Orange County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
• Agency Response
Response to:
Wood Roofs Are Dangerous 02/10/03, 90K
City of Anaheim, California Planning Department Building Division May 20, 2003 Mr. Frederick P. Horn Presiding Judge of*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
There is lack of uniformity in local building codes involving roofs for identical environmental conditions within Orange County. Response: It is acknowledged that there are different standards enforced in Orange County. One standard does not seem appropriate based upon differing climatic, geological and topographical conditions that may exist from city to city (i.e. costal, hillside, flatland, etc.).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Each responding jurisdictional agency should consider amending the building code to require the most fire retardant class of roofing covering (Class A) for new construction of all residential structures (Group R) in all fire zones. (Findings 1 through 4) Response: We have considered the recommendation and given the issues addressed, do not feel that there is a compelling argument to adopt this standard. As noted, the City of Anaheim already has adopted this standard in our very high fire hazard severity zone (hill and canyon area).
F2
The testing and qualification standards of wood shakes and shingles are below the environmental conditions of Orange County. Response: This issue does not seem relevant for Anaheim due to our Class B minimum requirement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Each responding jurisdictional agency should consider amending the building code to require the most fire retardant class of roof covering (Class A) for re-roofing of all residential structures (Group R) in all fire zones, when more than 50 percent of the roof is replaced within one year. Response: We have considered the recommendation and, given the issues addressed, do not feel that there is a compelling argument to adopt this standard. Again, this standard already exists in our very high fire hazard severity zone (hill and canyon area). In conclusion, our analysis indicates that more stringent requirements for roofs are not needed in our community at this time. However, the City of Anaheim intends to continue to support and participate in the Orange County Uniform Code Program in the code adoption process. In doing so, we will work in conjunction with other Orange County jurisdictions to review the State of California Building Code Standards, as appropriate. If you have any questions, please contact our Building Official, Julic Scay, at (714) 765-5153 extension 5764. Sincerely Curt Pringle, Mayor City of Anaheim C: Council Members
F3
The cities' and counties' roofing codes do not adequately take into account the climate, particularly the Santa Ana winds and topographical conditions unique to Orange County. Response: Anaheim has taken this into account in its very high fire hazard severity zone (Class A standard) and throughout the balance of the City, which has a minimum Class B standard, which exceeds that of the 2001 California Building Standards Code.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Fire conflagrations stress finite fire fighting resources especially during the period of Santa Ana winds. Response: The City of Anaheim has its own Class I rated municipal Fire Department that is prepared to respond as needed to any incident. In addition, Anaheim has mutual aid agreements in place with surrounding jurisdictions. As previously noted, the occurrence of wood roofing in Anaheim is less than it might otherwise have been due to more stringent standards that have been in effect for a number of years.
No recommendations for this finding
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.