CA Senator Jerry Hill Introduces SB-721 Contractors: decks and balconies: inspection Supports Requiring Deck Inspections

Bill Duplicates Berkeley Bill Langauge in Who Can Perform Inspections

Should structural pest control operators, general contractors, architects or engineers inspect deck inspections as the state of CA is proposing?

They will be if the consulting and inspection industry doesn’t act quickly and object. Senator Hill has just introduced a bill that uses much the same language Berkeley’s city ordinance does.

“The inspection shall be performed by a licensed general contractor, structural pest control licensee, licensed architect, licensed engineer, or other licensee as approved by the Department of Consumer Affairs. The purpose of the inspection is to verify that all of the balconies and other elevated walking surfaces covered by this section are in generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from hazardous dry rot, fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered.”

My thoughts-

Structural Pest Control Licensee-pest control licensee’s inspect buildings for termites/wood destroying organisms. They do not test roofs (or balconies) for water tightness, nor are they qualified to do so. Roof contractors can do so, but generally exclude themselves from inspecting decks. Pest control licensee’s do not know about waterproof coated decks, how they are installed, what problems to look for when doing an inspection and even if they do see a problem, don’t understand what caused it, what degree of a problems it is or how to repair it.

General Contractors-Most GC’s I know don’t know much about waterproofed coated decks and even less about the problems they may have. Indeed, I give seminars on Best Building Practices Building & Waterproofing Decks where the room is filled with GC’s. Ask a GC about flashings and door pans and coating application procedures and their eyes will usually glaze over; they just don’t know. Think of a General Contractor as a Doctor practicing general medicine-they know enough to get by and enough to refer you to a specialist. You wouldn’t go see your general practitioner for a heart problem and you wouldn’t call a General Contractor to come fix your waterproof deck. You would call a specialist who practices waterproofing every day just like you’d call a heart specialist for an operation.

Architects- in my review of the plans for Berkeley, I found multiple design issues with the deck plans. I called a friend of mine who graduated from the Cal-Poly SLO school of architecture and asked him how many classes or lectures he had on waterproofing in general and deck waterproofing specifically. None was his answer. I checked various architecture schools websites for classes on waterproofing. I am still searching, there’s got to be one.  I’ve been on jobs arguing with the architect about his design and how I’m supposed to waterproof it in…they are asking me what I think. Listen you are the one with the degree you just threw in my face; you design the waterproofing system, I’m only the waterproofing contractor.  Either I walk off the job because they’re an egotist asshole or they admit they need my help and I help them. What makes anyone think they know what’s wrong with a waterproof deck?

Engineers- Unless the intent is to push business to the large waterproofing consulting firms, who charge fees that many can’t afford, few engineers are or want to be qualified to inspect waterproofing projects.

So Who Should Be Inspecting Waterproof Decks?

Answer-Qualified Deck Inspectors. What makes a “qualified” deck inspector? People who have been in the trade. People who actually have experience installing waterproof decks.

Members of NADRA, the North American Deck & Railing Association, has a deck inspection course and qualified deck inspectors many of whom are also home inspectors.

I believe a course on how to inspect waterproof decks, with a checklist of items to use during the inspection, should be developed. As with home inspectors, no license is required. This should be the case here as well. There are many qualified individuals who could perform deck inspections but would be removed from doing so if the bill passes with it’s current language. recommends changes to the bill in regards to who can perform the deck inspections. What do you think?

Waterproofing Classifications CSLB-Maybe a license classification for waterproofing contractors should be reinstated by CSLB, currently several classes of contractors can waterproof decks, inc roofers, painters and synthetic products contractors. This creates confusion and disparity in the industry as roofers even of they are exempt from workers comp because they have no employees, must still have a workers comp policy in place. A painter is exempt from being required to have workers comp as is the synthetic products contractor.


The full text of the bill is below. Please register and comment on the bill to add your thoughts.

An act to add Section 7071.20 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to contractors.



SB 721, as introduced, Hill. Contractors: decks and balconies: inspection.
Existing law provides authority for an enforcement agency to enter and inspect any buildings or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with or prevent a violation of the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code and other rules and regulations that the enforcement agency has the power to enforce.
This bill would require the inspection of decks, balconies, and elevated walkways more than 6 feet above ground level in a building containing 3 or more multifamily units by a person licensed to perform these inspections by the Department of Consumer Affairs. The bill would require the inspections and any necessary repairs to be completed by January 1, 2021, and would require subsequent inspections every 5 years, except as specified. The bill would require a copy of the inspection report to be filed with the county recorder and made available, as specified. The repairs made under these provisions would be required to comply with the latest edition of the California Building Standards Code and all local jurisdictional requirements. The bill would authorize local enforcing agencies to recover enforcement costs associated with these requirements.
Because this bill would impose new duties upon local enforcement authorities, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.



Section 7071.20 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:


(a) All buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units, any existing balcony or other elevated walking surface exposed to water, including, but not limited to, rain, snow, or irrigation, with structural framing that is protected by an impervious moisture barrier shall be inspected. For purposes of this section, balconies or other elevated walking surfaces less than six feet above grade are not included. The inspection shall be performed by a licensed general contractor, structural pest control licensee, licensed architect, licensed engineer, or other licensee as approved by the Department of Consumer Affairs. The purpose of the inspection is to verify that all of the balconies and other elevated walking surfaces covered by this section are in generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from hazardous dry rot, fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered.

Building elements, including the walking surface, structural frame and connector hardware, weatherproofing, landings, stairway systems, guardrails, handrails, and any other elements critical to the safety of the balcony or elevated walking surface, found to be in need of repair or replacement, hazardous, structurally deficient, or noncompliant shall, upon determination by the licensed professional, be immediately corrected by the property owner or individual responsible for management or operation of the building. All necessary permits for repair or replacement of exterior balconies and elevated walking surfaces shall be obtained from the local jurisdiction. All repair and replacement work, including installation and inspection of impervious moisture barrier systems, must be performed in compliance with manufacturer’s instructions, the latest edition of the California Building Standards Code, and all local jurisdictional requirements.
(b) The inspection and repairs shall be completed by January 1, 2021, and every five years thereafter. The licensed professional conducting the inspection shall produce an initial report that states the condition of the building features and recommendations for repair, conditioning, or replacement and a final report indicating that all of the required repairs have been completed. A copy of the final report shall be submitted to the county recorder for recordation. Local enforcing agencies may determine the information to be provided in the report and require a copy of the initial or final reports, or both, to be submitted to the local jurisdiction in lieu of recordation.
(c) Multifamily buildings of three units or more for which a building permit application has been submitted on or after February 1, 2017, are exempt from the inspection certification requirements for a period of five years following issuance of a certificate of occupancy from the local jurisdiction.
(d) The continued and ongoing maintenance of balconies and elevated walking surfaces and parts thereof, in a safe and sanitary condition, shall be the responsibility of the owner or the owner’s designated agent. To determine ongoing compliance with this subdivision, the enforcing agency shall have the authority to require reinspection of those structures.
(e) Local enforcing agencies shall have the ability to recover enforcement costs associated with the requirements of this section.

SEC. 2.

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

A Reader Asks About Hot Mop For Waterproofing a Deck answers your questions about deck waterproofing methods and materials for only $25.00.

“I am building a new roof deck as part of a full house remodel and I found you when researching my waterproofing options. My builder is suggesting hot mop, but I am not sure it is an appropriate option for a deck. The deck is on the plywood substrate and will not be heavily used (it is primarily there due to city’s set back requirement), but I still want to make sure that it can withstand light use. We are planning to install modular deck tiles on top of the decking surface.” Marat B San Francisco CA

Hello Marat,

Thanks for writing; you’re wise to have done some research and raise doubts about “hot mop” for waterproofing a roof deck.

Today’s modern deck waterproofing systems from our manufacturer’s provide all in one solutions to your waterproofing dilemma. The decking/roofing systems under Division 7 Pedestrian Walking Decks are all tough durable membranes that can be finished to look like wood, tile, stone etc.


Alternatively, if you want a wood deck on pedestals above a waterproof surface, walking deck systems are still your best choice. The coatings can be installed and then pedestals can be placed on top of the waterproofing and a deck system built on top. With this method you should allow for being able to remove the decking to clean the waterproof surface periodically of debris. Extra slope over the minimum code required 1/4″ per foot may help flush debris off. I would suggest draining off roof edges rather than roof deck drains ( as debris may clog drains at the worst possible time. If you opt for drains, use a minimum of a 3″ drain and 3″ ABS pipe.

If you review our site, you’ll find lots of information and advice that should be useful in your quest. Make sure to read, understand and meet all requirements for a waterproof deck system and always use Best Practices to go over and above code which is just a bare minimum. For instance, use 1 1/8″ plywood over the minimum 5/8″.

Good luck with your project, Bill Leys The Deck Expert

Management Position in Livermore CA for Waterproofing

Position Description
Territory Manager  is responsible for all business within the assigned territory.  This includes directing all activities to deliver responsive quality service and in house labor work that will result in a high level of customer satisfaction at a profitable level.

Key Responsibilities:


  • Support the mission, vision & values on a daily basis to all external and internal customers/employees
  • Adhere to all safety policies & procedures
  • Ability to work in the satellite office
  • Promote positive relationships and deal with customers and employees in a diplomatic and tactful manner
  • Capture and retain sales to produce gross profit to meet territory expectations
  • Serve as a mentor for office and field employees to follow company policies
  • Provide technical solutions and support within operations to maximize profitability of projects
  • Complete all required paperwork and respond to external and internal customers in a timely fashion
  • Conduct pre-sale job, ongoing and office meetings as required
  • Attend weekly sales meeting and responsible to run weekly operation meeting within said territory
  • Oversees all staff in territory and will handle personal situations as they arise


Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities


  • Must demonstrate a high level of attention to detail.
  • Proficient in MS Office Suite (MS Word and Excel).
  • Familiarity with construction methods and terminology.
  • Strong multi-tasking and organizational skills.
  • Must be reliable and dependable.
  • Demonstrates ability to work effectively both independently and in a team based environment.
  • Demonstrated willingness to be flexible and adaptable to changing priorities.
  • Want 8 yrs. prior experience in waterproofing (will consider someone with lesser years if it is hardcore exp.)
  • Person will oversee the branch office of 13 employees to include estimator, project coordinator, superintendent, 3 foreman and field personnel
  • Must have firm grasp of estimating
  • Will handle HR issues, no payroll, help estimator with scheduling, run weekly sales meeting, weekly conference calls with other Territory Managers. Monitor the books- ensure jobs in budget, have ability to create relationships with the community like Chamber of Commerce, ABC + responsible for maintenance of current jobs running and going after new work (40% of time compared to all other responsibility)

5)         Salary  – $90-$100K, BUT flexible + bonuses. For example the TM in December received a $50K bonus


Cheryl Clifford | Eastridge Workforce Solutions
Direct Hire Recruiter | Construction Division |
o 972-802-7168 |
8888 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite J
San Diego, CA 92123

Decks in Snow Country Throughout the US At Risk of Collapsing From Being Overloaded

Snow Weighs an Average of 15-20#’s per cubic foot.

Failure to Clear off Decks of Snow Blamed for Many Collapses

Repeated Loading/Unloading Can Cause Great Stress to Framing

Deck Expert Bill Leys Recommends Getting Decks Inspected as Weather Permits Before Spring & Summer Use

A deck lies buried under the weight of snow after it collapsed in Colorado.  Photo Credit Mark Mannheimer Used by permission from

Record breaking snow falls, especially out west have created havoc on buildings, especially roofs and decks.  Snow has been credited with collapsing roofs and decks after heavy buildups that overload the decks and roofs weight carrying abilities. According to a Google search, snow weighs an average of 15-20#’s per cubic foot.

Decks on the other hand, are often designed to handle 50#’s per square foot of area. So a deck of a size 10′ x 20′ or 200 square feet, should hold 10,000 pounds. Now pile on 4 feet of snow at 80#’s per square feet using 20#’s per cubic foot. At 80″‘s per square foot, that 200 square foot deck may have 16,000 pounds of snow on it. While it might remain standing, the question becomes, what happens with repeated loading and unloading of huge amounts of weight?

That’s really going to depend on a number of things-like how old is the deck, has it been maintained etc. A newer deck is probably better equipped to handle the huge stress placed on it. Older decks with some wear and tear and degradation are likely to become likely victims of failure.

So what can you do to help avoid stressing your deck’s weight limits to their maximum & beyond? Clear off snow as soon as possible. Maybe it has to be cleared of twice or three times in a day depending on snowfall amounts. Look at the deck carefully to see if it’s sagging or swaying. Those are signs of danger and a contractor should be called immediately to assess it. Don’t use decks that sag or sway.

Even if somehow your deck in snow country doesn’t collapse this winter, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to use before summer hits. Deck Expert Bill Leys recommends that decks of every type be inspected this spring by an engineer, an experienced deck contractor, or an independent consultant who won’t be bidding on any repair work.

Watch this video by Matt Kroschel. Connect with Matt on Facebook


California Adopts Emergency Regulations Governing Balconies and Walkways

Following the collapse of the balcony in Berkeley, that killed 6 and seriously injured 7 others, the California Building Safety Commission adopted me regulations on building and waterproofing Elevated Exterior Elements EEE for short.

The adoption of these emergency regulations will increase balcony safety standards by increasing load design, using decay resistant wood and Inspections of waterproofing before covering with other materials, such as a concrete overburden.

Testimony from the Irish families and victims has helped cause these changes. Jackie Donohue, mother of one child killed in the collapse has been leading the charge in bringing changes to vote balcony construction is fine along with requiring inspections.

After Berkeley adopted ordinates requiring inspections, over 800 balconies in that city alone have been found to be deficient.

Opinion – The California State License Board (CSLB) Has a License Classification Problem For Deck Waterproofing

Multiple Classifications of Contractors Can Waterproof Decks, But Few Have to Pass a Written Proficiency Test

D-12 Synthetic Products Classification Doesn’t Require a Proficiency Test

Manufacturer’s Accept D-12 License’s to Become Authorized Applicators


If you want to be a general contractor, plumber, electrician, earth mover, well driller, roofer.. CSLB requires you to have 3 years certifiable experience in that trade, plus take a legal exam on CSLB and state contracting laws AND pass a 3 hour test on your proficiency in that trade. You have to prove you know what your doing before they give you a license to do it. There’s a risk to consumers from people who don’t know what their doing. CSLB goes out of their way to run sting operations on unlicensed contractors, running press releases and posting hidden videos of their stings.

However, if you want to be a contractor that installs waterproofing for foundation walls and decks, decks like say the balcony in Berkeley, you don’t need a license that has a test that proves you have some knowledge; you can obtain a D-12 Synthetic Products license like this author has. A D-12 Synthetic products contractor does not have to pass a written test of proficiency in the subject of waterproofing! You just need to apply for it if your licensed in another trade and add it to your classifications and start waterproofing decks and foundations as most of the deck manufacturer’s accept the D-12 classification to sell and install their products.

How do I know this? Because I have/had a D12 license classification with which I used it to waterproof decks and balconies. But I’m not the only one, there are many contractors out there waterproofing decks using a D12, as well as using a C8 (concrete) or a C33 painting license improperly apparently, and CSLB seems to have a lassez faire attitude about this issue.

Will CSLB change the licensing requirements for becoming a deck waterproofing contractor? It’s time for it in my opinion. My further opinion is it’s time for manufacturer’s to stop accepting D12 licenses and require or implement training/education that ensure contractors know what they  are doing. My experience as a consultant and former contractor is that nearly every case of a deck failure/leak/problem was a case of applicator or builder error, not the product or coating. I learned the hard way not to accept conditions that others wanted me to accept so they could keep their project on track. Deck contractors MUST be able to inspect a deck and recognize any problems it might have before covering it or accepting the work. They must know how to properly flash a deck, install door pans, install waterproofing, test for moisture content before covering a deck, follow best building practices and insist any trades related to the deck as well. The training program I’ve personally developed over 8+ years that I use to train new deck waterproofing contractors demands a high degree of technical skill and willingness to exceed codes!

Below from CSLB is a email to me regarding my own situation. I’m using my experience in this opinion piece as it exemplifies the internal issues CSLB has on this. Note that CSLB Used to have a waterproofing classification but it went away. The D-64 Waterproofing also did not require a test either.

Context-a client had complained to CSLB about a deck failure. Part of the complaint was that I was out of class in doing the deck waterproofing using a D12 license. The part of the complaint about the deck failure went to arbitration where it was settled privately and is not subject to disclosure on my license. Part of the complaint did stay with CSLB, the part of license classification. So they went to work on that and I defended myself. Read through to see what CSLB says about their D12 problem.

“Hi Bill,

One of the complaint items provided by Mr X was that your company was operating out of class for the work performed.  The arbitration does not address classification as part of its process, so I needed to address this issue separately.  As you know, your company holds a D12 (Synthetic Products) classification.  This classification is defined as follows:

A synthetic products contractor installs:

  • (a) Synthetic counter tops and wall coverings; fiberglass, plastic, vinyl and epoxy products; plastic tile board and decorative art work; and synthetic turf.
  • (b) Bathtub and enamel refinishing, resin and epoxy application, and synthetic caulking and sealants.
  • (c) Reservoir liners, vinyl swimming pool relining, pier piling wrap, and rodent guards.
  • (d) PVC piping systems for irrigation and drainage; subsurface irrigation drip systems.

As you can see from the definition, there is a very limited scope of work for this classification.  For Mr. X’s project, as well as the other services listed on your website, the D12 classification is not appropriate.  A General Contractor’s license (B) would best suit your business as it would safely encompass all unrelated trades.  Short of a B license, there are specific trade classifications that more accurately apply to your services for concrete overlays, deck coatings, etc.  You can review the classifications by clicking HERE.


For Mr. X’s case specifically, the work (waterproofing, flashing) performed would have required either a B license or a C39 Roofing classification.  The definition for the C39:

A roofing contractor installs products and repairs surfaces that seal, waterproof and weatherproof structures. This work is performed to prevent water or its derivatives, compounds or solids from penetrating such protection and gaining access to material or space beyond. In the course of this work, the contractor examines and/or prepares surfaces and uses the following material: asphaltum, pitch, tar, felt, glass fabric, urethane foam, metal roofing systems, flax, shakes, shingles, roof tile, slate or any other roofing, waterproofing, weatherproofing or membrane material(s) or a combination thereof.

I would recommend reviewing the classifications and either adjust the work you perform to fit the D12 classification or apply for more suitable classifications.  The General Contractor (B) classification would be all-inclusive, but you can certainly piece together classifications to fit the work you perform.

Since we don’t have a history of complaint issues with you, I will simply send you a warning letter for this issue.  If you have any questions, let me know.

Shaun Baland

Investigator, Sacramento IC CSLB Enforcement


I was stunned as I had applied to CSLB and stated on my application what I was doing-installing flashings, deck waterproofing and replacing plywood substrate! So I replied to CSLB with this email below

Hi Shaun, Thank you for the information.

When I began the process of becoming a licensed deck waterproofing applicator, I approached my main distributor, Hill Brothers Chemical Company and asked them what licenses they accept to be a Desert Brand applicator. They told me D-12, C,31 or a D8. 
I applied for the D-12 and when the app process was proceeding, the only thing I was told was to change my name from Central Coast Waterproofing to Central Coast Synthetic Waterproofing.

730303  SB Surfacing also has a D-64 Waterproofing classification?

If you run a list of D-12 licenses, and look them up on the web, I think you will find a lot of them are running waterproofing/concrete coating companies…I’m not saying that’s an excuse, but it is what CSLB has been issuing to a lot of waterproofing companies. 
Can I argue that they all need to reclassify if I have to? 😉 
If I get a roofers classification my workers comp premium costs will put me out of business as we won’t be competitive with our competition paying a painters wc classification (that’s the class my WC carrier put me under…) My main distributor doesn’t even accept B licenses as they want specialty contractors doing their decking systems… 
As to the scope of work, we installed sheet metal to terminate our coating to as required by the manufacturer. We don’t do any other sheet metal work, ie AC or HVAC…just installing a metal termination point for our coatings I installed the drain integrated with the sheet metal flashing but did not hook it to any plumbing connections. 
I’m more than willing to switch classifications and work with CSLB to be compliant; I just can’t afford to not work while any re-classification is going on…
What can we do?
Thanks for your help Shaun!
Bill Leys
I got this reply back a little later on…

Hi Bill,

I believe you are being honest about the situation.  I spoke to my manager about the situation and asked him to look into this further.  Somewhere there is confusion about the acceptable classifications for this type of work, so we need to get a consistent opinion on this.  Once I hear something, I’ll let you know.



I then get this back from an inquiry-

Hi Bill,

We are looking into the issue currently.  Until you hear otherwise, you are fine operating as usual.  Obviously this isn’t an isolated issue as you have provided several other examples of similar businesses with the same classification you have.  I hope to have the issue clarified as soon as possible.  Our goal is not to shut you down or cost you business, simply to make sure you are in compliance with the proper classification.  This very well may just have been miscommunication or misunderstanding at the time of your application.  I’ll let you know as soon as I hear anything.

Then I got this

Hi Bill,

Your D-12 issue is being bounced around like crazy, still waiting for a final decision.

Finally this-

Hi Bill,

OK, so it seems the consensus is that waterproofing work falls under the C39 Roofing classification.  It is possible that a specialty classification for waterproofing becomes available at some point, but as of right now the C39 will be the classification that covers all waterproofing services.  There are several classifications that would encompass different (non-waterpoofing) portions of the services you offer, but it appears that adding the roofing classification to your existing synthetic products classifications would cover you well(no pun intended).

If you disagree with the determination, you can request a formal review and determination from CSLB.  You would just need to email to present your information and request the opinion.

Let me know if you have any questions-


So I then asked this of CSLB…Incidentally an ex employee of mine was applying for a license and did receive a D12 license while this was going on. 

Hi Shaun,

Ok, so what is CSLB doing? Making just me get a C39 or is every D-12 going to have to get a C39 as well? 
What about the C-33 painting class which mentions waterproofing? 


To Which I Got This Answer 

I don’t know how or if they are notifying other businesses who will be in similar situations.  Eventually, each business performing work that requires a different or additional classification has to amend their license.   I have forwarded the information along in regards to your specific situation as well as the similar businesses you provided me previously.  I don’t know how CSLB will ensure compliance in regards to the waterproofing contractors.

The C33 is one of the classifications that may apply to some (or possibly most) waterproofing projects, but not all.  If the surface being waterproofed is considered roofing (or a rooftop deck), then C39 would definitely cover the work while the C33 may or may not.  It would be determined on a case-by-case basis.  If you don’t plan on waterproofing roofs or rooftop decks, then the C33 may be appropriate as well.


I replied with more questions…

Hi Shaun,

I assume then I’ll receive a letter in the mail telling me all this…how do I qualify? By taking the roofing test or do I get a pass for this one? 
Do I keep the D-12 and that’s for epoxy flooring work? 
So are you saying that from now on that applications for a D-12 get rejected and they have to submit for a C-39 classification for deck work? I’m not objecting to the classification as I guess yes we are waterproofing roofs that are simply walkable decks too. No argument. 
I just want the competition out there to all have to do the same thing. Haven’t talked to my insurance guy yet top get a quote on workers comp but all the roofers I know all roll their eyes when i ask about w/c costs. 
What about a B license? Could I do roof decks as a B? One of my main competitors here is a B. 
Thanks for the help,
Shaun at CSLB replied-

Hi Bill,

Yes, B Contractors are all-inclusive and can certainly be used for the type of work you are doing.  You are supposed to be doing at least two unrelated trades if only using a B classification, but that is pretty easy to justify unless you are simply rolling some waterproof material on a surface with zero other work being done.  Worker’s comp costs for the B license may be cheaper than the roofing classification also. 

I am leaving your case alone since it was referred to arbitration.  If the classification issue bounces back to me then I may have to issue a warning letter, but for now I’m assuming it’s done.  Consider your classification options, and then you’d just need to apply to add a classification to your existing license.  There are costs, tests, etc depending on which classification you decide to add.  I understand wanting to make sure the competition is held to the same requirements. BOMBSHELL HERE- I don’t know if CSLB will be sending out info on this to affected businesses, or if they’ll just address them individually as renewals come up.  If you can, send me a a handful of D12’s doing your type of work.  I can forward them along to the Classifications Unit.  Perhaps they can do something to get this info out to everyone before it becomes a bigger issue.



PS- Thank you for your patience with this whole thing.  I know it must be frustrating!

So we’re told that CSLB is just going to meander along…a call to a couple D12 license contractors I know reveals that they’ve been renewing their licenses without  any problem from the renewals department. R Brothers has a D12 license, but not a roofing license. Their B license may allow them to do waterproofing, but it really shouldn’t. The C33 probably wouldn’t apply since a waterproof balcony would be construed as a roof.

Opinion-It’s time CSLB creates a deck and below grade waterproofing license classification that requires a written test of proficiency.

But this leaves the unanswered questions-what to do about all the C33’s, D12’s and D8’s doing waterproofing work apparently improperly? It’s a mess CSLB has created and they certainly seem to have a hydrangea go tame here.

Journalists and content creators-use this free but make sure full attribution is given. Inquire first before using this opinion for attribution requirements to

Thinking About A New Deck? Consider the Benefits Waterproof Walking Decks Offer

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As winter starts heading into spring you may have looked out at your deck and heaved a sigh knowing you have a choice to make this year…replacing that old rickety wood deck or the fading, sagging composite deck that was supposed to last 30 years. What to do what to do? Go back to a wood deck using exotic Ipe and hope that lasts longer and has less maintenance? Use the newest and “greatest” composite?

While the wood and composite markets currently dominate the deck market, the end user is getting tired of the limited color choices of composite decking available at lumber stores and doesn’t want to wait for a special order with it’s various requirements and doesn’t really like the thought of the maintenance that wood decks require. The newest choice available is actually a choice that’s been around for a long time, it’s just that not many knew about this choice til now.

The new “choice” for decking is rapidly becoming solid surface walking deck systems installed over a plywood substrate on conventional doug fir or pressure treated framing. Solid surface decking systems offer many advantages over it’s wood and composite competitors. Some of those advantages are

  1. Waterproof! These decks can waterproof and give you a walkable surface on a roof deck, dry in a patio below, keep a storage area dry underneath. Increases your homes value!
  2. Cost competitive. Framing costs are the same as for decks receiving wood/composite decking. Plywood and the waterproof coating system often costs less than composite decking and almost always less than exotic hardwoods.
  3. Less Maintenance! No sanding, staining and sealing every year. Most waterproof deck systems require resealing every 3-5 years. Clean them off easily using Simple Green, water and a hose and brush.
  4. Unique Looks! Waterproof decks can look like anything you want-wood (yep), tile, stone, brick, stained, stamped…the designs are virtually unlimited!

Look at our deck finishes, you’ll see some of the many various finishes available that can set you apart from the rest of the pack.

Looking for a manufacturer? Find one here


CSLB Highlights New 2017 Laws

Contractors State License Board Outlines New 2017 Laws Affecting California’s Construction IndustrySACRAMENTO — The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is providing a round-up of new state laws affecting California’s construction industry that take effect in the new year.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1793 modifies the criteria the courts use to determine if a contractor substantially complied with licensing law under Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 7031. This allows a client to not pay a contractor and to demand the return of compensation paid for work completed if the contractor was unlicensed at any time during the course of work. The new legislation provides the court a modified set of criteria to use when determining if a contractor “substantially complied” with licensure requirements and acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the lapse in licensure once known.

Senate Bill (SB) 1209 provides for enhanced complaint disclosure of legal actions taken against licensees. Under the provisions of this legislation, citations issued against a licensed contractor follow that contractor if he or she is issued another license and allows for the public disclosure of these citations.

AB 2486 requires that by January 1, 2019, CLSB create a system that allows consumers to search CSLB’s website for a licensed contractor either by zip code or geographic area, which should make it easier for consumers to identify and hire properly licensed contractors.

In an effort to establish further safety measures around underground excavation, SB 661 enacts the Dig Safe Act of 2016, and makes several changes to existing requirements for excavation procedures. These include requiring that excavators delineate an area to be excavated prior to notifying an appropriate regional notification center and establishing the California Underground Facilities Safe Excavation Advisory Board within the Office of the State Fire Marshall.

AB 2286 authorizes CSLB to raise its various fees, resulting in what will be the first fee increase since 2011, and only the second fee increase since 1993. The 10 percent fee increase will ensure that CSLB has enough funds to operate in the coming years. Increases that take effect July 1, 2017 include: The application fee for an original license in a single classification will increase from $300 to $330; the renewal fee for an active license will increase from $360 to $400; and the registration and renewal fee for a Home Improvement Salesperson will increase from $75 to $83.

CSLB will provide the industry more information on the upcoming fee increase in the spring.


HOA Manager Stumbles Upon WICRLEAKS, Discovers WICR’s Secrets!

Suit Alleges Fraud, Damage to Property, Illegal Use of License!

Allegation That Company Attorney Wrote “Unconscionable Clauses” in WICR’s Contract & Illegally Withheld Information Upon Legal Demand as Agent for Service of Process 

Suit Claims “Erratic Irrational & Aggressive Behavior” By Mazor Frightened His Clients, So They Barred Him From Entering Their Property! has received a copy of a 30 page suit filed against David Mazor, aka David Krubinski & WICR Inc of San Diego & Palm Springs that alleges that WICR defrauded the Association, caused severe property damage to both exclusive use common areas, the interior of a condominium and then attempted to deny the damage claims after admitting to being at fault.

Attorney Joesph Watson filed a suit several weeks ago, and then amended the complaint after discovering further causes of action after speaking with about WICR and the secret ownership of it by David Mazor aka David Krubinski. Our invaluable assistance in providing reams of documents to the plaintiff’s attorney was the reason for the amended complaint.   YOU CAN READ & DOWNLOAD THE COMPLAINT HERE first-amended-complaint

A frightening aspect of this suit is the allegations by the plaintiff’s of erratic and irrational Behavior and aggressive behavior being exhibited by David Mazor, aka David Krubinski. See the pic below highlighting that assertion. Attempts to gain a comment or reply from WICR remain unanswered at time of publication.


A second highlight of the complaint comes with this gem, (see pic below) an allegation that Fred Wanke is a “tool” used by Mazor and his son Sean Krubinski for hiding behind Wanke’s license. Filings we found from Riverside County clearly show Mazor, then known as Krubinski, registering WICR Inc as partners. The official storyline was that Krubinski/Mazor left WICR when he was a salesperson at Mer-Kote. The allegations are that he maintained the ownership illegally while getting his own D-12 Synthetic Products contractors license.


wicr fbn filing

Also of great interest is the allegation that Mazor’s wife Irina Mazor of Mazor & Drill in Glendale, inserted unconscionable clauses into the WICR contract that are unenforceble.

According to the Drill & Mazor website, Mazor’s practice is primarily devoted to the representation of owners, contractors, developers and construction managers in all facets of construction law, including the litigation and mediation of construction and commercial claims, business litigation, real property-related matters and the counseling of clients in claims avoidance and mitigation techniques.

According to a paper published here by Marquette University             “Section 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) deals in a straightforward manner with the unenforceability of unconscionable clauses in contracts.”

The article continues to say

“It is unlikely that the party with inferior bargaining power will recognize and enforce his right to avoid an unconscionable contract. Conversely, the attorney hired to draft the unconscionable clause by the party with superior bargaining power should recognize that the contract is unenforceable. Therefore, the best and most overt way to minimize the occurrence of unconscionable contracts is to forbid a lawyer from drafting them. This article proposes a new disciplinary rule prohibiting the attorney from drafting unconscionable clauses. This prohibition is based on two notions. First, the profession has an interest in regulating this behavior because, as in litigation, the attorney is performing a public function when drafting contracts. The current rules of professional conduct, which prohibit assisting with baseless lawsuits, should be extended to prohibit the drafting of baseless contracts. Second, courts already have begun to use “covert tools,” such as the doctrine of fraud, to regulate this behavior. “

Since Mazor specializes in contracts and mitigating claims (something she worked very hard at to do in this case), she would have a duty to know that clauses she inserted are unconscionable and therefore MUST NOT be inserted. Even of she didn’t write the contract, she would have reviewed it as WICR’s counsel and would need to advise them to remove said clauses. Does this place her license to practice law in jeopardy  or at least raise ethical questions? Possibly. Further along in the suit’s allegations is another gem, alleging Irina illegally denied  that DavidMazor is the owner of WICR. If true, this most certainly would…


The main focus of the suit lies in claims of fraud by Mazor along with the damage claims to the interior and exterior of the property, loss of use, recovery of attorney’s fees etc. The suit alleges that Sean Krubinski originally took responsibility for the incident where a employee was installing flashing along a wall and a nail pierced a pipe behind the wall.  Water flooded the unit and damaged walls, ceilings and floors along with personal belongings of he occupant. Later on, David Mazor took over and attempted to exert himself onto the occupant as not being responsible and making the plaintiff so uncomfortable with bullying tactics that Mazor and WICR was subsequently barred from entering the property.

Removal of walls and stucco to repair the pipe subsequently revealed alleged defective work where flashing and stucco paper was improperly installed. Construction consultant Jerry Acker was retained to inspect and document the findings. His reports and pictures detail the open flashing, improperly lapped paper and improperly installed stucco WICR repaired.

WICR and Mazor maintained that a clause on their contract that placed responsibility for making claims of damage on the owners insurance policy, not theirs, despite WICR carrying a liability policy against damages they caused. This is the clause that the plaintiff’s allege is illegal and unconscionable. Attorney Joe Watson advises any parties contemplating contracting with WICR to not sign anything unless their attorney has reviewed it first.

“8. INSURANCE AND DEPOSITS. Contractor shall maintain General Liability Insurance in the amount of 1,000,000. Contractor shall also carry Worker’s Compensation insurance for the protection of Contractor’s employees during the progress of the work. Owner shall obtain and pay for insurance against injury to Owner’s own property and employees including persons under Owner’s direction and persons on the job site at Owner’s invitation.”

We are waiting to hear about any dates set for conferences, pre-trial hearings etc. Joe Watson tells WICRLeaks that he has also filed a complaint with the Contractor’s State License Board against WICR with the same allegations as in the suit.

If you have any issues/problems questions about work done by WICR, Inc we advise you contact the Law Offices of Joesph Watson at 323-333-6286.  We’d also like to hear about them as well to help publicize the problem and bring public scrutiny to bear on WICR and Mazor.

Builder of Collapsed Berkeley Balcony Accused of Failing to Follow Plans by CSLB!

The balcony that collapsed in June of 2015 in Berkeley, killing 6 and severely injuring 7 other Irish students has been found, after analysis by forensic scientists,  to have been constructed improperly. As a result, the Contractors State License Board has filed through the Attorney General’s Office an accusation against Segue Construction, the general contractor.

The allegations are serious, not following plans without an architects approval will land you in hot water with CSLB.  It has also resulted in 6 dead people and 7 injured. The weight of that alone would crush me, yet these people running Segue are conscienceless snakes that sought to blame the victims. How do they look in a mirror?

The accusation lists out specifically the contractors failures, from not using pressure treated materials, to using OSB board where their project manual said it was specifically not acceptable, to failing to cover and protect the deck until it could be waterproofed to failing to waterproof it properly.

Read the accusation by clicking here.  Alternately you can read the specific allegations below. The accusation is a public document and the CSLB has posted it as a public service to help warn consumers, as they feel that Segue is a threat to the public. Segue is afforded due process and can defend against the accusation, including even if/when their license is suspended or revoked. Another case I’m familiar with has dragged on since October of 2013 and still proceeds today so justice may take a while here too.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

6 died and 7 seriously injured when the Berkeley balcony collapsed. Inspections may have caught the problem before the tragedy occurred.
6 died and 7 seriously injured when the Berkeley balcony collapsed. Inspections may have caught the problem before the tragedy occurred.


Waterproof decorative pedestrian decking systems beats wood & composite in looks, maintenance, costs & lifespan.