HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0505 CC REG ITEM 09A'. `OORPARK, CALIFORNIA
atycourclimfTEM
or 1993
ACTION:
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development *-
Paul Porter, Senior Planner
DATE: April 15, 1993 (CC meeting of May 5, 1993)
SUBJECT: APPEAL NO. 93 -2 (NORTH VIEW HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION)
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S DECISION TO
APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 6 TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 851 PARDEE CONSTRUCTION - PROPOSAL
REGARDING E %TENSION OF CHIMNEY CHASE WITH SHEET METAL
E %TENSION
Background
Pardee Construction Company applied for Minor Modification No. 6 to
RPD No. 851 on March 24, 1993, requesting a modification to Planned
Development Permit No. 851 to construct extensions to the chimney
chases as described above and further depicted in the attached
drawing. Staff reviewed the proposal with the City's building
department and came to the conclusion that the proposal meets all
Building Code requirements. The Director of Community Development
approved the above captioned Minor Modification on March 24, 1993.
(see attached approval letter). This matter was discussed at the
City Council meeting on April 7, 1993. At the Council meeting,
some of the property owners within the affected tract voiced
opposition to the approved Minor Modification.
Basis of Applicant's Appeal
On April 8, 1993, the North View Neighborhood Homeowner's
Association filed Appeal No. 93 -2 appealing approval of Minor
Modification No. 6 to RPD 851. The Homeowner's Association states
that the Minor Modification is in violation of the North View
Neighborhood Association's CC and R's Paragraph 18 and the
Homeowner's Association states that they feel that the City
reversed a prior decision without due cause. The Homeowner's
Association also stated that the modification will be done with
untested and an unguaranteed produce.
Staff Comment
Staff also believes that as conditioned, the work completed on the
fireplaces will adequately correct the existing situation. Staff
reviewed the proposal with the City's building department and
concluded that the proposal will meet all Building Code
PP04:15:93 110:38amA:\CC.KEK 1
requirements and as conditioned, the work completed on the
fireplaces will adequately correct the existing deficiencies.
For the Council's information, notice of the hearing regarding this
appeal was: 1) mailed to each of the property owners within the
affect tract and 2) published in the newspaper.
Recommendation:
Deny the Appeal and uphold the Director decision approving Minor
Modification No. 6 to Residential Planned Development Permit No.
851.
Attachments: 1. Approval letter
2. Northview Homeowner's Association Supporting
Documentation
PP04:15:93 110:38amA:1CC.HEN 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPROVAL OF A MINOR MODIFICATION
March 24, 1993
Minor Modification No. 1
Residential Planned Development Permit Number: 851
Filed by: Pardee Construction Company
10880 Wilshire Boulevard (14th Floor)
Los Angeles, California 90024
Attention: David Gedult
Address /Location: North View tract generally located east of
Peach Hill Road and north of Tierra Rejada
Road.
Approved by the Director on: March 24, 1993
For: Approval of extension of chimney chase with sheet metal
extension subject to the attached conditions of approval (see
Attachment 1)
Categorically exempt from CEQA requirements as a Class 1,
Exemption for Minor Alterations.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance: This
Department has reviewed the project to ascertain if there will be
a significant effect on the environment. It has been determined
that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements as
a Class 1 exemption for minor alterations.
Ordinance Compliance: Based upon the information and findings
developed by staff, it has been determined that this application,
with the attached conditions, meets the requirements of Moorpark
Ordinance Code Section 8111 -2.1.2 - Permit Standards, in that;
a. The Minor Modification is consistent with the intent and
provisions of the City's General Plan and of Division 8,
Chapters 1 and 2 of the City Ordinance Code;
b. The Minor Modification is compatible with the character of
surrounding development;
EXHIBIT 1
3
C. The proposed Minor Modification is not be obnoxious or
harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or
uses;
d. The Modification is not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare; and
e. If a conditionally permitted use, is compatible with existing
and planned land uses in the general area where the
development is to be located.
Appeals: As stated in Section 8111 -8, within 15 calendar days
after the permit has been approved, conditionally approved or
denied, any aggrieved person may file an appeal of the approval,
conditional approval or denial with the Community Development
Department who shall set a hearing date before the Planning
Commission to review the matter at the earliest convenient date.
Zoning Clearance and Building Permit: Upon the expiration of the
15 day appeal period and upon completion of the "prior to zoning
clearance" conditions, a Zone Clearance may be obtained from the
Community Development Department.
CITY OF MOORPARK
Jaimer-Aguilera
Director of Community Development
CC. Paul Porter, Senior Planner
Minor Mod No. 1 Case File
Chroni File
4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
1. Pardee will, at it's expense, arrange for inspection of each
Pardee home by a subcontractor of their choice hereafter
jointly referred to as "Pardee ".
2. Pardee will prepare a written report of its inspection, which
it will be provided to the homeowner, Pardee, and the City.
3. Pardee will promptly notify the City of each home which has
been the subject of corrective work prior to the work being
enclosed. Pardee will arrange with the building inspector to
inspect the corrective work. Pardee will pay the City charges
for performing the inspections in the form of a building
permit. The City will charge Pardee on an hourly basis for
the inspector's time including the City's administrative cost.
The total cost per house will be the cost of the Building
Permit without any other charges except for the State SMIP
tax. Pardee will coordinate with the inspector so that they
will be able to perform approximately four hours daily
inspection work. The building permit will be issued by the
City and the fee paid by Pardee upon certification by the City
inspector that all necessary corrective work has been
performed.
4. If the City inspector believes any further corrective measures
are necessary, Pardee will pay to have those corrective
measures performed, and pay for reinspection by the inspector.
5. The building inspector will not only inspect the work done,
but will also conduct a thorough inspection of the fireplace.
This may mean that other defects may be found which would
require further work by the contractor. This would result in
a reinspection fee charged to the contractor for lack of
readiness as allowed by the Uniform Building Code, and as
stipulated in item 4 above.
6. If Pardee produces a report on a house which states there were
no violations found, the City building inspector may conduct
an inspection regardless. If the inspector does find
violations, Pardee will be required to pay for the inspector's
time, and be required to do work necessary. If no violations
are found, the City will pay the cost of the inspector's time.
7. Pardee Construction Company will pay for the random inspection
of ten (10 ) homes. The inspector is to be selected by the
City, but it may not include the City's building inspector.
Upon completion, Pardee shall submit a copy of the result of
the inspection to the Director of Community Development.
ATTACHMENT 1
5
8. The sheet metal to be used to cover the extension will be
painted a color which will closely match the existing stucco.
The sheet metal will be prepared for painting by first
cleansing the metal with acid solution, then by applying
primer to the metal.
..,,A 6
RECEIVED
APR 211993
City of Moorpark
luomniunity Development Department
Hand Delivered
(Ms.Susan Elias)
DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO MINOR MODIFICATION
NO. 6 TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 851 (PARDEE)
On December 16, 1992, the Northview Homeowner's Association
Architectural Committee directed a letter to the City of
Moorpark, Department of Building & Safety in response to the
extension of chimneys by way of sheet metal coverings of flues,
proposed by Pardee Construction Company (hereinafter "Pardee ") in
response to Building and Safety Code Violations relating to the
10'2' rule.
The Architectural Committee of Northview Homeowner's
Association (hereinafter "Association ") rejected Pardee's
proposal to extend the chimneys in the tract by way of sheet
metal extensions covering the flues. This rejection was made
according to Paragraph 18 of the Association's C.C.& R's, which
states, in part:
. .approved by the Architectural Control
Committee as to the quality of workmanship
and materials, harmony of external design
with existing structures. . ."
Pardee had also
chase cap without any
also rejected. The
should be completed
homes to their orig
around them.
extended some flues on Cedarpine above the
covering whatsoever, and this procedure was
Committee further stated that extensions
with stucco, as per plan, to restore the
inal state, and in harmony with the homes
The Architectural Committee also requested that any future
modifications be submitted, per the C.C.& R.'s, to said Committee
prior to any issuance of permits for work. A copy of this letter
is attached and marked as Attachment "A" for review.
On December 24, 1992, Mr. Jim Aguilera of the City of
Moorpark, directed a letter to Mr. David Geduld of Pardee
stating: . .when a fireplace is repaired and it requires that
it be raised above its existing level, the frame and stucco is
not being extended. Since Code requires that all construction be
done per plans, the work currently being undertaken is being done
in order to comply with the original approval; it has therefore
been concluded that the frame and stucco extension is required
per plan." In addition, Mr. Aguilera advised Pardee that no
permits would be issued unless compliance with this directive
were met. A copy of this letter is attached and marked as
Attachment "B" for review.
On or about January of 1993, Mr. Aguilera reversed his
earlier position and recommended that the City Council allow the
Department of Building & Safety to begin issuing permits to allow
the raising of the chimneys and flues with sheet metal in the
North View tract, contrary to his December 24, 1992 directive.
On or about January 26 1993„ Mr. Aguilera submitted an
Agenda Report for the City Council Meeting of February 3, 1993,
(a copy of which is marked as Attachment "C ") stating that
pursuant to the Council's direction, he spoke with Mr. Geduld of
Pardee about various issues relative to the controversy regarding
sheet metal extensions.
In Paragraph 4 on Page 1 of the Agenda Report, in response
to Aguilera's question: "Why are you opposed to stucco ?" Geduld
responded that it was a matter of time, money and ability to
control the work. Regarding time, Geduld contended that the work
would take up to six to ten weeks to be completed, as opposed to
two days using the sheet metal covering. On the issue of ability
to control the work, Mr. Geduld contended that Pardee would have
to use four subcontractors to do the work in stucco, as opposed
to one with the use of the sheet metal coverings.
Several homeowners have contacted two general contractors to
obtain quotes for work on the extension of their chimneys with
stucco. These contractors have disputed Pardee's contention that
it would take four subcontractors to perform the work. Each
contractor stated that they could do the entire job and the need
for separate contractors for each stage of the work was
unnecessary and absurd. Since Pardee is a major developer in
Southern California and uses numerous subcontractors, the issue
of being able to control the work seems ludicrous on its face.
As for the removal, framing and cure time for the stucco,
each contractor disputed the time frame of six to ten weeks as an
exaggeration. Four weeks was more the time frame they envisioned
and this was to allow the curing time between coats of the stucco
to the chimney.
That leaves us with the last of the objections cited by
Pardee, which is "money." It is quite apparent that Pardee
should repair the chimneys and perform the extensions to meet the
10'2' requirement with stucco, so that the homes will be repaired
and in the manner as when they were originally purchased. While
the Association is aware that it will in all likelihood cost
Pardee more money to repair the homes in a proper fashion, the
Association feels that the issue of "money" is not one in which
the City Council, or the Director of Community Development,
should base their approval.
In or around February of 1993, the Board of Directors of the
Association met with Mr. Aguilera on two separate occasions to
discuss the chimney extensions, and related issues involving
inspections and /or repairs of homes in North View. A proposal in
which inspections, repairs and extension of chimneys was drafted.
On or about February 18, 1993, Mr. Aguilera directed a
letter to Mr. Geduld of Pardee outlining conditions for
inspections and /or repairs to homes in the North View Tract.
Contained in this letter was the requirement that chimneys
requiring extensions be covered with stucco instead of sheet
metal. On or about March 1, 1993, Pardee responded to Mr.
Aguilera's letter of February 18, 1993 accepting several
conditions and rejecting the extension of chimneys and flues with
stucco. (Copies of these letters have already been provided to
the City Council in the Agenda Report for the meeting of April 3,
1993) .
After public comments at several City Council Meetings, Mr.
Aguilera was directed by the Council to have Pardee submit an
Application for Minor Modification No. 6 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 851. Although the public was advised that
this was the proper and normal procedure to be undertaken when a
modification to the original plan is requested by a builder or
developer, neither Mr. Aguilera nor the Department of Building &
Safety initiated this process on their own.
On or about March 24, 1993, Pardee submitted their
Application for Minor Modification No. 6 to the Residential
Planned Development Permit No. 851. On or about March 24, 1993,
Mr. Aguilera, Director of Community Development and Paul Porter,
Senior Planner, directed an Agenda Report to the City Council
dated March 24, 1993, wherein they approved the Application for
Minor Modification as outlined above. (A copy of this Agenda
Report has already been provided to the City Council for the
April 3, 1993 meeting).
Attached to this Agenda Report was a document entitled
"Conditions of Approval, Attachment 1" which outlined the
conditions of the inspections and /or repairs of homes, the permit
process and the requirement that "the sheet metal to be used to
cover the extension will be painted a color which will closely
match the existing stucco. The sheet metal will be prepared for
painting by first cleansing the metal with acid solution, then by
applying primer to the metal."
This Association has asked Pardee, a real estate developer
that builds homes in Southern California, and Fireplace Systems,
a Company that installs fireplaces, if they have ever used sheet
metal on flues or for the extensions of flues. Both Pardee and
Fireplace Systems confirmed that they have never used these types
of extensions on chimneys before. Mr. Aguilera also stated that
he had never seen these types of extensions on chimneys.
The obvious question is, why should Northview accept these
extensions on their homes when it is an untried and unproven
product, that would alter the outward appearance of their homes
in a manner contrary to the original plan? In addition, there
has been no guarantee or warranty attached to this offer to
protect the homeowners if this product fails.
The overriding argument used by Mr. Aguilera and some
members of the Council to support this modification is that if
the City rejects it, Pardee might just "walk away from the whole
mess." It should be strongly stated and pointed out, that this
is a problem that was not created by the homeowners, either by
misuse of or failure to maintain their chimneys. This was a
construction defect that was created by Pardee, and Pardee alone.
Pardee has a legal and moral obligation to repair the homes and
restore them to their original condition.
Mr. Aguilera has offered no other compelling facts to
support his decision to allow the extensions of chimneys in the
tract with sheet metal, other than this fear of Pardee walking
away. If the City of Moorpark intends to conduct policy and
enforce Code requirements based upon the "fear" of what a
developer may or may not do in response thereto, the City is
relinquishing the authority that their constituents have
entrusted them to exercise.
If Pardee has used this type of intimidation process with
the City of Moorpark and their elected officials, one can readily
imagine the type of fear and intimidation that Pardee has
instilled in the individual homeowners who have tried, for
several years now, to remedy the ongoing problems with the
fireplace and chimneys in their homes.
Back in 1990, chimney shrouds were removed from 176 homes in
the Northview Tract in response to untested and unapproved
shrouds that had been used by Pardee. The homeowners were
advised by Pardee, in writing, that Pardee would "remove the
shroud and repair your chimney. . ." (a copy of this February 6,
1990 letter is attached and marked as Attachment "D ").
The City backed Pardee in removing the shrouds, citing that
"these shrouds have been involved in three structural fires in
the City of Moorpark% .. ". The homeowners in Northview were told
that there were no tested and UL approved shrouds for the
chimneys and fireplaces that were used in those 176 homes.
In a letter to Mr. Delette and Mr. Geduld of Pardee, Mr.
David Baird of the City of Moorpark stated in a letter dated
February 4, 1992 that Pardee had: ". . .restored the fireplace
installations to the condition in which they were laboratory
tested for safety." A copy of that letter is attached and
marked as Attachment "E".
In other words, there was no remedy for the chimney shouuds,
other than the removal of the shrouds, which exposed the circular
spark arresters on these 1.76 homes. in the instant case of the
extension of chimneys in Northview, these chimneys can be
restored to their original condition with the extensions being
done with stucco, as per plan. There is a remedy available other
than the sheet metal extensions that Pardee is insisting upon.
The real reason for not doing the extension with stucco that
Pardee has asserted, is not the time involved, or the ability to
control the work, but money.
The Association has been given the task of enforcing the
C.C.& R.'s which deal with the safety issues of our neighborhood,
as well as the aesthetic concerns. It was the diligent work of
this Association that uncovered these numerous building and
safety violations and brought them to the public eye. It was the
work of the Association, and the City of Moorpark, that has
forced Pardee to address these glaring defects.
The City has a duty to assist the Association in enforcement
of the C.C.& R's. Pardee has a duty to repair and restore the
fireplaces and chimneys to their original condition, up to
Building and Safety Codes, and as per plan.
One homeowner at the April 3, 1993 City Council meeting
asked the compelling question: Can anyone just invalidate a
permit and change it to suit their own needs? Is this the way
the system works?
The City of Moorpark should appeal the Minor Modification
No. 6 to residential Planned Development No. 851 and require that
all extensions to chimneys in the Northview tract be done with
stucco, as per plan.
December 16, 1992
Hand Delivered
City of Moorpark
Department of Building & Safety
111 A Poindexter Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Attention: Steve Carralejo
Re: Contemplated Raising of Chimneys in the
North View Tract to Conform to Height
Requirements As Set Forth by Manufacturer's
Specifications and City Building Code
Dear Mr. Carralejo:
According to Section 20 of the Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for the Northview Tract, the Architectural
Committee's approval or disapproval of these C.C. & R's shall be
in writing. This letter is in compliance with this provision.
According to Section 18:
"No building, including without limitation, garages,
shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until
the construction plans and specifications and a plan
showing the location of the structure have been
approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to
the quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of
external design with existing structures, and as to
location with respect to topography and finish grade
elevations. Approval shall be obtained as provided in
Paragraphs 19 and 20, hereof."
During the past month, a number of chimneys have been raised
in the Northview Tract in violation of the above instructions.
Two homes on East Cedarpine were supposedly raised by merely
inserting a sheet metal pipe at the top of the existing flues and
no effort was made to restore the chimneys to a "harmony of
external design with existing structures." In should be pointed
out that Pardee's subcontractor, some two years ago, did raise a
chimney higher than necessary at 13618 Christian Barrett in our
City of Moorpark
Department of Building & Safety
December 16, 1992
Page Two
subdivision. in doing so, they rebuilt the entire chimney,
integrating the extension in perfect harmony by erecting a
substructure, framing and stuccoing the outside so that it does
harmonize in design with the existing structure. Nothing less
than this is acceptable to the Architectural Control Committee.
We respectfully request that any future modifications be
submitted, as per Section 18, for our consideration before
permits are granted and work approved.
We have been advised that Pardee has proposed the
installation of sheet metal frameworks on top of the chimneys
painted the color of the stucco. This plan is not approved and
is unacceptable to the Architectural Control Committee.
Any plans which do not restore the chimneys to conform to
normal standards in function and appearance, as described above,
will not meet approval.
Very truly yours,
Michael N. Earabaugh
Chairman, Architectural
Control Committee, Northview
Homeowner's Association
MNE : sue
cc: Dave Geduld
Pardee Contruction Company
Rick Ertel
Tri- County Heating
City of Moorpark Mayor, Paul Lawrason
City of Moopark Councilman, Bernardo Perez
City of Moorpark Councilman, John Wozniak
City of Moorpark Councilman, Scott Montgomery
City of Moorpark Councilman, Patrick Hunter
f= _ MOORPARK
_ 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 930 l 529 -6864
REC�v
December 24, 1992
DEC 2 41992
Mr. David Geduld
Pardee Construction Company
10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Dear Mr. Geduld:
I am in receipt of your letter dated December 15, 1992. Your offer will be considered
by the Council on January 6, 1993 at their regular Council meeting. I will keep you
informed as necessary.
On a different issue, I wish to inform you that an item has arisen which requires your
attention. Apparently, when a fireplace is repaired and it requires that it be raised
above its existing level, the frame and stucco is not being extended. Since the Code
requires that all construction be done per plans; and the wirk Corr -2ntly being
undertaken is being done in order to comply with the original appi-c-al; it has
therefore been concluded that the frame and stucco extension is required per plan.
The building division has been advised to issue permits and conduct inspections only
if this requirement is being adhered to.
Ifyou have any questions regarding this issue please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
i
im Aguilera
Director of Community Development
cc: The Honorable C :iy Council
Steven Kueny, City Manager
✓DirkL.ovctt, As..,tant City Fngtnccr
PAUL W LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem
1 RA:crla:oc \pa rdee.3
SCOTT MONTGCµERv
-ounc- imemoe,
1
RC, E TA,LE' 1R
Ccuncilmerroe'
ITEM /
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council;
FROM: Jim Aguilera, Director of Community Developmentlo_�
DATE: January 26, 1993 (CC meeting of 2/3/93)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING PARDEE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PROPOSAL FOR INSPECTIONS
I spoke with Mr. Dave Geduld on 1/21/93 and discussed with him the
Council's concerns and questions related to the inspection process
and the fireplace extensions. Regarding the question of paint
durability on the proposed metal extensions, Mr. Geduld indicated
that there are other painted metal parts on the house roofs such as
a portion of the flue, the flashing, the water heater vents and
heater vents. He further stated that he saw no difference between
these other painted metal parts and his proposal. His
subcontractor Pater informed staff that the galvaonized metal was
first washed with an acid solution, then primered, then painted.
Regarding the use of baked -on enamel metal, he indicated that its
use was not feasible since the enamel is applied prior to the
bending of the metal. In such a case the paint would break at the
bend.
When asked if Pardee had used this metal extension methodology
before, he indicated in the negative. He did give information to
staff of those addresses in Moorpark which already have the metal
casing. They are: 3976 and 3975 Woodlake Manor and 4176 Trailcrest
Street.
In response to the question: "Why are you opposed to stucco "? Mr.
Geduld replied that it was a matter of time, money and ability to
control the work. He said that instead of using only one
subcontractor, he would have to use four. Further, he stated that
instead of supervising one subcontractor's work his firm would have
to supervise four. In terms of time; instead of one or two days
work it would take six to ten weeks in order to remove the stucco,
frame and apply the felt and wire mesh, and apply the first,
second, and third coats, and allow for curing time between coats.
CRL 1/26/93 (Tue)-A: \COUNCIL \PARDEE.?
X /,�C V
The Honorable City Council
January 26, 1993
Page -B-
Also discussed on this date was the issue of Pardee's cost for
conducting inspections. His response was that Pardee would credit
the City $20.00 per house if the City and Pardee could agree to a
comprehensive plan which would include issues such as repair
specifications, timing of building inspections, timing of permit
issuance, etc. Mr. Geduld also mentioned that the City would be
reimbursed after all work was done.
Mr. Geduld was also asked about the possibility of Pardee hiring
the same party that performed the inspections, to also act as a
contractor to do the work. He indicated that the possibility of
such an arrangement existed only if Pardee could be satisfied as to
the contractor's reputation, experience, insurance, etc. Given
that the most qualified bidder is not a contractor this possibility
seems remote.
Staff Recommendation:
Direct Staff as deemed appropriate.
CRL 1/26/93 (Tue) -A: \COUNCIL \PARDEE.7
Pardee Construction Company
A Weyerhaeuser Company Weyerhaeuser
February 6, 1990
Dear Homeowner:
As you may be aware, there have recently been a number of fires in
the chimneys of pre- fabricated metal fireplaces in houses in Ventura
County. It has been determined that untested and unsafe spark arrester
shrouds installed as part of the fireplace system are the major cause
of these fires.
Pardee Construction Company has determined that the fireplace in-
stalled by our company in your home may contain one of these un-
tested and unsafe shrouds.
Pardee Construction Company will remove the shroud and repair your
chimney at no cost to you. We are making arrangements to begin
modifications within the next few weeks. Permission is hereby
requested to enter upon your proeprty in order to accomplish this work.
Please sign on the line provided below giving us permission to enter
upon your property to inspect the fireplace chimney. A self- addressed
stamped envelope is enclosed for you to return this permission to
enter and a second copy of this notice is enclosed for you to retain.
If you have any questicns or problems with this matter, please contact
our Ventura Area Construction Manager, Kr. Ralph Pistone at 805- 482 -1760.
Homeowner
Address
Date
5301 Mission Oaks Boulevard
Camarillo. California 93010
(213) 889 -0643 or (805) 482 -1760
MOORPA �K
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tom
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
BERNARDO M.PEREZ
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
Mr. Charles Delette,
c/o Mr. David Geduld
Pardee Construction
10880 Wilshire Blvd.
L.A. CA 90024
STEVEN KUENY
-- City Manager
CHERYL J.KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
FE b Director of
Community Development
R. :QENNIS DELZEIT
PusLS o,re,q iCity Engineer
JOAN V. GILLESPIE
i Chief of Police
i'RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
February 4, 1991 ---
Vice President
Company
14th Floor
subject: Chimney Terminations in the City of Moorpark
Dear Mr. Delette,
I am writing at the request of Mr. Geduld to clarify the
Building Department's position regarding chimney "shrouds ". I
understand that a homeowner's association has requested that the
"shrouds" be replaced. By removing the "shrouds" you have re-
stored the fireplace ins-.-allations to the condition in which they
were laboratory tested for safety. Please be advised that
reinstalling an untested and unlisted component onto a completely
tested and listed assembly would constitute a violation of the
Mechanical Code as adopted. The Building Department will not
issue a permit for such worx nor will the Building Department ap-
prove such work.
I understand that the owners have certain aesthetic con-
cerns. I would remind them, however, that these "shrouds" have
been involved in three structural fires in the City of Moorpark
and many more around the state. The life safety of the occupants
of these buildings must remain the primary focus of our concern.
Thank you once again for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincer
av J. Baird
Building Official
ws2000 \Omoor \chimfil9
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529 -6864
1-1 77_�)(P "cam 'Elf