a department may allocate time as follows: Table 5-2 Time Allocation Example Commercial Plan Review I sident:W Plzen Review Commercial In salon RaWdential 1n%Wotion Time elltion emp"a #1 FWI time Time eilocation ernplo Res #2 30 hrs Der week Tian alioo tion employee #3 0 hrs ow week Total calculated employees 2.25 409 5% 0% 0.44 20% 6% 0% 0.24 36% 80% 1 D% 0.95 5% 10% 9D% 0.66 The calculations used to make up the graphs for the wwmpie above would be the number of commercial plan revkmm conducted In your jurisdiction dived by .44 (the number of commercial plan reviewers employed by your jurisdiction). Similarly assuming 732 resided inspectlons divided by the number of residential inspec rs (.56) returns a workload of 1307 inspections per full time Inspector per year. The calculation for the control group is the same except #tat the results are averaged. ISO PROPERTIES{ INC 20D5 SECTION 6 PAGE 2 OF 8 Juriadidon: Lodi Survey Date: 121912009 County: San Joaquin State: CA Chart 85-3 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities 6prying,$1m,1lar Pgpgll, 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Annual Workload Per Anrwal Workload Per Oommerdal Plan €iesidengal Ptan Review PAMMM asimllar Communities 82.68 525.15 ■Your Jurlsdletkm 57.5 42.35 Chart 85-4 inspection Staffing Comparison of Communities Serving Similar Populations 3500 3000 2500 2000 1600 1000 500 0 Annual Worldoad Per Annual Workload Per a Similar Communities 1W9.52 3471,16 ■Your JurisdLAon 2211.43 2857.56 0 I50 PROPERTIES, INCOQ5 $EMON 5 PAGE 3 OF 8 Juriskdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin Sta#e: CA Survey Date: 121912009 Chart B5-5 Plain Review Sing Comparison c f Com unities erving Similar Square .Mih s X460 4 V 350 300 25001 200 150 100 .'50 0 9 Annual WaMood Per Annual Workload Per Cornmerdal P;an lReWdenital Ptan Reviewer Rmdmm aSirrailar Communlow 60.91 426.52 s our JurWichon 5T.5 42.35 Chart B5 inspedlon SUffing Comparison of Comrnunit€es Serving Similar Square Miles 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 J Annual Worktoad Per Annual Workload Per C&Mllar Communftws 9UM 2926.9 ■four Jud d efion 1 2211.43 2857.56 0 ISO PROPERUE . INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 4 OF 8 Jurisdiction: Lodi Survey Date: 12120139 County: San Joaquin State: CA Chart 135-7 Plan Review S#af8ng Comparison of Communities ceding ifnila iur of Permits 17 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Annual Warkkmd Per Annual Workk ad Per Commercial Plan Realdenflal Plan Reviewer effidow v Sirnilar CommurAVw 52.36 451.75 10 Your Judaddlon 57.5 42.35 hart 85-8 Enspwflon StaMng l omparlson of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits }-!-� r }• 000 2500 000'y 1500 10�0y0 500 0 M Annual WorkkxW Per Annual Workload Per is Similar C:ommuntbas 816.07 2665.71 ■Your Jurisdiction 2211.+13 7857.56 ISO PROPS RTIE , INC 2605 SECTION 5 PACE 5 OF 8 Judsdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: Cly Survey Date, 1202000 Chart 135-9 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities ondu iin�larumr of-1p�n, 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 Annual workload Per Annual workked Per ornmercial Plan Residential Plan Review awfiftr o Sirr#ilar Communities 140.34 458.33 ■ Your Jurisdiction 57.5 42.35 Chart 135-10 inspector Staffing Comparison of Communities Conducting Similar Number of Inspections 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 :.r 1 500 L Annual workload Per Annual Workkmd Per Airnilar COrrirnunitiea 1594.4 2438.02 ■ Your Judsclictlon 2219.43 2857.56 ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 0 OF 8 Jurisdiction. Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Data: 12 W2009 Chart 85-11 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communfties C ing S1njRpjrM_4R" f y 80D 70D 6M 500 - 400 - 300 200 100 Annual Woddood Per Annual Worldoad Per Cornnvodal Plan RwAay" Restclentlel Plan Reviewer a Sin -Mar Communities 224.23 746.98 WYbur Judsdktan 57.5 42.35 Chart EM -1 2 Inspector Staffing Comma on of Communtiks Conducting SImilar Number of Plan Reviews 4000 3500 3000 2500 2(OWOO 1500 1000 500 0 AnnLW WoMoad Per Annual WorkloW Pef Qnmmardol Inspedtar ausideatiW inspedur a Similar Communities 2268.41 3793.69 INYour Jurisdicton 2211.43 2857.5 C ISO PRDPE"ES, M 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 7 OF 8 JudW n: Lodi county: San Joaquin State- CA Surrey Date: 12(91 009 Chslrt 1359 3 Plan Reviewer Staffing Comparison of CornmuntHes lssuIng Similar Dumber of e� Pyr qu,lYtil� _ ,- 500 450 400 .I 0 IL k 300 250 2 D 0 } 100 {' 0 0 Annual Workload Pgr Annual Workload Per Carnmordal Plan ResfdentW Plan RWeww ReMaww C&Mllar Communities 79.34 488.89 EYour Jori kftn 57.6 42.35 Chart S51 Inspector Staffing Comparison of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits Per Square Mile 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 600 0 Annual Workload Par Annual Workload Per GSkNlar CommunWes 4028.34 3253.92 ■Your Jurisdiot m 2211.43 2857.56 ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 8 OF 8 Jurisdiction- Lada Survey Oaks: 1202009 Count}: San Joaquin State: CA Section 6 SCE S ' Points Analysis ISO has been surveying and evaluating building code adoption and enforcement in communities around the country since 1995. To maintain relevant information the BCEGS7" program is designed to conduct surveys on a 5 year cycle. The information in this sec Uon will give you some insight to trend in your jurisdiction, your skate and across the country. Table 6-1 details #w points your department earned during the most recent survey as well as the pointe eamed In the previous survey including a comparison of the two. This information may be used to trach Iacal trends or pin -point improvement target areas. Table 6-1 Building Coda Efftedvenese Grading Paint Comparison ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTMN 6 PAGE 3 OF 6 Currant GrWing Yr: Usadmum PrevkKo Grading Yn p4w DJtfemnca Possible° Con► Rn Can Rw corn l 44.84 8 44.84 8 0 0 0 44.84 8 4+4,84 8 Seaton 1 06 - Adopted ding Codes Seaton 108 - AddWonal Codes 4 4 0 0 4 4 Section 110 - Modf dlon to 4 4 0 0 4 4 Adopted Codes SocUm 112 - Method of 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adoption Seotlon 115 - TrainIng 8.94 8.94 0 0 8.94 8.94 Section 120 - Certk lion 11.01 11.01 0 0 11.41 11.01 sotinn 125 - Building offk "s QualHioaUw I Exp 1 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 Education Sedkon 134 - SehxMon Prooedure for Building C f u -.W 0.25 0.25 0 0 0.25 0,25 Seaton 135 - 1.25 1.25 0 0 1.25 1,25 Professiofaals Section 140 - Zoning x 1 0 0 1 1 Provisions Section 145 - Car t-actorl t 1 0 0 1 1 Ider Llcunsft & BoMhq Section 150 - Ges&ar 0 0 0 0 0 0 Licensing Violation Reporting Sec don 155 - Public 2.19 2.19 0 0 2,19 2.19 Awareness Programs action 160 - PerticipeW In 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0,5 Code Dam prnwA Ac4lviliea Section 16 - AftWstm" 01 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 P011cfea & Proeadures ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTMN 6 PAGE 3 OF 6 iuiis fiction, Lodi Survey Date: 121 UD9 County: San Joaquin State: CA BuiWirka Code Eftativeness Grading Point Comparlson tcon#nuedt Charts 86-1 through 86.4 compared the points earned by your deperlrrlent to the points earned by odw departments in your state and across tt►e oountr . The charts are broken down b commercial and residential as well as by sec:don. You may use Table 6-1 as a guide for how points are eek in each secMn. ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 2 OF 6 Is wmurn Prawlout 9rading Yr: curtest G"no Yr P IS Dlf rancs No Posses Coon pas Corn I Can Res 19,83 19.83 0 0 19.8319.83 Seth n 2x05 - Exdsling 7.83 7.83 0 0 7.63 7,83 3 Section 210 - Experience of 1 1 0 0 1 1 Personnel Section 215 - DeW of Plan 10 10 0 0 10 18 Revkew Section 220 - Peftrnwae I 1 0 0 1 1 EvaluaOon for Q 18 6.75 18.5 5.2 0 0 0 0 18 6.75 16.45 5.2 Seeffon 305 - fadsft lafflng Section 310 - EVedwee of 2,B 2.8 0 0 ,6 2,6 Perawnel Secow 315 - Manage Inspection and Ra4nspectlon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Section 320 - Inmpedon 0.75 0.75 0 0 0.75 0.75 checklist Seotlon 325 - Special 0.9 0.9 0 0 0.9 0.9 InWsuWons Section 330 - Inspecdom for 1.5 1.5 0 0 1.5 1.5 Natured li=W MKOWw S olion 335 - Final 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.6 2.5 lnspeclignQ Sacllon 340 - Comte of 2 2 0 0 2 2 Sectim 345 • Pertafinence Evelualion for QWKy 1 1 0 0 1 1 Assun3nce 82.67 81.12 0.00 0.00 82.87 81.12- 1.12Tie Thefinal scare is determined by a mWaonshIp haiweert ibraot 185 and the bafence of the scaring. 82.87 81.12 0.00 0.00 1 82,6-' 81.12 Charts 86-1 through 86.4 compared the points earned by your deperlrrlent to the points earned by odw departments in your state and across tt►e oountr . The charts are broken down b commercial and residential as well as by sec:don. You may use Table 6-1 as a guide for how points are eek in each secMn. ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 2 OF 6 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: {;A Survey Data: 12I 2009 86-9 Commercial Points Scored Compared to Your te% 0 40 30 20 10 0 so 0 0 20 40 0 Section 9 Section 2 Section 3 D our Jud didon ■ WW Jurisdid3ons B&2 Commercial Points Scored Compared Nationwide Section I Section 2 Section oYot Awladidon ■Nationwide !SO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 3 OF 6 Judsdiction: Lodi county San Joaquin Mate: CA Survey Date: 1219!2009 B Residential Points Scored Compared to Your State 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 40 30 0 10 0 Section 1 Secdon 2 ae tion 13 Your Jurisdiction ■State Jurisdictions 136•4 Residential Points Scored Compared Nationwide Section i Sedon2 Section 3 o Your Jurisdiction ■ Nadonwide ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2006 SECTION 6 PAGE 4 OF 6 Juftldon: Lodi County: Scan joaqWn Sta# . CA Survey Date. 1 ,912009 The folloft four cl'in'ks repremen# the variation cf ciao uncouereld during ft many BC C S'm surveys L90 aanducts each ywr. The charts oompare the dassiiicabm a ox muntty received in its p vvbA mduation to ft evakabDr s cmnducl ed dwtq to year indicated, assificatkm am bmim down by pemnal (residential) class, and com*rclal loss. The results are groin so #hat to first two charts (64 & ) represent regions where seismic concom are the m mor Issue; while the secor4 pair of carts rep mserft regions where hurricane conoa s reprasa rd the mast prevaW natural hazard potentiet. Chart" residential dassfttlon Vadagm in the seismic regiM Chart 6-6 ownff ercial motion vanaMm in dw seismic region BCEGS Pere Close Changes SC CGS COMA Crass Changes •IV � ,'-�; 5 _ --f � rye} 1 � �� 0 2DU Pm 2003 Pms 2M Ptr¢ MOT Pees 2000 Perm Chart 6-6 ownff ercial motion vanaMm in dw seismic region (DISCS PROPUMES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 5 OF 6 SC CGS COMA Crass Changes 40%- 20%...4'*' ~�' 4 �''•- . 0% Cornl 2EI03 Coml 2M Card 2WI Cord 21300 Capri (DISCS PROPUMES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 5 OF 6 .k,risdiclion: Lodi C U t : San JOKOn Stale: C Surmy Data: "I Chart 6-7 resldK*W mon-wri kmn lin ft hone reglon BCEGS Pars Class Changes IT 1096 tiJML :f104 Pers M Pers 2002 Pam 2Mf Pers 20DO mars Chart" omwowl dassWa tion varialfon in,the l imene region mo Pp4pE nm, INC 2006 SECTION O PAGE 6 OF 6 BCEGS Comd Class Champs dF a0% _f:4 rq11d{4L # i0 4 • +j Li y iµ Mi M 30%- � _R ,I'r 1096 096 - 100" X0'3 comf mm cow 2001 cow zw COMI mo Pp4pE nm, INC 2006 SECTION O PAGE 6 OF 6 Juriedk;bm. Lodi County. Saari Joequln Stft CA Suzy Dafec IZ9 Dwwent pofs of the country area wbjw tD a vwkAy of polanW muvil Dards, The Wrap balm Is an owhow of thaose poter)tleW EaFlhquakcs Low Medium H Sh Fftk Ririe N* T��QpaY Sane wrame Risk Falmk HurniQ�nc+c �pn� �sl�amc F#tak Ftlsk �rR4f Vdrano Tomami ftk risk In 000pe obw W M AIR (an ISO cor many) we Have prepared the foNomft ha mrd report using the muroio" buiidit address you supplod during thug =Noy rnaetirig. A full WpWnWm of how ID read and Irrterpmet the following profll car) be fo rW In AppwKkKA erg IpRoPEFznES, INC 2DDS ECTK)N T PAGE 1 OF 8 AT'tation Page 1 of Single Locolon Ha wd Rm to Location Laine: Enfred Addhmi 221 Wool Km Sftot. Lodi. CA W240 Ls*tW@: 38.13 6° NOM L.onglituds,-121.2753W East Getastraphe Hazard lnfotirta6a MaWhW Addrm: 221 W FINEST. I,=, SAN JOAQUIN I~aigay. 'CA 9SM- 000,06 a fAftch: Exed Additw L.atltuda;- 38.13432V No* lonpltuds: -129.2753$2' Fag Man maps: -- swea a Oap -- - 1)is ahttiec Capgte*' erwarm -u 1-kI,RMis by R In way � Z r Z 7 r. inakst 0 E: L Cuts%~.+ Si jarly DrSkr% St 102*ftjqft�Cw, ZI FSaa St �Ril'['IC$119 �+Dir� A Hurrlowo Proft is mA an i. SamT hxEndsi hmn Pmft Risk. 04nmr" Lova) IOq•y�rMrloea lrvMrdr amlear lass kWh AM++wa"AoMr+ual Loess Relative RlsA (IsarDWft} 3/1912010 0% 3 La n w n 30 3s 0 as LOON .1 % 04w " �* ]0 10 d0 0 x ap " 10 CATStmion within loony: — ...41 whin saw: �. Hazard Information Ta dd. Very ft"lab Abdwate ALM 11 11 farm: Very HghMh Maderats A.ow Y 1 woo wind: Yery lttghMO Akdwale1t.ow v pow Neamst Htstariaal Tornadoes Dow slat we lnbmft 00 (Fu& dab) April 27, I WO 36.67 2 February 7. 1978 40.20 2 April 19, 1999 7.24 t May 31, 1907 11.43 1 NlioM 22,1$83 40.66 1 Nearesi Historical Hall Stsrms DIU Dlstendt lownsuy 00 Awraye Hadi L on) Wy 1$,1924 17.74 0.&1,3 May I8+ 1994 26.31} ops -1:3 Aby 18.1994 38.72 04-1.3 18.9664 3$.62 0.8-" AP4 28. IM 17.90 <0.6 Nearest Historteal Straight -Line Wind Storms DM Dlatamm Irdewhy by 00 Awe VRM Speed (M1 Dsaermher22, 1M 51,61 70.80 April 8, 2M5 38.59 00-70 February 28,'t9" M76 80-70 February 6. 1978 4'7.W SM 1=e4ru" A .Ewa 34.33 6404 Witter FyUwM PMOO Risk {Feras~Low) 0% s 1R i? !G n 30 '15 ea 42 1CM 400,p ar lass WWI: 1— .29 ioss kwM: : Awnps Annual I.0". Rdlative Risk IP dw? w m io d eo 7a as sp 1w% urltt�ir+ ao". r . ,rrtetdn stft 3/19/2-010 Page 2 of r ATStafion Hazard Iriformatlorr wwd l:rWownw� Vft High ! Mgh ! Mod ee! Law l Sm w frequence: VW Huh f High ! AAodareia 1 Law f � Far hquake PmMe Risk (+ ) 0% a in is to is m x fo 45 loss aer kw kw- 25DIw k" MW: Awampe AnnuM Lom Rolallvo Rlsk (F'erGWNIe) ox W 410 40 50 w 70 e4 00 um ommt r: wkhln state: Earthquake informotton CA SOI Zww, G Liqoofacdon FtbwAtd: Vwv M%l+lJ th Ak dou" Aim +� Landdlde Zmm Alquiot•Prkft FmA re: No Solt Tyjw. Stfr chly and i y aaKW 50) bftwkyr by Probablllgr of Excesdarm k McdHled MareaM lnhrmlty ill VII "ll ISL x X0 xll 30 Y*dW PR %W% 1OM% .158% 0.710% M08% 0% 0% Inlaaft by Rmkwn Pa 6odr: Rwturn Period Y00 Yager 21D0 Year 256 Year 418 Year Modow lM mom k*m*ay 3.9 8k f3 8 7.5 Fault Information Name DWRIM To fade !rain! Log& Chola Brent Rohim ParW bmwftw&l bsNal C,co rnple Fags 36.42 46.W 8.80 52D Grit Vdtsy 7 FaA 30.77 27.118 6.70 621 Great VW* 6 FMA 26:70 .27.f .8.70 621 Graat Way 4 Fwu 36.32 28.10 am 471 Qml VsfOy 5 Fain! 26.97 1 TAO 6.60 500 HIstotical Earrthquak$a Ham DM* mboku" Rpiaenbal DIahaaw llEpWor" Depth I unnamed- Mu"'21,1889 '1889 &80 64.08 NA Llrmemod Ame10,IM 6.60 55AD 8 Ulx+ wnod April 19, IM 6.40 43.36 MA Unrreffod Novvmbgr 28;1868 6.#0 £6.51 WA Lkmffod Maps 75,1889 9.00 3521 WA Plood Profile Ftood I1formotton Eaurcw 03 F1KM Flood Zones Year Flog zwo FEMA Road Zmm: *600 good Zone 3119!2010 Page 3 of CATStation Ekmtkm; Shoroabt to: Wmtet 8Qdy, 1 CO Year Floud Plain, 800 Year Flood Plmdn, Flood Innes UnkrKnRri = D ot*00a� x w. OW yXSM a't = =10C A AE AO AH i 00 -Year V V ve AOS AR FPO FVWC body UNDES No delle I "--'AN AN 5.0 - 75 feet above mean sea level M" fflan 5 rrAm 0.8 mum 0.6 rnllaS i Zoom In I I Zoom Out The data provided in the CATSWOn FFood Profile In based on 79ital Q3 Floud Doha oampllad by FEMA. T" IbRW Q3 nood Dem teas nol been rnodtAad In en]+ way by AUR- Dgbl tag f=lood Data Is devefopad by FEMA by scOnWrg existing hardcopy Flood Ini;mnce Rale Maps {FIRM). vmtorWrig a themeticc cnrarlay of Road dsk. Mars Inkwmi w of Dloital G3 i'bod Gels can be obhelnad from FFMA I tW Services Center. The User should none that Diplfal 03 Flood Gala doss no# mpieoe exMr g hardo*y FIRM or Digital FORM. Digital 03 Fbod DMO dose rpt provkie base Asad ate+ratlon lnkrmatlon and It containe only carWn feakvm kw exiadng hmdcopy FIRM. Therdm, D1Qital 03 Flood Data should be Deed oMy as a ganerat guide%0 a partkular to mftrila pKpdmlly to Specht Rood Haxard Neva (SFKAx). Tamdem Prcdle Terrorism information Diatorm To Nessa# Target Target Type, 3/19/2010 8.7841 Milew ttCAL oGm In -; Page 4 of 5 CATStafim h� w 0 99 mu.�tla� Is a�, ald %o- wideiata�ndfng the � n�pare rr,�arrn�6pn aed c�.s t pewlde �n. awl rspne�e�pon 3119!2610 ?age 5 of 5 JwW!c#on.* Lodi County: San Joaquin stafix CA Survey Date: 1 MM= Ap1)e?idix A- NiitUraI HIzarci 6 en e raI Iil(ormatl(.)r1 AIPJWW is desoied to provkie users with v#si, Perth dWX* rbcs of the PMP94y location, such as storm wip pot>a &I and distance W nearW acM fauk as well as risk smmS, which are quick measures of the risk and relative risk associated with the pmp". This rakwe of Aft includes hunicane pro les for all states In the contirmlal U.S. at risk km hurricanes, as wed as earthquake, sewer+e thrrrdersliorm and flood profiles for tare fot'tyrt contiguous states. The Aftow Profile disphp hVoftd lr oTR35an regarding the 8='mcy of to kx*-W far the entered address, the ge000de of #0 address and a street map. The Humane PmMe pwides hunicane, risk kdol wibn for the bca#ion as watt as other related hamwds irrohAng Own surge poteet and distance to newest hMDrkmi hun ane track. The Earthquake Profile, in addibim to sNwing risk level and ranking, shows awepfiWity of the kwon to different hazards. Those hazards include Iigoe%cOw, landlslide poWM, aW fault zone irrfa m ion. The Flood Profile provides to proximity of a bcafim to one of ti+m flood Lorre categories as well as tithe lacat m*s d wfm to vearkm flood plain boundaries used on FEMA Digital 03 flood dada. Ttw Severe Thunderstorm Profte provides inftm stun about risk from fomado, ha fl, and straight -Ina windstorms for a given location, irrduding distance fo rmuest hWbrkmi sbwns so annual ftWMICy. Based on ew address Wd m Pion provdW, AiRPhMbro displays the owecied and skwdw*od address Fol aft USPSP rotas and guidellrw% as veil as the gevcode (latitude shod lon9itud4 oawty, and ZIP Code of to k cation. AJRPmffiw prerfom'rs a Zook -up in the L.D ATiON Tm dam. The hazard is then assessed based on an exact address or ZIP Code meter. AIR's geoccd ng algorithm, based on -dw TIGW geographical dsUftse, Is used to convert #re kKaWn address antwed by the ossa irva the lalltude and koMkide. Depending on to address match, either the exact gwoode, or the 9wcode of the appropriate ZIP Code om*oid, is used for ming the risk. ►ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2W5 APPF-NDtX A PAGE 1 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 • The Address Profile also provides a street map of the location. Given a location, the loss potential from specific perils is represented by various risk scores. Risk scores are determined by performing a loss analysis on a typical residential building at that location. The analysis is performed using AIR's state-of-the-art modeling technologies. Note that content and time element (loss of use) calculations are excluded from the analysis. Based on this analysis of the location, Al RProfilero provides two sets of scores: Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Very High Risk <5% 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% 25-30% 30-35% 35-40% 40-45% >45% Relative Risk Scores. In addition to the risk score of a given location, AIRProffler also displays the location's relative risk by county and state. Relative risk ranks the loss potential of a location with respect to the loss potential of other locations in the county or state. The format of the ranking is based on percentile values from 10% to 100% percent. The AI RProfileto Hurricane Profile provides users with information about the hurricane risk potential for a specific location. Risk scores for 100 -year, 250 -year and annual average losses, as well as relative risk ranking within county and state, are displayed. The profile also displays the following hurricane risk information: • Storm surge potential • Distanceto coast • Elevation • Terrain/Land use • Intensityand nearestdistance to historical storm track for nearest historical hurricanes In addition to strong winds and tides, storm surge can pose significant danger to life and property during hurricanes. Storm surge is caused by winds pushing water toward the shore. When combined with high tide, storm surge can cause an increase in the mean water level and so result in severe flooding and substantial property loss. The densely populated Atlantic and Gulf coastlinesthat lie less than ten feet above mean sea level are particularly vulnerable to storm surge. The AI RProfiler2 Hurricane Report i nd icates whether or not the property is at risk from storm surge. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 2 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 The AI RProfileto Earthquake Profile provides users with information about the earthquake risk potential for a specific location. Risk scores for 180 -year, 258 -year and average annuai iosses, as well as relative risk ranking within county and state, are displayed. The profile also displays the following risk information: • The California Departmentof Insurance (DOD zone • Liquefaction potential • Landslide zone • Earthquakefault (Alquist-Priolo)zone • Soil type • Seismicity • Fault information • Historical earthquakes When seismic waves pass through water -saturated, loosely packed sandy soils, contact pressure between the individual grains is lost. The grains become more densely configured, causing pore pressure to increase. If drainage is inadequate, what was once solid ground now behaves as a dense fluid, incapable of supporting buildings. Structures that may have survived the effects of shaking can deform, tilt or sink. They may remain structurally intact, but have become unusable and unsalvageable. Liquefaction risk at a given site is represented by that site's potential to experience damage resulting from liquefaction. Liquefaction potential is a measure of a soil's susceptibility to liquefaction combined with a location's level of earthquake risk. AIR applies standard methodologies used by the Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), United States Geological Survey (USGS), to calculate liquefaction potential. The AIRProfilero Earthquake Profile describes a location's liquefaction potential by one of five levels: very high, high, moderate, low, or very low. The underlying soil type may have a determining effect on potential earthquake damage to structures. Certain types of soils, such as soft soils, are capable of amplifying seismic waves, hence causing more severe damage. Also, some types of soil, such as bay mud, sandy soil, and stiff to soft soil, are also more susceptibleto liquefaction. Soil is classified according to its mechanical properties. The AIRProffiero Earthquake Profile for a particular location uses ten soil type classifications: • Hard rock • Rock • Very dense soil • Stiff soil • Soft soil • Rock to very dense soil • Very dense to stiff soil • Stiff to soft soil • Bay mud Water ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 3 CF 11 Jurisdkfion: Lodi County: San Joaquin Statile: CA Survey Date: 12M2005 One measure of earthquake intars4 is tine level of groursd shaking at any particular location. Over the years, several intensity scales have been proposed, but the Mod&ad Mercalli Intertsity (MMI) scale is ttse most commonly used, especially in the UnRed Slates. The MME scale descd s the Intensity of an sarNuake based on human relack n and observed darnage to natural and man- made stnxtures. This is useful because It allows for an atHxAJon of Intensity to events that occurred prior to the advent of modem measuring devices, as well as In Instances In modern times where those devkes were not available. The drawback to this standard of measure Is that the MMI scale is highly subjecthm. The following table lists the MM I scales and defiirittions. MMI Definition 1. People do not feel any movement 11. A few people aright nofice movement if they are at rest and/or on the upper boors of tall buildings. 111. Many people indoors feel movement. Banging objects swing back and forth. People outdoors might not realise that an earthquake is ocamVg. Ell. Most people kx oom feel movement. Hanging obo is swing. Dishes, windows and doors raft. The earthquake feels like a heavy truck hftft the walls. A few people outdoors may feel mnvem nt. Parked cars mk. V. Almost everyone feels movernenL Steeping people are awakened. Doors swing open or ctose. Dishes are broken. Pictures on the wall move. Snell objects move or are turned over. Trees might shake. Liquids might spill out of opera oontainers. A EWvwy"buft rnomm nt. People have trouble walking. Objects fall fmm shams. Pictures fall off waits. Furrntire moves. Plaster In walls might crack. Tmw and bushes shake. Damage is slight in poorly built buitdings, No structural damage. Vll. People have diculty standing. Drivers feed their cars shaking. Some furniture breaks. Loose brinks fall from builclNs. Damage is slight to moderate in well built buildings; considerable in poorly built buildkW. I11. Drivers have trouble steering. Houses that we no# bolted down rn�ght shift aro their foundations. Tall structures such as towers and chimneys might WW and fall. WelF brit buildings 5uft sUght damage. Poorly built dnxtum suffer severe damage. Tree tenches break. Hillsides might crags if the ground Is vuet. Water levels in weds might change. DC. 1 ell wilt buildings suffer considerable damage. HDuses that are not bolted dowry mow off they foundation. Some underground pipes are brokan. The ground cracks. Rasermks sum serious damage. X. Most buildings and thele foundations are destroyed. Some bridges are destroyed. Dams are seriously damaged. Large bidoWn occur. Water is thrown on the banks of carmle, dvers, lakes. The ground cracks in large areas. Railroad tracks are bent fthiiy. Yi. Most bindings collapw Some br€dges are destroyed. Large cracks appear in the ground. Uradarground pipelines are destroyed. Railroad hacks aro badly bent I1. JAlmost everything is dastrayed. Objects are thrown into the air. The ground moves In waves or ripples. Large arnounts of rock may move. ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2006 APPENDIX A IMAGE 4 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 The data presented in AIRProf!/ero is developed by calculating MMI values for each location. It incorporates all potential seismic sources, the distance of those sources from the location of interest, and local site conditions. Because MMI is considered as a measure of what the ground is doing during an earthquake, rather than an index of damage to structures, damageability of building at the site is not included in the calculation. Those who are more interested in damage estimation should refer to 100 -and 250 -year loss levels. The MMI values are represented in two ways in the Earthquake Profile: • Intensity by PE (probability of exceedance) • Intensity by Return Period The first representation, defined by probability of exceedance, is the probability that at least one event of that MMI will occur within 30 years. The second representation, based on return period, depicts the maximum intensity of an event that is likelyto occur within the designated return period; that is, the intensity corresponds to the maximum event that is likelyto occur within the return period displayed. Proximity to an active fault is an important indication of seismicityfor a specific location. The AIRProfflero Earthquake Profile displays the property's distance to the nearest known active faults. Important characteristics of these faults are displayed, including fault length, and the magnitude and frequency of the "characteristic" event associated with that fault. (Scientists believe that many faults tend to produce earthquakes of a particular size, or magnitude, that is "characteristic" of that particular fault, and that occur with a particular frequency, or recurrence rate). ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 5 CF 11 Jurisdia tion: Dodi County: San JoagUin Sate: CA Survey e:1 2005 The AIRPm%ra Flood Profile provides users with irrforimWkm about itis flood risk poWnU fax a speoft location. Each kKoWn is ftmctertmd by ils prcWm iy to one of taus flood zone carries as tolkaws: Water body; 1Ww3es lame Fakes and rivers • 1 Myew ADod plain. Areas where there is 1% cl3ance of being fboded • year flood Main: Areas where there is 0.2% c Qxa of beft (boded « Outside flood plate. Areas ouWde of vAAw body, ICO -and SDD,yearftod plains • Nb date Areas where there is no date avai Jurisdk%on: Lodl Survey Date: 1 W2M Count+. San Joaquin Slava: CA The Flood Profile provides the sN"3st distance of the bcatiout to the various flood plain bortndarles. Three types of distance msurament is pravided: a Shortest distance to the wry of water' body hortest distance to to bmidery of 100-yearfmcd plain a Shortest d6lanoe to tla bourdEuy of 500 -year Mood plain ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2ODS APPENDIX A PAGE 7 OF i 1 Oweswdrig protrle. .SDOIC An area where ttie 500 -year flooding Is oor tak d within the d�arml banks acrd the a>w roW Is too narrow 6o show to scale. An ad&wy darMW Wkfth of 3 Mahn is sham. FUNIC An area where the ***my is omlabkd v+rlthln the chanrwal banks and Itra dwMI is. too romw to show to scale. An arbitrary #cannel width of 3 meteor is 6h n. BM are not sfiam in this area, although #my may be w0wiled an the cwmpon trig PMW FPQ An ares daslorsWl as a'Flood Prone Area' on a nw prepared by USGS aW the Federal Insurance AdminisUdm This area has been del abed used on available Inknutfim on past hxds. This Is an area inundated by 100-yewt' in forwhioh no Ms have been determined. IN An area designated as within a'SpecW Flood bard Area" (or SFHA) on a FIRM. This is an area inundated by 100 -year flooding for wt kh BFEs or velocity may have been delBarr kmd. No disfinctione are made beWmen the dMWmnk flood hazard Torres tVxd may included 'dn the SFes These may kokrda ZonAw AE, A0, AH, 9B, or AR'* M Y, o OUT An area designated as ouWde a'SpecW Fk*d HR=d Arear(or SFHA) on a FIRM. This is an area murrda W by SOCW 1 flooding; an area Iirtundated by I D& year koding with average depths of km ton 1 foot or with draWope areas less fm 1 square mWe; an area protected by leuees ft m 1 Wow fia Wft. or an area #tet Is debmined W be outside the 1 and 5OD-year floodplair�s. No dis*nc*a w are made betwew these ciftent oonditleons. These may l wA& both shaded and unshaded areas of Zone X. ANI An area that is boated within a ==unity or-om ty that Is rxt mapped out any wed FIRM. UNDES A body of open water, such as a porA We, ocean, etc., located vA hln a commun4t urisd"r donsl limits, to has no defined flood hazard. WE = Base Flood Elevation The Flood Profile provides the sN"3st distance of the bcatiout to the various flood plain bortndarles. Three types of distance msurament is pravided: a Shortest distance to the wry of water' body hortest distance to to bmidery of 100-yearfmcd plain a Shortest d6lanoe to tla bourdEuy of 500 -year Mood plain ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2ODS APPENDIX A PAGE 7 OF i 1 Judsclicbm: Lodi County: San Joaqudn State: CA Survey DaW.12M The fallowN map ilk*Im es the my disWnce from flood platin boundaries are cafpr.ltated: IN Yiear Flood P18In BOurmry M War Flood Flab Boundary The AMPAxle Severe Thunderstorm Profile provides users with infamiation abow Me scare thunderstorm risk potengal for a specific local ort. The Severe 'Thunderstorm Profile includes risks due to tornado, MR, and stralght4ine vAnd. F5sk soores for t ear, M -year and artnual average lasses, as well ae relstM risk ranking within county and stater are displayed. The profile also disp" ft following risk information: Annum Frequency This field represents the annual fmquirtcy of occurrence for toms , hail, and straight-line wkndstorms. A quWhxM dewiipdon of the frequency (very high, high, rnoderate, low, or very low) is displayed. Hbrkwknd Severe Thunderstorms In this sec.km of ahs Sevwe ThundemOrm Profile, A1RProftr identifies inforrrmtlorn cn the five roast severe tornado, hail, and stmighHine wind events within 50 m9es of the given locafion. The follawkkg characteftb s arra displayed: year, date, dtstanoe from location, and Inters4. The description of intensity varies by peril. For tornadoes, the Fujft mle is used. The intensity of haiMomw is measured by average halstone she and the Intensity of aftight-line wkxWms Is derived from a measurement of raar+um wind speed. C25 -.... -- --- -- - rights reserved. No Ilan of this plication may be reproduced h whDie or in pert on arw medium wkNaut the exprcw written permission of AIR Worldwide Corporation, Send quest ww or i ro r r4nbs about this web site` to a!aM air-wo4dMdC.So v on 2.2.2.2DD4D326 AIR WorpdMW Caap waWn Myacv Pollan l Condsfons of Lp (6) VSO PROPERTEES. INC 205 APPENDIX A PAGE 8 OF 1 l Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 A description of the listed hazards follows: A. Brush and Forest Fires: Areas with heavy vegetation and a dry season can be subject to forest and brush fires. Local building and zoning regulations address this hazard in some areas of the country. Buffer zones which are free from brush and other fuel sources, as well as the use of fire resistive exterior siding and roofing can be utilized to mitigate this hazard. B. Earthquake: Earthquakes are caused by a tension release from the earth's tectonic plates that causes the ground to shake or vibrate. Most casualties associated with earthquakes are caused by structural failures in buildings and fires caused from electrical shorts and gas leaks. All of the model codes have seismic zones where buildings should be constructed to withstand at least a moderate earthquake. The codes are currently geared towards avoiding a structural collapse. This is a life safety issue and a building can still sustain enough physical damage to render it unusable after the earthquake occurs. Since 1900 earthquakes have occurred in 39 states and caused damage in all 50. C. Floods: Floods are one of the most common disasters in the United States, and cause damage to thousands of structures annually. Floodplain construction is addressed in most building codes and many zoning regulations. Flood mitigation is addressed through the National Flood Insurance Program which provides insurance credit incentives for complying with FEMA regulations. Flood as a hazard falls outside the scope of the BCEGS program. D. Hail: Consists of icy pellets of various sizes that are usually associated with thunderstorms or tomadic activity. Large hail can cause substantial damage to roof surfaces. In a typical year the insurance industry pays out $1.5 Billion in hail damage claims. In rare cases hail has caused structural damage and building collapses. Building codes usually do not address potential damage from hail. E. High Winds: High strait line winds can occur anywhere in the United States and are caused by pressure and temperature variances in the Earth's atmosphere. High strait line winds are common in thunder storms, in the open plains were there are no obstructions to slow down the wind, in mountainous areas from upslope and downslope wind effects, on the East Coast from "Northeasters", and on the Pacific Coast from Santa Anna winds. Model Code groups have formulated maps based on 50 year mean recurrence intervals. The model codes currently apply the concept of "fastest wind speed" which is determined by an anemometer 33 ft. above the ground in open terrain. The anemometer measures the time it takes for one mile of air to pass its location. Wind maps are not based on potential maximum wind gust, but on "fastest wind speed," which has created confusion in media coverage of storms. F. Hurricane: This is a tropical low pressure system with a circular wind rotation of 74 mph or greater usually accompanied by rain, lightning, and sometimes tornadoes. These storms havethe abilityto travel inland for hundredsof miles, maintaining hurricaneforce winds. G. The Saffir-Simpson scale is used to rate the strength of a hurricane from 1 to 5 with 5 being the most severe. The Saffir-Simpson scale uses wind speed and storm surge to rate the hurricane's strength and potential for devastation. Model codes have addressed the probabilityof hurricanes by creating wind zones that rangefrom 110 mph on barrier islands to 70mph inland. Structures must be designed and built to compensate for the potential ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 9 CF 11 Jurisdiction: Lodi County. San Joacl& State: CSA Survey Date: 1f9QM addWorgd sines pf ed on structures by the wind In these renes. The struc kM designs must take into account both Positive and NegaM find Loads. Roof systems must be ar xmW to the walk systems to resist the wind loads. The wall systems mast also be strapped or bolted to the foundation and fodk g system to ate a nft�xs resisM system. Building oades also address the potential storm surge €or coastal ownbucko, by requMM structures to be elevated on pilings. H. l ands kMftn Mebris lir: This hazard Is more common In, but not Imited to mowUrous. areas Earthquakes and heavy rains cause krAsWe& MWOOWS and debris flows can be caused by heavy rains as wag as volcanic eruptions In areas %M snaw and ice present. This Is usually a localized occurrence, and is more of a zoning than a building oade Issue. 1. Lightning: All states are subject to lightning in varying degnm& Lightning rods can be installed on structures in high probabft antes, but most building oodm do ro address when fiightning rods are required. In a typical year the insurance Industry pays out aver $1 Ballon in residential ligWing damage dakris. J. Snow Loads: This is a concern in snow belt areas in northern states and In MounUdnous arses. There are snow iced maps meted by the model code groups that address this Axition. Some areas require a minimum roof pitch and higher deeign fags to compernate far the addtional weight imposed on roof8 by wow. Soil Uquefactiam This is a seismic corimm. There are some soli types which. In the presence of a high enough water table, wilM twice on the physlcal pi mperdes of a liquid when shaken by an ewftuake. MOW constructed in areas suNect to Bquegacdan need to be designed to reduce or eftinate- the possibility of uneven settling or titling during an ew"U" L. Rail Subsidence: This is ft shrinking or sealing of soil due to its composition. Sorm sob compact or shrink exommWly and this could cause foundation faikare if not carnpensated for by foundaboan rekdbrcernent. Some areas are subject to sink hoka These are typkally caused by lime deposits being di oMW by underground wager. M. Swelflng ~:Soils: This is vommon In clay based soils that do not drain well and needs to be compenaatsd for by foundation reirdbrcernent Footings or foundations placed on or within expansive soils need to be designed to r St differential volume changes to prevent mal damage W the supported structure. As an alterimb a to special deeiign the sail can be removed and repkiced or s#abii oad. N. Tomado: Tomadaes are formed from mamp clonm or superoail thunderstorms. Tornadoes can sb*e In many places In the Unified States, but the gmetest probability of tornadic adMty is In a corridor from Toms to W&onsin known as tornado alley. They occur usually In t#►e sprang or fall of the year during tine late afternoon when the attiosphere is least stable. Twadoes am meamwl by the F41ta Scale (F CALEI which nheasetres t#m wind speed and damage potential. The scale ranges from FC to F5 With F5 being the mat severe storm. damages from a direct hit by the strongest tmmdoas cannot be mitigated, but the WSO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 10 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Lodi County: San Joaquin State: CA Survey Date: 12/9/2009 collateral damages that occur in surrounding areas can be reduced. The wind provisions of the modei codes can heip to iimit damages from the most common, weaker tornadoes. O. Tsunamis: (tidal wave) These are large sea waves usually caused by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, and are most common in the Pacific Ocean. The potential devastation of a Tsunami is enormous, but little is being done to mitigate this hazard. Several Pacific Coast States have enacted zoning regulations to prevent schools and hospitals from being built in low areas subject to tsunamis. P. Volcanoes: There are numerous dormant and active volcanoes in the Western United States, and the potential danger is catastrophic near these volcanoes. Collateral damage could occur for hundreds of miles. Building codes can do little to address this danger, but some areas require additional roof structure design to compensate for volcanic ash load. Zoning restrictions are a more viable means of mitigation. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIXA PAGE 11 OF 11 Community Development Building & Safety Overview Role of the Building Department: Keep Lodi Safe ❑ Enforce the minimum requirements of State mandated codes. ❑ Work with the community to increase awareness and compliance. ❑ Have Competent Staff Role of the Building Department: ❑ Enforcement of minimum requirements of the following state mandated codes: ■ Building Code ■ Fire Code ■ Electrical Code ■ Plumbing Code ■ Mechanical Code ■ Energy Code ■ Referenced Standards Recent Natural Disasters ❑ 2010 Earthquake; Haiti: 233,000 deaths ❑ 2004 Earthquake and Tsunami; Southeast Asia: 230,000 deaths ❑ 2010 Earthquake; Chile: 723 deaths (latest count) ❑ 2008 China 69,000 deaths & 2010: 617 deaths (last count) ❑ Between 1975 and 1996, natural disasters worldwide cost 3 million lives and affected at least 800 million others. 7.0 Magnitude Earthquake in Haiti ❑ Haiti did not have a Building Code in effect. ❑ Buildings Collapsed ❑ 233,000 people perished. ❑ Haiti had not had a severe earthquake in 200 years. 7.2 Magnitude Earthquake in Mexicali ❑ Mexicali had a building code in effect for commercial. Not enforced for residential ❑ Majority of the structure losses, older commercial & residential. 8.8 Magnitude Earthquake in Chile ❑ Chile had a building code in effect. ❑ Building was designed to maintain enough structural integrity for occupants to escape. ❑ 723 people perished (at last count) What About Lodi ? ❑ Lodi has not had a major seismic event in over 100 years. ❑ However, there have been 6 seismic events of 6.0 magnitude or greater in the Lodi area in the past 175 years. ❑ We work with Tenants, Designers, Architects, and Engineers ❑ We work for Building Owners and the Citizens of Lodi We ensure their projects meet minimum State mandated codes which are designed to ensure public safety ❑ The City of Lodi Building Department was evaluated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in December 2009 ❑ ISO Provides advisory insurance to underwriters and rating information for insurers The ISO Provides ❑ Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Classification Number ❑ The BCEGS program assigns each municipality in the country a BCEGS classification number of 1 (exemplary commitment to building -code enforcement) to 10. A Community's Classification Number is Based on: ❑ Administration of codes ❑ Review of building plans ❑ Field inspections Administration of Codes ❑ Building -code edition in use ❑ Modification of the codes ❑ Zoning provisions to mitigate natural hazards ❑ Training of code enforcers ❑ Certification of code enforcers ❑ Incentives for outside education/certification ❑ Building Officials' qualifications ❑ Contractor/builder licensing and bonding ❑ Public- awareness programs ❑ Participation in code -development activities appeal process and the Review of Building Plans.* ❑ Staffing levels ❑ Qualifications ❑ Level of detail of plan review ❑ Performance evaluations ❑ Review of plans for one- and two-family dwellings, multifamily dwellings, and commercial buildings Field inspections: ❑ Staffing levels ❑ Qualifications ❑ Level of detail of inspections ❑ Performance evaluations ❑ Final inspections ❑ Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy Lodi Building & Safety Compares VERY Well Commercial Permits B6-1 Commercial Points Scored Compared to Your State 50 40 30 20 10 0 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 13 Your Jurisdiction ■ State Jurisdictions Section 1: Administration of Codes Section 2: Plan Review Section 3: Field Inspection Lodi Building & Safety Compares EXTREMELY Well Residential Permits B6-3 Residential Points Scored Compared to Your State 50 40 30 20 10 0 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 oYour Jurisdiction ■State Jurisdictions Section 1: Administration of Codes Section 2: Plan Review Section 3: Field Inspection Lodi Building & Safety Compare to Other Similar Communities: ❑ The City of Lodi received a classification number of "3" for one- and two- family dwellings ❑ The City of Lodi received a classification number of "3" for all other construction Lodi Building & Safety Compare to Other Similar Communities0 : Distribution of BCEGS Codes across California 100-- 8685 ■ Residential 80 79 80 ■ Commercial 60- 4444 04444 40 33 35 23 0 3 20- 17 17 17 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comparison To Other Cities in the US Distribution of BCEGS Codes across the U.S. 3500 3331 3000 3092 ■ Residential 2500 ■ Commercial 2122 2000 1540 160 75 1500 128 1000 886 62$23 500 33853 14 016 0 14 0160 0 4 5 6052 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Benefits Low BCEGS Grade ❑ The prospect of reduced injuries and loss of life, reduced property losses, and reduced economic and social disruption caused by catastrophes ❑ The prospect of lower insurance rates on buildings constructed after the community improves its classification ❑ Pride and professionalism of the community building department to be the best it can be ❑ Good public policy This presentation demonstrates how the Building Department Keeps Lodi Safe ❑ We enforce the minimum requirements of State mandated codes. ❑ We work with the community to increase awareness and compliance. ❑ We have Competent Staff