Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandout - Distributed at 01-21-1987 PC Mtg 1 j} 75 t:-r'bu-t-Rd , C' m/c:::' /-,.(/- '8 1 ~,v;." t.. 4- tS311 STANDARD OF SAN PAC I F DIE GO m I C :31~ June 23, 1982 State Assemblyman State Capitol Room 2167 Sacramento, California 95814 Subject: AB 3797 - Cost Effectiveness of Requiring Fire Retardant Roofs - A Homebuilder's Point of View Dear Assemblyman: We have just become aware of AB 3797 and hope that the enclosed information reaches you prior to the Assembly acting on the measure. Enclosed please find a schedule entitled Cost Effectiveness of Roofing of New Construction - As Compared to Con- ventional Shake Roofing. We do not believe that asphalt and fiberglass shingles in most areas in California will be accepted by the public without very substantial price reductions in the homes. The least expensive quality alternate roof to a conventional (non-treated) shake roof would be a concrete 'tile roof. A concrete tile roof, with all costs included, costs nearly $3,000 more than a non-treated shake roof. A homebuyer would have to pay $448 more per year on his mortgage and make $1,792 more per year to qualify. Since he can insure the minimal additional risk of an untreated shake roof for no additional insurance premium in most areas, economically it would be a fiasco to require him to have alternate roofing. The basic underlying problem is that housing has gotten very expensive both in basic sales price and interest on the loan. Typically, those homebuyers who can afford to buy a new home can do so just barely. A great many of the people who could afford to buy a specific home with a conventional shake roof cannot afford that same home with a $3,000 mo~e expensive roof. If the price of the average new home increased $3,000 due to a government ordinance requiring fire retardant roofing, pCLhaps 5% of th~ buyers who previously would qualify for the loan no longer would be able to do so. The Anaheim fire would not have occurred if the apartments had been in a recently built project. The fire occurred as a result of a specific set of unique conditions which are no longer repeated in new developments. These conditions were a combina- tion of overhead electrical service, palm trees with dead frawns and Santa Ana winds. Overhead electrical service wires came into contact with dead palm frawns which in turn ignited and blew onto the roofs. If either the overhead electrical service or the palm trees had been eliminated when the project was built, there would not have been a fire. Additionally, the Uniform Building Code would not have allowed build- ings of these sizes to be built without fire retardant roofs. Once the fire started; it destroyed the large number of units it did due to the Santa Ana winds and the high density of the area. At over 20 units per acre, large, difficult to reach two-story shake roofs allow even a one building ~ire to destroy 7290 Clairrmollt Me5Il Blvd, I San Dlqo, CaJilomill911l J 1(714) 179-1041 State Assemolyrnan June 23, 1982 Page Two 20 to 30 units. Large apartment buildings pose a much greater fire threat to adjacent buildings due to their height and bulk as opposed to low density single family homes. There is a significant difference in fire risk between a one unit structure in a modern low density single family tract with numerous fire hydrants and good water pressure and an older 25 unit structure, not only to the individual building, but to the adjacent structures. Many homebuilders typically give mid-price range homebuyers a choice of three exterior elevations one of which would be spanish with concrete or clay tile. The number of spanish elevations within the tract is determined by buyer demand for spanish elevations and/or fireproof roofs. Demand is influenced by the additional cost to the homebuyer, and the aesthetics of getting too many all stucco homes with red tile roofs. Our company typically would sell a tile roof home for $3,000 more. Because many homebuilders offer some tile roofed homes, a homebuyer has a choice if he is concerned about having a fireproof roof and can afford one. From a marketing and cost standpoint, many builders may feel it is necessary to hold off new constructio,n until substantially all existing inventories of competitor's homes, built with conventional shake roofs, are sold and off the market. This may further depress the economy and availability of housing to the detriment of the consumer. The question of whether or not to require fire retardant roofs should not be based simply on the fact that we know shake roofs burn and we know there have been bad wind-swept fires. Most people realize a large new car is safer than a small or older car. Small cars generally lose when in an accident with a large car. The risk of being injured or killed in a car accident is far greater than the risk of being injured or killed in a home fire. National statistics bare this out. Nevertheless, primarily for economic reasons, people buy small cars or keep their older cars in spite of the increased risk. The looks or aesthetics of a car also weigh heavily on consumer preference. The same factors apply to new homes and their roofs. For economic reasons and good looks, if given a free choice, most consumers have been and will choose homes with conventional shake roofs. The general public is not stupid. They read the paper and know shake roofs burn. Nevertheless, far more people buy conventional shake roof homes than tile roof homes. Why? As stated above, it's primarily an economic and aesthetic decision. It is also a judgment on the homebuyer's part that the degree of risk from a conventional shake roof is not so great that it outweighs the other factors. Is the homeb~yer correct? Fire insurance companies, by their deeds in setting competitive premiums, seem to be saying the homebuyer is correct. Fire insurance companies have been rating the potential of loss from shake, treated shake, and non-shake roofs in Southern California for over 50 years. They are the experts as to true risk. Fire department personnel can testify as to their concerns regarding shake roofs, and fires that have occurred. We have all heard horror stories such as the Anaheim, fire. Many fire officials would prefer all concrete bUildings and fire breaks on most scenic hills. In spite of this, over 95% of single family State Assemblyman June 23, 1982 Page Three fire losses are caused from cigarettes, etc. within the home. A requirement for fire resistant bedding and sofas, a fire extinguisher in every home, etc., would prevent far more fires and be far more cost effective than requiring fire retardant roofing. I submit that the cost of requiring fire retardant roofs is prohibitive and unwar- ranted especially considering that typically less than 2% of the fires in California counties originate on roofs. In spite of an Anahei~type fire occurring onc~ every few years in the United States, the risk to the individual single family shake roofed detached home is minimal in a closed-in conventional modern subdivision with conventient fire hydrants, good water pressure and response time. This is born out by insurance company statistics over the last twenty years, which have resulted in fire insurance policies with no premiums or penalties for virtually all California areas. Everything we do or are involved in has some degree of risk. Most risks can be re- duced, but there is a price to pay in time, money and/or enjoyment. Government cannot and should nQt try to ban everything that has some degree of risk. The cost is too great. Saccharin, well-marbled steaks, automobiles, airline flights, caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes generally are not banned, but all are probably a lot more hazardous to us than shake roofs. The hazard of taking a commerical airliner got out of perspective when PSA went down in San Diego. The same thing happened with the Anaheim fire. We urge you to vote against AB 3797. Very truly yours, ;:::;:;:~FIC OF SAN DIEGO ~~~ Robert M. Allan President RMA:jk Enclosures J I~ C'"l C'"l C'"l "'= ~ - . r. r' r' r' H -< . > > > 7l "Cl CI) CI) CI) t"1 t'l 3: :I: 3: i'J) '1:1 :I: > CI) '1:1 CI) C'"l C'"l t l :I: "1 CI) /1) /1) /1) H 11 /1) (Il 11 III ..... 0 /1) t-'o ;xl 0 ~ III ~ ~ /1) III '0 /1) ..... III :3 III 0- ['rl "1 .... ~ t-'o fn ~ ::r '?: fn ~ I '< () ~ /1) ~ .-; 6 N fn III fn tIl 11 l"\ g; ;c ;xl c ..... e ::r ~ /1) OQ 0 n t'Il l"\ > M 11 III t-'o M "':l ..... I:) 0 n /1) n, ~ /1) fn /1) l'<" ..... /1) t-'o III > "1 /1) ~ /1) ~ '0 CI) /1) /1) CT' fn Z ~ III ~ ~ ::r ::r ~ ~ /1) fn o-i III 11 III 11 III ...' 11 t-'o 11 11 11 S; /1) ..... :3 /1) ..... OQ CI) tIl III M OQ III /1) ..... ::r tIl ::r tIl ~ M ..... M III ...' ::r III ::r '/1) tIl /1) /1) fn :3 III l'<" III ~ ::r fn ~ fn OQ l'<" /1) l'<" t-'o ..... /1) fn /1) n :3 C'"l CI) /1) {/l (/l /1) OQ /1) ::r (Il ~ ..... ~ t-'o III /1) III :3 11 fn 11 OQ ..... CI) tIl /1) ::r ::r fn pI III 1'" l" /1) /1) {/l {/l C'"l .{J> "lD:l G "" .p- "" 0\ "" N \0 0\ 0\ .p- "" N. 0 III V'l N 0 (J\ N "" 0 ..... CD N CD "" 0 l"\ fn o-i 0 0 CD .p- ~ CD V> 0> .p- "" \0 CD t-'o 0 0 0 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 ;xl () r-1 0 "':l ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., ,.., 0 "C: "rJ N ..... ..... ..... '..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....11 t'Il '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" '-'" .... ~ () /1) .-; < rrl 0(,/) > III > :Co Z Z Z ..... ..... l- N ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... :3 ~ rrl ..... ..... ..... V> V> V> \0 V> V> V> V> V> n ~ ~ V'l >- >- >- N ~ 0 ...... t 0 0 0 0 /1) t-'o "" + + + 11 ;xl M ..... .p- .p- ..... :3 /1) t-'o 0 ...... 0 0 0 ...... III ..... 0 "rJ 0 ~ ~ M III :3 + /1) M III ::<J ..... "" ..... /1) ..... C 0 0 0 ::O~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 tIl "rJ + + o n n H N ..... ..... .....0 11 Z ..... \0 ..... t-'o(ll e (;) 0\ V> .p- ::l n () fn n 0 e "rJ ..... 11 ,.., Co \ll '->J Z 11 ..... '-'" rrl :<: ..... :T::tIC'"l >- C'"l 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 III 51 o (Il ~ Z ::l /1) .....M t-'o CI) 0 ....fn M ~ ~~ t-'o ::0 '. .(J> III Hl 0 C ..... ..... /1) 0 ::l C'"l .. .. El l"\ ,..., 11 III o-i ...... V> 0 \0 V> II> fn ~ ..... H Z Z Z (J\ CD 0 \0 CD ...... ~ :3 0 > 0 ..... ..... ..... 0\ 0\ 0 ..... 0 V> 0\ MOO /1) ....."1 Z >- >- >- (Il II> fn M .... '-"'re ::l II> :3 I -11 III M :3 ::l > :3 III () ,..., V'l /1) t-'o n/1),po ::l :3 II> ....... C'"l " () 0 ..... 3: "C > :T CI) .... .....r. o-i ::0 .... :T::l 0 0 0 rr. IllOQ 11 (Il M 0 :T:O;- M III /1) /1) M >- (Il ..... o-i r1 fn 0 ..... C. 0(,/) M M > ............C'"l /1) 0 ~ C'"l "" ...... V> V> N 0 ~O r1 ~ 0 .. III 0 :3 ::l :I:: .... Z \0 ,po ...... 0\ 0 \0 ,po :3 /1) <: III 0 n < Z Z Z V> .p- .p- "" (J\ ...... .p- fn /1) M S ...' ('%1 ..... ..... ..... 0> V> \0 ...... V> ..... V> :3 :3 /1) /1) 0 Z >- > >- III -M 0" :3 o-i "t-'o ::tiC III H EI 0 0'< .....,..., 0 II> t-'o::l 0 II> V> Z :3 :3 ll> .....11 '-'" > M () ..... I r' {/l ..... '-'" . V'l ::r: .{J> ~~~~~ I~ V> \0 ...... (J\ "" /1) o III P-O I~ 0 0\ 0> ..... ,po ...... 0\ 1ll::l'<o..S > r1 M S .... II> ..... 0(,/) .....::rIl>MO" M ..... .....::l t-'o e ro Z Z Z 0\ ..... CD ...... .p- '<MO'< ... j::; ..... ..... ..... 0 ...... ...... V> (J\ .p- ...... .....fn:3/1) ::l >- >- >- 0 N (J\ N \D CD N III l"\ III Z ..... M C') /1) / .....M :J::Z ..... > ::0 0(,/) 0 0 0 II> :3 0- 0 N -1'- ..., ...., ..... '"'i S ~) ~ P- O .0 /1) ~O .... ..., z :or. z .p- N ...... .p- O ...... N r'e 0 /1) S M .... ..... ..... ..... 0 0> 0 0 ...... \D CD 0 III ~ ~/1) .... :3 >- >- >- 0 CD .p- O> V> N CD III .....:3 0 ::l t-'o/1) D:l :3 ,..., .....11 '< III (J\ '-<: ..... '-'" "C: H M 0 >- r1 :3 0 r1 P- /1) fn ~ 0(,/) E3 .. > ::tI .... .... r1 :3 II> M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C III :3 0- .... E3 :3 C C 0 n \ll n :3 /1) ..... M t-'o H or. I) :3 ,..., .... ::l ...... r1 ....... /1)