Wood-Roof Ban Sent to Bradley on 11-1 Vote; Industry in Near-Panic

In a move as closely watched in the Northwest and Canada as in Los Angeles, the City Council on Wednesday ignored threats of a lawsuit from the cedar-shingle industry and voted to ban new wood roofs.

If the ban is approved by Mayor Tom Bradley, no new buildings will be allowed to have wood-shingle roofs. Property owners will not be required to immediately remove existing wood roofs, but those roofs must be replaced with other materials when the roofs need repairs to 10% or more of their surfaces.

City officials estimate that it could take up to 30 years before all of the wood roofs are gone. About 30% of all homes in the city have wood roofs, according to the cedar-shingle industry.

Caused Near-Panic

The ban, first proposed a month ago and tentatively approved by the council last week, has caused near-panic in the $50-million-a-year industry that manufactures treated cedar shingles and counts on the Los Angeles area for 75% of its annual sales. Los Angeles would be the first major city in the United States to outlaw the cedar shingles.

In the Pacific Northwest and Canada, where most of the lumber for shake and shingles is harvested and where most of the processing plants are located, the council’s action has been a big story for local newspapers and television stations. At stake are hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars invested in plants and equipment to produce the specially treated shakes that may soon be outlawed, according to Michael Westfall, president of the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau, a trade organization representing 250 manufacturers of wood roofing materials.

Ordinance ‘Unwarranted’

“We are confident the courts will overturn this unfortunate ordinance,” Westfall said. He added that it is still unclear in which court or on what grounds the trade association will sue, but he termed the ordinance “unwarranted and discriminatory.”

The industry maintains that the shingles are safe when treated with special fire-retardant chemicals, as required in the city since 1982. But city fire officials argued that the shingles lose their protection as they age.

“There is not one shred of doubt in my mind” that the ban is necessary to protect city homeowners, city Fire Marshall Craig Drummond said after witnessing the 11-1 vote.

No cities in Orange County have moved to ban wooden shake or shingle roofs, but several cities, including Santa Ana, Anaheim and Newport Beach, have adopted ordinances requiring that wood roofs be fire-retardant or non-combustible. That is also the standard in unincorporated county territory.

Other cities such as Orange, Brea and Laguna Beach require fire-retardant wood roofs in some specially designated areas, usually those close to fire-prone brush lands.

Even though most Orange County fire authorities agree that wood roofs are dangerous and should be banned, local politicians have in the past weighed the economic concerns of developers and homeowners in their decision, local fire officials said.

The industry took out a full-page newspaper ad Tuesday but did little lobbying in the last week of either Los Angeles City Council members or the mayor. Bradley’s office said Tuesday that he had not yet decided whether to approve or veto the measure. He has 10 days to make up his mind.

Despite the lopsidedness of the vote, the Los Angeles City Council debate on the measure Wednesday was unexpectedly long.

Councilman Ernani Bernardi, a former builder who cast the only no vote, and Councilman Richard Alatorre argued that the ban may be unnecessary. “Experts disagree,” said Alatorre, about the Fire Department’s conclusion that the shingles are inherently dangerous.

Councilwoman Gloria Molina said, “The industry is trying to perfect a process. Should we or should we not give them room?” She successfully proposed that a task force be set up with county officials to work with industry and see whether they can come up with more fire-resistant processes.

And Councilman Nate Holden warned Drummond that he may have a difficult time defending the city in the expected industry lawsuits because the department has established no test to approve or reject roofing material. “You’ve come in here with what appears to be a slipshod approach, and that just isn’t right,” Holden said to Drummond.

Councilman Hal Bernson, who, along with Councilman Marvin Braude led the fight for the ban, echoed a basic theme. “A wood roof is a threat,” he said.

Ironically, the federal government has been encouraging the shingle business even as the Los Angeles City Council sounded what could be the death knell for some in the industry.

In 1986, the federal government adopted a 35% tariff on Canadian wood shingles in an effort to promote the domestic industry, according to Westfall. The Canadian government has been subsidizing its industry to combat the U.S. tariff. Canadian officials even joined the lobbying effort against the Los Angeles ordinance.

Overall, Canadian and U.S. companies produce about $250 million worth of wood shingles annually and employ about 6,000 workers.

Treated shingles represent about $50 million of those sales and between 500 and 1,000 of the workers, according to Westfall. More than 75% of the so-called Class-B treated shingles are sold in the Los Angeles area, he said.