BILL ANALYSIS 1
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE
Senator Sheila Kuehl, Chair
2003-2004 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1369
AUTHOR: Kuehl
AMENDED: March 22, 2004
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE:March 23, 2004
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Bill Craven
SUBJECT: Fire protection; relating to fire protection
Summary: This bill extends the requirements for a
firebreak around houses located in very high fire hazard
severity zones from 30 to 100 feet, extends the firebreak
requirement for homes in state responsibility areas from 30
to 100 feet, allows liens to be placed on property in state
responsibility areas if these clearances are not achieved,
allows, property insurance companies, in the context of a
contract with landowners, to require greater distances for
certain homes, and requires the owners of new and re-built
homes to self-certify to their insurance company as to
their compliance with state and local building codes.
Existing Law: For homes state responsibility areas, Public
Resources Code Section 4291 requires a firebreak of 30 feet
around structures. Government Code Section 51182 requires a
firebreak of 30 feet around such homes in local
responsibility areas. Insurance companies do not have the
flexibility under existing law to increase these distances
when necessary, nor is there an existing requirement that
new and rebuilt homes located in "very high fire hazard
severity zones" must comply with building codes.
"Very high fire hazard severity zones" are designated by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
director and are updated approximately every 5 years. Fire
suppression in local responsibility areas is typically a
matter for local fire agencies, although CDF frequently
responds to such fires as a matter of mutual aid. Local
jurisdictions are required to adopt these designations by
ordinance. They are allowed to show that certain areas
should be added or excluded from the zones designated by
the director. Transferors of real estate in such zones are
required to disclose this designation to buyers.
State responsibility areas are also divided by the director
into various hazard severity zones. These are lands for
which the state has the primary responsibility for
non-structural fire suppression. Local agencies frequently
respond to fires in these areas. Historically, these lands
have been forestlands, chapparal, or grasslands. However,
population densities on many such lands are rapidly
increasing. Updates to designations of these lands by the
Board of Forestry also occur every five years.
The Public Resources Code and Government Code have similar
requirements for vegetation management. Both have a 30 foot
minimum clearance requirement around houses. For properties
in state responsibility areas, the director may increase
that distance to 100 feet because of extra-hazardous
conditions. Both codes exempt specimen trees, ornamental
shrubbery, and other plantings that do not pose a fire risk
to structures.
Additionally, both codes require removal of tree limbs that
hang above chimneys, require screens over chimneys, and
exempt structures that are constructed with nonflammable
materials.
Both codes are subject to criminal enforcement as
infractions, and third violations are misdemeanors.
Additionally, the Government Code (local responsibility
area lands) allows for local governments to undertake the
necessary vegetation removal and to impose a lien on the
property if a landowner fails to comply. There are no
similar provisions for lands in the state responsibility
areas.
Last year, AB 1216 (Vargas) required the State Fire Marshal
to propose building standards to strengthen fire protection
standards for attached components (including porches and
balconies) of homes and openings (including vents and
windows) into homes. These new building standards are to
apply to homes in very high fire hazard severity zones in
both state and local responsibility areas. AB 1216 also
defined the "urban-wildland interface" and requires the new
building codes to apply to homes in the interface zone as
well. The interface is defined as the communities
designated at-risk from wildfire in a 2001 report from the
department. The State Fire Marshal is to make its
recommendations about building code improvement by 2005. It
will then be up to the State Building Code Commission to
determine whether to adopt those recommendations.
Proposed Law: This bill:
(1) Establishes identical firebreak criteria of 100 feet
for homes in state responsibility areas as well as those in
local responsibility areas when the homes are in very high
fire hazard severity zones.
(2) Allows property insurance carriers to require more
expansive firebreaks based on conditions facing its
prospective policyholder.
(3) Requires the owner of new construction and owners who
are re-building structures damaged in very high fire hazard
severity zones to self-certify to their insurance carriers
that the construction complies with all applicable state
and local building standards, including those that will be
developed pursuant to AB 1215 (Vargas).
(4) Creates a parallel process to that which already exists
in local responsibility areas for the state to impose liens
on property where the owner fails to comply with the
firebreak requirements.
Arguments in Support: CDF Firefighters support the bill
because of the extended firebreaks in very high fire
severity zones. That organization also believes that the
bill reflects a sensible approach to fire science and the
"practical, real world responsibility of responding to an
alarm."
Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League
support the firebreak and the building code provisions of
the bill. They contend that the firebreak language will
assist homeowners in protecting their homes and that
building code compliance "is one of the most important
actions that can be taken to avoid loss of property during
a fire."
Arguments in Opposition: None received.
Comments: Benjamin Franklin reportedly said that the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over and expecting a different result. So it is with 40
years of scientific reports about defensible zones around
homes in wildlands. We've been taught over and over that
these houses are in areas in which cyclic burning is part
of the natural order. Fires are to California as tornadoes
are to Kansas. We know that we should use fire-resistant
construction methods and building materials. We know we
should concentrate development in existing urbanized areas
in order not to interfere too dramatically with the natural
fire regimen in wildland areas. But instead, we continue to
build homes in areas in which there is little or no defense
against fires and constantly subdivide larger and unbroken
tracts of wildlands.
As a result of the most recent series of fires in Southern
California, the author is convinced that homes and other
structures in the state's regions that are vulnerable to
wildfire should have their ability strengthened to
withstand future wildfires. Various reports commissioned by
the state and scientific analyses of fire behavior have
identified the lack of enforceable firebreak legislation in
California as a major contributing cause to the spread of
wildfire. The recommendations of these reports, many of
which are collected on the CDF website, have never been
fully implemented. Recommendations about extending
firebreaks are scattered throughout these reports. The 100
foot limit represents the best available science from the
United States Forest Service. "My research results indicate
that the big flames of high intensity wildland fires do not
directly ignite homes at separation distances beyond 100
feet." (Cohen, Thoughts on the Wildland-Urban Interface
Problem , 2003).
Although arson caused several of the recent fires, the fact
remains that fires in southern California, regardless of
cause, will continue to target houses so long as those
houses are vulnerable. Houses and other buildings are a
fuel source for wildfire. This bill is an attempt to reduce
the vulnerability of those houses and thereby to enhance
public safety.
It is also important to acknowledge the role of the
insurance industry in coping with the risk of wildfires and
property losses in California. It is obvious that the
exposure of the industry to fire-related losses will
decrease if it is able to make case-by-case determinations
that minimum firebreak clearances are inadequate for homes
in particularly dense forestland or on particularly steep
slopes. Fire scientists concur that the type of vegetation
and the slope of the land are two of the most salient
factors to control if homes are to be better protected.
Compliance with building codes, including the
recommendations of the state fire marshal pursuant to AB
1216, will also help ensure that new and re-built
structures are as safe as possible for the occupants and
will be designed and constructed with materials that
decrease the exposure of the insurance industry to
fire-related losses. The approach in the bill relies on
owner self-certification, and not a mandate to local
governments or the insurance industry. Those who wish to
build homes in high fire hazard severity zones need to
provide their insurance company with a certificate from the
relevant local government agency that the proposed home
will comply with applicable state and local building codes.
SUPPORT:
CDF Firefighters
Sierra Club California (co-sponsor)
Planning and Conservation League (co-sponsor)
OPPOSITION: >
None received