Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 19, 1992 PH (6)It- — or ] CIN OF LODI Eouh CIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc., 11350 Monier Park Place, Rancho Cordova, California 95742 appealing the decision of the Lodi Chief Building shingle r not ofstwithttheir Decrabond Tile aoperover ICBOxReport 3409shake and wood shingle MEETING ELATE: February 19, 1991 PREPARED EY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the request of Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. appealing the decision of the Lodi Chief Building Inspector (Building Official) not to let their company roof over existing shake and wood shingle roofs with Decrabond Tile per ICBG Report 3409. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: memorandum which outline City Council sitting as should be denied. FUNDING: None required. JBS/cg Attachments APPROVED: CCCD92.1/TXTD.OIC Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. and the City's Chief Building Inspector have been in discussion over this appeal since September, 1991, Attached are a series of letters and the Board n describe ndthe (2) the ffbs reasonsition on that the (1) the appeal the Board of Appeals 2 ja sJa s B. Schroe er nity Development Director T140MAS A. PETERSON City Manager L� r,cycMC o+p« XSUPACP ** L1C. ND 51 It= Moder Pak ph" FION" CeMWAk CA am 1194M 4M14W September 13. 1991 City Ka>naor City of Lod i P. ©. Box 324 Lodi, CA 95241 Dear Sir: V* uish to appeal a current policy of your Building Department. aprwrWsoa�e Section 204 of the 19&8 Uniform Building Code provide8 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 uith De-erabond Tile, as approved in the prod- Ws I.C.8.0, Report (No . 3409) . 2 Refusal to a l l w installation of De-crdbond Tile over spaced sheeting. 3. A requirement to install Type 3011 felt under Decrabond Tile. To offer Era the opportunity to review the qualifications of your appointees to this Board of Apteals, please e�tbmf t the names of those Appointees and their background at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, 1L/ Operations Manager 0 0 0 2270 P1W CL Suits D MAI 1d�v4I Aw. 1 D92 noreerce War 1673 Demos St 02% 9272 Jesaranio 1.120 7370 09MMM01 Ad. &*W 0 Cwtook CA 9ie520 PaWwr* CA 04962 Cwnpbg. CA 95004 Wnkm CA 93003 him CA 92711 San Diego, CA92111 f413Ju7.3m (104 7"M (AM137a 450 IE05)650 5602 (714) 38308" t619)265,121% (000}3 &MI pgwnn" (000 s62sw ism MUM (0001433sw (000(5 l-sw WEMORANDUM. City of Lodi , Community Development Department TO = James B. Schroeder Community Development Director FROM: Roger 6. Houston Chief Building Inspector DATE = October 23. 1991 SUBJECT: Uniform Building Code Interpretation By Board Of Appeals On September 19, 1991 the City Manager's Office recefved 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 1.476A sets up the City Council as the Board of Appeals. a 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, i n writing, to the City Building Official. 2. Cal-Pac Roofing should provide documentation to support their position. Once these steps are followed, I w i I I respond to their appeal on a point by point basis. If t h is procedure does not resolve the matter. Cal-Pac Roofing can appeal to the City Council. RGH/nl a,1 CO PAGWMMNM5 -31 "3ftMWdwPwkPbn F%ndw CARWAW CA WM JANUARY 2, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF M D I 221 WEST PINE STREET M D I, 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 DECRATILE 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. T -HE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) a,QDITIONAI, WF.IGHTL OUR PRODUCT WEIGHS 1 1/2 LBS/SQ. FT. AN EXISTING HEAVY SHAKE ROOF WEIGHS ABOUT 2 114 LBS . / SQ , FT . WHEN DRY, INCREASING TO 3 1/2 L8S./SQ,F-r. WHEN WET. OUR ROOF INSTALLED OVER A HEAVY SHAKE WEIGHS ABOUT 3 3/4 L8S/SQ. c^T. , MARGINALLY HEAVIER THAN THE EXISTING SHAKE ROOF 14H Bid WET AND WELL WITH IN THE DESIGN LOAD LIlVHT OF LSSJSQ.FT. WE FEEL THAT OUR PRODUCT IS BEING CONFUSED WITH OTHER SO CALLED "LIGHT WEIGHT ROOFING TILES" WHICH WEIGH 6-8 LSS / SQ , FT . AND REQUIRE THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY YOUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT. •►1 •► • ► :•• atl111: 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 INSTALLATION ENSURES WE FIND AND REPLACE ANY DAMAGED WOOD. S) ATTACHMENT OF ROOF TO EXISTING ROOF SUB—STRUCTURE: WE INSTALL A LUMBER GRID SYSTEM WHICH IS ATTACHED THROUGH THE EXISTING WOOD SHINGLE OR SHAKE ROOF TO THE STRUCTURE BELOW. OUR ROOF SYSTEM PROVIDES 11 STRUCTURAL DIAP�IRAG�l EQUIVALENT TO INSTALLING 15/12 PLYWOOD AND IMPROVES THE DIAPHRAGM CREATED BY SPACED SHEATHING BY APPROXIMATELY 300%. 273 f*;s Cl. Sa'" 0 1 t60 A k4wugi Aw 1092 Ftorencm w4v D 1673 Donlon St X205 O O 9272 JVW*" 6120 7370 oxor" Pd. soft O >-ewd, CA ats70 PoWtom CA 94Q" Camvbod, CA 95004 Vankn. CA 93003 hVAL CA 92718 San 04jo. CA 92111 ttt51R27?�M (707)76S"M (aos)3780450 {3054650'sw (7141soesu E6tim -So 1215 S°fl41395 7771 (mm 564-7w iX01562 6222 lgi 882 6676 19= Ans6u to= sit -SA" CURRENT REQUIREMENTS BY YOUR CITY: l) TEAR OFF OF EXISTING ROOF. 2) INSTALL PLYWOOD OR FILL IN THE SXIP SHEATHING. 3) INSTALL FELT. 4) INSTALL OUR ROOF SYSTM. COST FOR ITMS 1-3 IS ABOUT $2700.00 FOR AN AVERAGE HOME IN LODI. VSE 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. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR STRIVING TO PROVE -QUALITY WORK BND 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. M ARE CONCERNED THAT SECTION 204 (A) OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED, SPECIFIC -ALLY AS IT RELATES TO M SSS ERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS NOT BEING EMPLOYEES OF YOUR JURISDICTION. PLEASE ADVISE OF YOUR POSITION ON THIS MATTER PLEASE ALLOW US TO PRESENT YOU WITH DOCUMENTATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FOREGOING CLAIMS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE SJM YOU THE MANY BENEFITS OUR ROOFING SYSTEM PROVIDES. V.P. OPERATIONS NORTHERN C A L I FORN I A CAL -PAC ROOFING CITY OF LOD I MIEMORAKDU14 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY asamaaassaatxzsa=s=sssxxxTssss--srsswssssxczxxsx To: James B. Schroeder. Community Development Director From: Bob Mchatt, City Attorney Rate: January I5, 1992 Subject: BOARD CF APPEALS (UNIFORM BUILDING CODE) aasessssxsrax;xessxssssxssss=ss=ss=xsagsssas=as-sssasaxrase:sasxesxxzssaaaaacfe In response to the January 2. 1992 letter from Dan Smuts, Vice President of CaT-Pac Roofing, I have done some research regarding the composition of the Building Board of Appeals. The point he expressed was that Section 204(A) 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". (Share 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 LNC 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 ett as the Appeals Board for matters involving the UBC. Please let rre know if there are further questions. MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department TO: JAMES B. SCFROEDEI Community Development Director R:CM: $8R7a G. HOUSTON, Chief Building Inspector DATE: February 11, 1992 SUBJECT: Cal-Pac Roofing Appeal The following is mr response to Cal-Pac Roofing's appeal letter dated January 2, I992. Cal-Pac Item No. 1 - ADDITIONAL WEIGHT OUR PRODUCT WEIGHS 1 1/2 LBS/SQ. FT. AN EXISTING HEAVY SHAIE ROOF WEIGHS ABOUT 2 1/4 LBS/SQ.FT. V11 -EN EERY, INSTALLED OVER A HEAVY SHAKE WEIGI-IS ABOUT 3 3/4 LBS/SQ.FT., MAkuINALLY HEAVIER THAN THE EXISTING SHAKE ROOF VV -EN V\ET PSD V1aL WITHIN THE DESIGN LOAD LIMIT OF 7 LBS/SQ.FT. WE FEEL THAT OUR PRODUCT IS BEING OONFUSED WITH OTHER SO CALLED "LIGHT WBC4-iT ROOFING TILES" WHICH WEIGH 6-8 LBS/SQ.FT. AND REQUIRE THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY YOUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT. I an not confusing Decabond Tile with other tiles. I know exactly what the product is. Let rre give you an example of what we commonly find when an existing shake roof is removed. Say the home was constructed 35 years ago with a roof framing system which was barely adequate to suppnrt its wood shingle roof, which was popular in that era. After 15 years, the house was reroo€ed with shakes over the top of the existing shingles. This would have been prior to the City of Lodi requiring a building permit for reroofing, which began June I, 1982. The rafters are now overloaded. Even though Oecrabond i s a relatively light -weight roofing product, no additional load should be added to this already overloaded roof. By removing the shake and shingle roof, the weight of the roof w i I I be returned to i is original level. Cal-Pac Roofing Appeal February 11, 1992 Page 2. Cal-Pac Item No. 2 - CONDITION OF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE DRY -ROT (OR MORE CORRECTLY UET ROT) NEEDS MOISTURE TO EXIST. IT IS MOSTLY FCU D AROUND THE PERIMETER OF A STRUCTURE ALCNG THE EAVES. OUR IVETHOD CF INSTALLATION ENSURES WE FIND AN REPLACE ANY DAMAGED WOOD. Dry -rot can occur anywhere i n a roof structure. It is not unusual to find 1x4 spaced sheathing or solid sheathing and rafters rotted i n areas where the shakes appear to be s t i l l i n tact. This i s caused by a leak higher up on the roof running down the rafter or solid sheathing thus saturating them under the shakes. Unless the shakes are removed, there i s no way to detect this deterioration. Oecrabond's I.C.B.O. Research Report No. 3409 and the 1988 Uniform Building Code both require that the existing roof must be inspected and approved prior to application of new roof coverings. Our inspections have revealed that 9 out of 10 shake roofs in Lodi are deteriorated to a point that %Ae would not allow reroof over them with any roofing product. We are not singling out Decrabond tile. Vt do not allow any roofing product to be installed over shakes. Ca T -Pac Item No. 3 - AIZACHMENT OF ROOF TO EXISTING ROOF SUB -STRUCTURE M INSTALL A LU 333 GRID SYSTEH WHICH IS ATTACHED THROUGH THE EXISTING WOOD SHINGLE OR SHAKE ROOF TO THE STRUCTURE BELOW. OUR ROOF SYSTEM PROVIDES A STRUCTURAL DIAPHRAGM EQUIVALENT TO INSTALLING 15/32 FLYA/OM AND IMPROVES THE DIAPHRAGM CREATED BY SPACED SHEATHING BY APPROXIMATELY 300A. The lumber grid system used by Decrabond Tile is similar to the systems contained i n research reports for other roofing products including other metal tiles, clay and cement tile and shakes. The key i s to make sure the 1"x4" counter battens are being nailed to the existing roof structure i n a proper manner. Shakes are installed over 1x4 spaced sheathing. This leaves a 4" gap between each 1x4. If the 1x4 counter battens are installed over the existing shakes, it is impossible to to I I if the nails have hit a 1x4 or are i n an open space. However, if the shakes are removed and the spaces filled in or the roof sheathed with plywood, we are then guaranteed a positive connection between the new counter batten system and the existing roof structure. Cal-Pac Roofing Appeal February 11. 1992 Page 3. Per Section 11.c. of Oecrabond's research report an underlayment of two layers of 15 -pound organic felt (tar raper) or one layer of 30 -pound felt is required in areas subject to blowing dust or sand must be installed. It is a well-known fact that the Lodi area has serious peat dust storms. We also have high winds during rainstorms which will drive water into the smallest of openinas. Unless an interlocking roof system is backed up by a felt barrier, leaks will result. Felt cannot be installed over existing shakes because as the workers walk on the felt, it will be torn at the offsets in the rows of shakes. Felt must be installed over a smooth surface such as plywood or an existing composition roof. I do not agree with Cal-Pac`s claim that the Owner is getting a superior roof when Decrabond is installed over existing shakes. Don't get me wrong, Decrabond is an excellent product, but not when it is installed over a deteriorated shake roof with nailing of questionable value and no felt backup system. If you have any questions, I would be happy to address them at this time. CITY COUNCIL NnM>s5 W PIKKERION, Mayw P R UP A PENNINO mayor I m T -V" DAVID M. WNCHMAN N'=K A 51[G[OCX "N R. (Randy% 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. 271 WEST PINE STREET PO.. Box 3006 LODI, CAMFORMA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 FAR 11041 3334M February 5, 1992 THOMAS A- PMRSON GW MW.NW ALICE M. ROWIff City Cie& 609 WNATT City Attomty 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 Decrabond Tile as per ICBG Report 3409 was presented to the Lodi City Council at its February 5, 1992 meting. The City Council set the matter for public hearing in the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi at 1:30 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, Alice M. Reimthe City Clerk AMR/imp Cc: James B. Schroeder, Community Development Diret:tor Roger Houston, Chief Building Official DECL.ARATIOR 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 cr Exhibit "B" 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. AliceM. Reimche City Clerk tt-y ,( l ;.ti n er,A. Pe`rr n D uty My Cleric DEC/OI TXTA. FRM o, )TICEOF PUBLIC HBARING CITY 0 � LODI Date: February 19, 1992 I CARNEGIE FORUM 305 Wes! Pine Street. Lodi Time: 7:30 p.m. __J For information regarding this Public Hearing Please Contact: Alice M Reimclee City clerk Telephone: 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING February 19, 1992 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday. at the hourof 7:30 p.m., oras soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the following matter: 1. Appeal of Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc, 11350 Nonier 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 Decrabond Ti I e as per ICBG Report 3409 Information regarding this item may be obtained In the office of the Community Development Director at 221 West Pine Street. Lodi, California. Al I interested persons are invited to 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 toralsing 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. e1mche City Clerk Dated: February 5. 1992 Approved asto form: &J �V f M Bobby W. cNatt`�� 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 WAS W. PENKERTGN, Mayor PHRLIP A PENNNO Mayor Fm Tempore DAVID M. HINC-LIMAN JACK A SIEGtOCK IOHN R. {bandy) SNIDER CITY OF LODI Mr. Lindsay D. Smith Operations Manager Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc. 11350 Monier Park Place Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 Dear Mr. Smith: CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET PO. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241.3910 (209) 3345634 FAX (.1" 7)}6795 February 24, 1992 THOMAS A. PETERSON Ciry Mang ALICE M. REIMCNE City Cierk BOB WNATT City AR OM" This letter will confirm action by the Lodi City Council at is February 19, 1992 meeting following a public hearing regarding the appeal of Cal-Pac Roofing, Inc., 11350 Monier Park Place, Rancho Cordova, California 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 ICBO Report 3409. The City Council denied the appeal as it relates to roofing over existing shake roofs with Decrabond Tile. However, the City Council determined that it would allow roofing with Decrabond Tile over existing wood shingle roofs to the approval of the Chief Building Inspector. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, j•1 , Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR/imp cc: James 8. Schroeder, Community Development Director Roger Houston, Chief Building Inspector