Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 01-19-1987 . . ~ Regular Meeting - January 19, 1987 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on January 19, 1987, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Raley, Chairperson. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. Cm. Burnham arrived at approximately 7:10 p.m, ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Raley led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Burnham absent), the minutes of January 5, 19$7, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMIJNICATIONS None. ~ ~ * ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-11 January 19, 1987 . ~ . ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong indicated that the Commissioners had received three action letters. Cm. Raley advised that a letter had been distributed to the Commissioners ~rom the Building Industry Association related to the proposed Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance, and stated that it would be discussed during the public hearing. ~~~r~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance: Proposed Ordinance Amendment. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. He advised that the purpose of the meeting was to permit Staff and appropriate industry representatives an opportunity to present the pros and cons of adoption of the proposed Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance. Mr. Gailey indicated that, at the direction of the City Council, at the July 21, 1986, Planning Commission meeting discussion between Staff and the Commission was held related to a proposed Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance. He stated the public hearing had been continued to permit Staff an opportunity to arrange to have the appropriate industry representatives attend a subsequent Planning Commission meeting. (Cm. Burnham arrived at approxmately 7:10 p.m.) Mr. Gailey said at the July 21, 1986, Planning Commission meeting limited citizen input had been received. He indicated that in the intervening period, Staff contacted specific representatives from the Building and Fire Depart- ments, the Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau, and the Fire Safe Roofing Committee. He advised that in addition, a notice of the public hearing was sent to the Building Industry Association (which prompted the letter dated January 8, 1987, from the B.I.A. which was circulated at the start of the Commission meeting). Mr. Gailey advised that the public hearing was envisioned to be for the purpose of information gathering, and that it was not anticipated that final action would be taken, but that ultimately a recommendation by the Planning Commission would be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Gailey reviewed the chronology of the events related to the proposed Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance. He said the Draft Ordinance included three major features, including: 1) requirement that new construction, or re-roafing, on a Citywide basis would have to be Class C rated, at a minimum; 2) establishes stricter roofing requirements for higher risk areas (an official map would be maintained by the City and the DSRSD Fire Department to facilitate this requirement, and areas such as those on the extreme western and eastern sides of the City would be impacted); and 3) modifies the building permit process ta provide for additional building inspections for re-roofing projects. Regular Meeting PCM-7-12 January 19, 1987 • • • . Mr. Gailey advised that the January 19, 1987, Staff Report included a summary of major points raised when a proposed Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance was considered by other jurisdictions. He stated that the City of Dublin is the fourth Valley community to consider adoption of such an Ordinance. Mr. Gailey summarized bxiefly the points which had arisen when other jurisdictions had considered adoption of a Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance, including the costs to homeowners/developers, the appearance of new fire safe roofs as related to existing roofs, the point of origin of residential fires, the appropriateness of government imposition on the community of large costs involved in re-roofing homes to alleviate costs in response to a small number of fires, and whether or not insurance costs would be impactetl by the impositian of a Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance. Mr. Gailey reviewed the contents of the January 19, 1987, Staff Report. He indicated that Attachment #1 contained the most comprehensive summary of issues, and indicated it had been eompiled by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. Mr. Gailey requested that the Planning Commission give direction to Staff, or others present, and determine what additional materials may be necessary for their consideration of the proposed Ordinance. He summarized the letter from the Building Industry Association dated January 8, 1987. He indicated that Vic Taugher - City of Dublin Building Official, Tom Hathcox - DSRSD Fire Department, Harry Abney - Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau, and Robert Burns - Fire Safe Roofing Committee were present to address the Commission and answer questions. Tom Hathcox, Fire Marshall - DSRSD Fire Department, advised the Comrnission that during the past 20 years he had supported use of fire retardant roofing materials. He indicated that 18~ of the fires in the City of Dublin (over the previous three years) had either started on the roof or had spread to the roof from another hostile fire. He displayed a map which indicated the location of roofs which have fire retardant roofing, as well as roofs which do not. He indicated that approximately 2,300 (or 51~) homes within the City of Dublin have combustible roofing, while approximately 2,200 have non-combustible roofing. He stated that he was concerned with growth to the western side of the City. He said the City had received a copy of a letter from the State of California, Department of Forestry, which indicated that in the past they have not performed any type of weed abatement or cleared a fire break in that area and advising that they would not be doing so in the future. Mr. Hathcox said he was very concerned about the new houses being constructed adjacent to canyons. He advised that there is a very dense popu~ation in the flatland areas of the City, and that the houses in those areas will soon be in need of re-roofing. Mr. Hathcox indicated that with the use of alternate types of heating increasing, such as wood stoves and fireplace inserts, there could be an increase in the number of roof fires. In response to a question about the availability to secure earthquake insurance for homes with tile roofs, Mr. Hathcox said the City of Livermore had considered this issue, which had prompted Mr. Hathcox to question both of his insurance agents; each one indicated that they had not heard that the different types of roofing might impact the ability to obtain earthquake ~ insurance. Regular Meeting PCM-7-13 January 19, 1987 . , • • Mr. Hathcox referred to a recent $105,000 house fire in the City of Pleasanton which started on top of the roof from a ehimney spark. He addressed the issue of the preference for shake roofing due to its ventilation characteristics. He said that for roofing other than shake, by the time fire had burned through the ceiling sheet rock, it would be impossible for occupants to be removed from the building. He indicated that fire fighters would prefer ventilating themselves in the process of fighting the fire. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Hathcox advised that in the Gity of Dublin approximately 17~ of the 18$ percent of roof-oriented fires for the previous three years had actually begun on the roof. Cm. Raley asked how many of those fires were caused by faulty chimneys or lack of spark arrestors. Mr. Hathcox estimated that approximately 50~ of roof fires were caused by spark arrestors which have not been maintained praperly or were missing. Mr. Taugher, City Building Official, said an approved fire arrestor would be a screen with 1/4" mesh and may either have a roof covering it, or may fit into the flue or protrude above the chimney. He concurred with a statement by Mr. Hathcox that the difficulties with spark arrestors were related to their blockage by soot. Mr. Taugher indicated that the January 19, 1987, Staff Report contained his concerns related to the proposed Ordinance. He stated that although he did not have difficutly with requiring new housing developments to utilize fire retardant roofing materials, he was concerned whether owners of older homes should be mandated to upgrade when they re-roofed. He referred to structural design problems which could arise if heavier roofing materials, such as tile, were used in place of wood shake roofing materials. He said he did nat think spark arrestors were the solution to the problem that exist, noting that they are required on ne~ houses, but not on older ones {when they re-raof). In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Taugher advised that the Building Code requires smoke detectors. He also advised that he thought mandating the use of spark arrestors would be a viable item to include in the proposed Ordinance. Cm. Barnes expressed a desire to provide for the education of the community on the care of spark arrestors. Mr. Taugher noted that it might be more effective to educate the community not to burn cardboard boxes or other similar items. Cm. Burnham inquired about the possibility of fireproofing the roofing or sheetrock itself, rather than requiring fire retardant roofing materials. Mr. Taugher referred to alternatives to fire retardant raofing and reviewed the definition of Class A, B, or C rating, as indicated in the Building Code. He spoke about a"special purpose" roof which permits use of wood shakes or wood shingles when used above a layer of gypsum wall board beneath it. He said this would not prevent the wooden roof materials from burning, but would slow or prevent burning through to the sheetrock. Mr. Hathcox stated that a large amount of damage associated with roof fires is water damage. He said the amount of damage on houses with "special purpose" roofs would be less when compared to damage where other types of roofs were in place. Regular Meeting PCM-7-14 January 19, 1987 . • ~ Cm. Raley interjected that he had determined that as a result of being a licensed forester, it would be a potential conflict of interest for him to participate in the discussion related to the proposed Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance. He left the meeting and Vice Chairperson Barnes chaired the remainder of the meeting. Robert Burns, stated that he was President of the Fire Protection Consulting Firm/Fire Loss Management Services and Representative for the Committee for Fire Safe Roofing. He indicated that the bulk of his assignments were for long range fire service planning for cities and counties. He said he had been involved in compiling the studies for Contra Costa County, and for the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. He advised that nationally 80~ of the lives lost in fires occur in single family dwellings. He spoke about the density in northern California which exceeds that of the hills of Los Angeles. He referred to a fire in Los Altos in 1985 which dropped sparks in Mt. View, seven miles from the location of the fire. He discussed the number of fire fighters required to handle a two-house fire, and said that the Cities could not economically be equipped to handle a three-, four- or five-house fire. He stated that fire retardant roofing would contain fires, keeping them isolated to one or two houses until adequate resources and fire fighters were able to arrive at the site of the fire. Mr. Burns advised that in southern California approximately 150 cities have adopted Fire Safe Roofing Ordinances, with approximately SO cities in northern California have done so. He said he was currently working with 20 cities in the process of developing similar ordinances. Mr. Burns indicated that there were pressure treated shake or shingle roofing materials available for use. He said the spray-on fire retardancy applications have not been proven and had not been not accepted by the Code. He referred to costs of fire retardant roofs as outlined in a Sunset Magazine article. Mr. Burns said that although insurance companies do not give a discount for fire retardant roofs, residents in an area where the roofs are fire retardant may find that their costs will not increase. Regarding aesthetics, Mr. Burns suggested that there were several options available such as perlite, made of a pumice-stone material, metal tile, which has a similar appearance to Spanish tile, and several other types of roofs. Mr. Burns indicated that if structural reinforcement became necessary for re-roofing projects, structural engineers were typicall~ on the staffs of roofing companies to examine the houses to determine what would be necessary to accommodate the heavier weights of fire safe roofing materials. Harry Abney, Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau, said the Bureau was a quality control organization. He discussed briefly the process by which mills are inspected by the bureau. He stated that he works with building officials, and those involved with building codes from the States of California, Nevada, Utah and sometimes Idaho. He encouraged the Planning Commission to review Mr. Taugher's comments as contained within the January 19, 1987, Staff Report. He said the roofs which would be replaced have a 20 to 25 year history with no problems. He referred to the chart shown as Attachment #8d of the Staff Reports, and said the incident of fires has continually decreased. He said he did not think there was any proof or any figures throughout the State which would warrant adoption of a Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance. Cm. Petty asked for clarification between the difference of a pressured treated wood shake and a regular wood shake. Mr. Abney reviewed the process used to pressure treat shakes and said the cost was approximately $30.00 per Regular Meeting PCM-7-15 January 19, 1987 • i square (100 square feet). He said a procedure had been developed at Texas AM which could be used to apply a fire retardant treatment to existing roofs, but that the treatment must be repeated after exposure to over 30 i.nches of rainfall. He said the approximate cost for such a treatment would be $6.00 per square. Mr. Abney suggested that the Fire Department publicize this option and/or offer to make arrangements to treat the shake roofs in this manner at at a nominal fee to the homeowners, In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Abney indicated that the life span of the shakes would not be decreased as a result of pressure treatment, and may even be increased to a slight degree. He said the average life span of a shake roof is between 15 and 30 years, depending on the pitch of the roof and other factors. Mr. Abney stated that what is visible on the roof is cosmetic in nature, and that it was the materials underneath the shingles that actually protect the roof. He stated his opinion that wood remains the bast roofing material available. Mr. Abney distributed a copy of a letter written by Standard Pacific of San Diego dated June 23, 1982, related to Assembly Bill 3797, which estimated additional costs which could be incurred by homeowners if fire retardant roofs were installed. Mr. Burns advised that his Committee disagreed with the Standard Pacific statistics distributed by Mr. Abney. Mr. Burns stated that the reporting system relating to roof fires was not accurate as it referred only to the primary place of origin of fires, but did not include the impact they had on roofs. Mr. Hathcox stated that often Ordinances were not pursued until after a fire has occurred. He referred to the City of Pleasanton, which had two house fires just prior to Livermore adopting its Ordinance. Mr. Hathcox said the Fire Department is endorsing the proposed Ordinance. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Tong, Mr. Abney compared the costs of the treated and untreated shakes. An order of magnitude cost estimate for medium weight cedar shakes would be $70 per square untreated versus $105 per square Class C pressure treated. Mr. Burns provided the Commission with a copy of the article from Sunset Magazine which included a different cost breakdown. Mr. Abney stated his disagreement with the figures provided by Sunset Magazine. Rick Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, said he thought the concern related to the proposed Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance was one of risk management. He indicated that the possibility of conflagration occurring in the western part of town during the summer was greater than in the "flatlands". He advised that he did not see merit in raising the requirements for reroofing in the flatlands portion of the City. Dan Rodriguez, Dublin resident, asked if the City had any restrictions on re- roofing which pertain to a partial replacement of a roof, rather than the entire roof. He also asked if anyone other than the Fire Department was supporting the proposed Ordinance and stated that he had not heard any concerns expressed by Dublin residents supporting the adoption of the proposed Regular Meeting PCM-7-16 January 19, 1987 ~ • • Ordinance. He said it may be feasible to require higher standards for new developments, but that to impose a similar Ordinance on people living in the flatlands may present a burden to those homeowners. Mr. Tong indicated that the draft Ordinance, in its current form, would provide that if, within a 12-month period, less than 1/4 of a roof was replaced, materials similar to existing ones could be used. He said if, within a 12-month period, 1/4 up to 1/2 of the roof was replaced, the new roofing materials would have to be fire safe roofing. He also stated that if 1/2 or more of the roof was replaced within a 12 month period after completion of a similar alteration, the entire roof would have to be replaced with fire safe roofing materials. , In response to Mr. Rodriquez' earlier request, Mr. Tong stated that the City Council had taken into consideration a request from the DSRSD Board of Directors to consider the adoption of a Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance, and as a result had directed the Planning Commission to study the pros and eons related to such an Ordinance and to submit a recommendation to the City Council on the feasibility of adopting the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Rodriquez said that the Planning Comrnission should take into consideration the lack of public interest in this issue. Mr. Tong confirmed that the Planning Commission and City Council would take all public input into consideration. Mr. Taugher indicated that re-roofing is not a major problem, as asphalt shingles are typically being used in the flatlands. He said that in the western portion of the City, the roofs are probably tile and probably won't be re-roofed. Mr. Abney said that, if additional sheathing was needed for re-roofing, it could add approximately $12.SO to $15.00 per square. Mr. Taugher advised that the eurrent Building Code does not require a permit for re-roofing dwellings. He said if the proposed Ordinance was adopted, it would require additional inspections by the Building Inspector and would necessitate additional permit fees. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack, Mr. Abney stated that woad materials are highly insulative. He stated that tile does not have a comparable insulating quality and that asphalt also has very little insulative value. He indicated that according to the State Bulletin, wood has about eight times the insulative value of asphalt. Mr. Burns stated that he ,did not believe the insulative values of the roofing were pertinent issues. Mr. Wendling expressed concern regarding increased costs if he were required to re-roof with the fire safe materials, particularly if it became necessary to re-insulate. Maxine Jennings, Dublin resident, asked if there would be a public hearing once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Gailey advised that another public hearing would be held by the Commission if the Commission directed Staff to modify the proposed Ordinance and bring it Regular Meeting PCM-7-17 January 19, 1987 - • • back to them for further review. He also indicated that a public hearing would be held by the City Council when the proposed Ordinance is brought to the Council for consideration. Mr. Gailey requested that the representatives of the local newspapers notify the public that copies of the draft Ordinance would be available in the City Offices for review. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey indicated that the proposed Ordinance would not impact schools as standards for schools are controlled by the State. Mr. Taugher discussed Building Code requirements and indicated that the multi-family projects currently under construction were being built with tile or asphalt shingle roofs. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Rodriquez, Mr. Taugher indicated that perhaps no building perrnit should be required for replacement of 25~ or less of a roof. He stated that it may be advisable to include a statement to that effect in the proposed Ordinance. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham said that he had polled about 1.00 residents when the proposed Ordinance was first presented, and that approximately 60~ of the people he polled stressed that they were opposed to the proposed Ordinance. He indicated that their major concern was related to cost. Cm. Burnham stated that he did not think all of the people should have to absorb the costs of fire problems incurred by actions of a few negligent people. He said he thought there were enough laws existing which would curb potential fire hazards and that another law did not need to be instituted. Cm. Petty advised that he would like to see the suggestions contained within the January 8, 1987, Building Industry Association (BIA) letter implemented in lieu of adoption of a Fire Safe Roofing -0rdinance. Mr. Hathcox urged the Planning Commission to consider at the very least requiring existing houses be re-roofed with at least the same level of materials and that new construction to the west of the City require non- combustible materials. Cm. Mack stated that if an Ordinance was adopted, it should require that new houses be required to utilize more fire retardant materials, but that those re-roofing be permitted to utilize materials similar to the existing ones. She also indicated a desire to have the suggestions made by the BIA implemented. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Hathcox advised that the City has an active weed abatement program. He discussed the procedures followed and restrictions related to weed abatement. He said that the State will not institute a weed abatement area within the State Responsibility Area. Cm. Mack stated that she did not want to see a building permit required for re-roofing less than 25~ of a house. Cm. Petty said he concurred with the action taken by the City of Danville regarding fire safe roofing materials. Regular Meeting PCM-7-18 January 19, 1987 ! • Cm. Barnes said she did not want to have a permit required if less than 25~ of a house is being re-roofed. She also said she would like to have a public education program implemented, and that she would like to see the BIA recommendations acted upon. Mr. Gailey asked for and received the following clarification: - That re-roofing 25$ or less of a dwelling not require a building permit: the Planning Commission indicated its consensus in support of this approach. - That re-roofing in the flatland areas be "in kind" or of a more fire retardant nature: the Planning Commission indicated its consensus in support of this approach. - That in areas designated as "high fire hazard areas", roofing materials of Level C or Level B or better shall be utilized for new developments: the Planning Commission indicated its consensus in support of this approach. (Mr. Gailey advised that Staff would have to have an opportunity to meet further with the Fire Department to establish the high fire hazard areas.} - Requiring re-roofing in areas designated as fire hazardous to be of Class C or better materials: the Planning Commission indicated its consensus in support to this approach. - Requiring smoke detectors and spark arrestors be installed in all new houses, and educating the public on the care of them: the Planning Commission indicated its consensus in support to this approach. (Mr. Taugher advised that the difficulty with smoke detectors had been virtually resolved, that construction over a value of $1,000 requires installation of smoke detectors and that all new houses require smoke detectors.) Mr. Gailey advised that Staff could be in a position to present a modified draft Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance at the Planning Gommission meeting of February 17, 1987. Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing until ~he Planning Comrnission meeting of February 17, 1987. ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-19 January 19, 1987 1 ' R j ~ ~ ~ . . . OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that at the previous City Gouncil meeting the City Gouncil approved the revised Sign Ordinance which would permit the usage of two Free- standing Signs on large parcels with two freeway frontages. Mr. Tong also indicated that at the same meeting, the City Council denied the appeal by Pet Prevent-A-Care. He stated that the appeal received by Admiral/LDM Moving System was withdrawn prior to the City Council meeting and that the Planning Commission action would stand. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong said the next Institute of the California League of Cities had been scheduled for March 11, 12 and 13, 1987, in Sacramento. Cm. Mack asked about the status of the Service Station on the southwest corner of Village Parkway. Mr. Gailey advised that preliminary inquiries had been for strip retail/commercial uses. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack, Mr. Tong stated that no application had been submitted for the parcel behind the Town & Gountry Shopping Center, although a meeting had been held regarding it. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Cm. Petty moved, Cm. Burnham seconded, and by a unaniomous vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, / • Planning Commission Ch ' person Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-20 January 19, 1987