CCMIN120385 - Laserfiche WebLink

rapidly. He presented various other figures related to fire retardent roof coverings. He felt the cost figures in the staff report were out of line. ~_~ Mr. Robert Burns, 1667 Springer Road, Mountain View, President of the Fire Protection Foundation, stated his firm works with cities and governmental ["' agencies to assist in finding how communities can provide the best fire pro- [.(3 tection at the least cost. He stated that many cities in the United States r=~ have fire protection ordinances but most are in the eastern and southern por- ~ tions of the country. He stated there is continuing fire problem in this area with the brush and winds. The Fire Protection Foundation is not opposed to ~ wood roofs but favor treated shingles. He stated there is an issue of aes- thetics; the life of wood shake roofs is approximately 9-15 years. He stated there are several alternatives on the market with various costs that are available to the property owner. He advised there are some credits given by fire insurance companies for treated roofs, but one has to shop around to get this information. Mr. Jim Magowan, 1743 Greenwood Road, associated with a roof consulting firm, stated his company provides professional design services to new and ex- isting building. He advised he has installed over 5,000 wood roofs in recent years and as far as he knows there have only been three fires attributed to combustible roofs. He stated that treated roofs will cost approximately $1,800 to $2,500 more than untreated roofs. He recommended that consideration be given to his. He added that Plesanton does not have a high fire hazard condition problem. Mr. Wallis Noriun, representing the National Fire Protection Agency in Washington, DC, located in Mountain View, stated it needs to be determined if a Class C throughout the community is necessary because of the added cost fac- tor, and what is the relationship between a five minute response time area and the difference between Class B and Class C roof - what does it accomplish. He stated the proposed ordinance is very general; there are no real facts in it. He felt there needs to be facts to show the community the need for additional fire protection. He stated that what is being proposed will add costs; he disagreed with some of the figures presented in the staff report. Mr. Lynn Fryer, 6671 Owens Drive, representing Ponderosa Homes, stated in his experience in the past with fire retardent roofs in the areas where cities have required them, the cost difference has been a concern. He advised the increased cost is from $2,500 to $5,000 per house, which is passed on to the consumer. He stated that in the case of the Pleasanton project, this would add approximately one to two million dollars to the total cost of the develop- ment. He added that in the case of his existing project he would have to restructure buildings to accommodate certain types of fire retardent roofs. He stated there is also a concern about extended liability. He stated this could also possible affect cities. He stated there is the ramifications of chemicals causing possible health problems. He concluded by stating the cost factor is his main concern. Ms. Elizabeth Glicksman, 3229 Flemington, stated the community has not been adequately informed regarding this issue. She stated that Pleasanton has an extremely high cost for housing at the present time and she did not feel there should be any unnecessary added expenses. She stated that Pleasanton does not have the same fire problems as other areas; and she does not feel that shake roofs are a danger. She suggested that Council might consider im- plementing the ordinance on new homes only - not on existing homes. 12-3-85 8 -