Opinion May Undercut Ban on Wood Roofs : City Told Its Fire Code Can’t Be Stricter Than State’s

In a development that could undercut the legality of the city’s new ban on wood shingle roofs, the state attorney general has issued an opinion declaring that cities do not have authority to impose fire codes more stringent than those of the state.

The opinion has irked city fire officials, who have long maintained that wood shake and shingle roofs are extremely dangerous because they are fire prone.

“This opinion is not really thought of very well,” Donald O. Manning, the Fire Department’s chief engineer, said Thursday.

Speaking at a meeting of the Board of Fire Commissioners, Manning said he had been told by the city attorney’s office that the opinion had not been well researched and was not considered a substantial roadblock to implementation of the ban on wood roofs.

The commission Thursday asked the city attorney’s office to draw up a formal response to the opinion.

The opinion was issued with little fanfare two weeks ago and City Council members said Thursday that they were unaware of it and were unsure how it would affect the ban.

The ordinance, passed overwhelmingly last July, bans new cedar shingle roofs and requires existing wood roofs to be replaced if they need repairs of more than 10% of their area. The outlawed roofing material is already in place on about 1.5 million homes in and around Los Angeles.

No State Ban

The state does not ban wood roofs.

The opinion does not have the force of law, but it could bolster the legal position of the wood shingle industry, which has filed suit in federal court to block the ordinance.

Industry spokesmen have said the ban could be the death blow for the $150-million-a-year business of supplying the cedar shakes for roofs. The Los Angeles Basin has been the single largest market in the world for cedar shake roofs.

Attempts to reach industry spokesmen for comment on the attorney general’s opinion were unsuccessful Thursday.

The attorney general’s office issued the opinion at the request of the state fire marshal’s office, said Jack Winkler, an assistant attorney general.

According to state housing law, Winkler said, local governments do not have the authority to adopt codes regarding fire and panic safety that are more stringent than codes adopted by the state fire marshal’s office.

Joan Jennings, deputy director of the fire marshal’s office, said the opinion about local authority was requested about a year ago after several local governments were challenged by residents who objected to ordinances requiring automatic sprinkler systems.

Jennings said the opinion applies to the Los Angeles wood roof ordinance. “But it’s only an opinion,” she said, adding that the fire marshal’s office is considering whether to recommend “corrective legislation.”