United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station 

General Technical 

Report PSW-127 

Land-Use Planning May 


Reduce Fire Damage in the 


Urban-Wildland Intermix 


Carol L. Rice James B. Davis 
Rice, Carol L.;Davis, James B. 1991. Land-use planning may reduce fire damage in the urbanwildlandintermix. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127. Berkeley,CA: PacificSouthwestResearchStation, 

Forest Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture; 13 p. 

The risk of wildfire associated with development in the urban-wildland intermix is nationwide. To 

wildland fire agencies, providing fire protection for wildland residential development can be an 

exercise in frustration. Much of the problem is that few convincing ties have been made between 

community planning and wildfire. For three counties in California, the following were investigated 

in each: fire damage due to a recent wildfire, general plans, local planning regulations, and the real 

estate development process. 

General observations support theidea that good fire-safe planning protects homes threatened by fire, 

and that loss occurs in the absence of good planning. The damage observed in all three counties 

appears to be related to one of four problems: inadequate consideration of protection factors; 

disadvantages of small fire departments in dealing with real estate developers and otherunits of local 

government; variety in residential developments and in their susceptibility to control through 

planning: and conflicting interests among homeowners, developers, and local governments. 

The existing tools available for fire managers and planners to use in providing protection from 

wildland fires are environmental review, codes and regulations, the judicial process, and new 

legislation. Specificactions tominimizefiredamagein theurban-wildlandintermixarerecommended: 

(1) convince community planners to accept fire protection factors; (2) increase the role of fire 

protection entities in community planning; (3) strengthen siting and building regulations; (4) educate 

and change attitudes of planners and the public; and (5) work toward an equitable sharing of costs and 

protection responsibility by developers, local governments, and fire prot&tion agencies and departments. 

Retrieval Terms: wildland-urban intermix, fire prevention, land-use planning, land development, 

California 

The Authors: 

CAROL L. RICE is the owner of Wildland Resources Management, a consulting firm in Walnut 

Creek, California. JAMES B. DAVIS is a research forester with the Station's Fire Management 

Planning and Economics Research Unit at Riverside, California. 

Cover-When wildfires reach a city, many homes can be lost. 

Publisher: 

Pacific Southwest Research Station 

P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, California 94701 

March 1991 
Land-Use Planning May 


Damage inthe 

and Intermix 

Carol L. Rice James B.Davis 

CONTENTS 

. . In Brief ...............................................................................................................................
 11 

Introduction .........................................................................................................................I 


Case Study: Three Counties-Three Fires ......................................................................1 


Morse Fire. Monterey County ....................................................................................... 2 

Forty-Niner Fire. Nevada County ..................................................................................2 


Stanislaus Fire Complex. Tuolumne County .................................................................3 

Lessons Learned ..................................................................................................................4 


Fire Protection Factors ................................................................................................... 5 

Small Fire Departments ................................................................................................. 5 

Variety in Residential Developments ............................................................................ 6 

Conflicting Interests ....................................................................................................... 6 

Planning Tools Available for Fire Protection ...................................................................7 


Environmental Review .................................................................................................. 8 


Codes and Regulations .................................................................................................. 8 


General Plans ......................................................................................................... 8 


Specific Plans ........................................................................................................ 9 


Subdivision Map Act .............................................................................................9 


Codes ..................................................................................................................... 9 

Fire Safety Guides ............................................................................................... 10 

Legal Authority Through the Judicial Process ............................................................ 10 

Proposed Legislation ................................................................................................... 10 

Recommendations .............................................................................................................10 


Summary and Conclusions ...............................................................................................12 


References ..........................................................................................................................12 

IN BRIEF.. . 

Rice, CarolL.; Davis, James B. 1991. Land- use planningmay 

reduce fire damage in the urban-wildland intermix. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-127. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 13 p. 

Retrieval Terms: wildland-urban intermix, fire prevention, landuse planning, land development, California 

The objectives of the research discussed in this report were to 

(1) determine if there is acause- and- effect relationship between 

fire loss in the wildland-urban fire intermix and the level of fire 

protection planning by local government, (2) establish what 

methods exist for identifying fire hazards and mitigation measures in general plans to minimize damage from wildfire; and (3) 

suggest how fire protection administrators can work through the 

planning process to enhance fire safety. 

The report focuses on three case studies in which a major 

wildland fire destroyed structures in the recent past. After a 

review of the fires thereport discusses the history, typeand level 

of fire protection regulations, and proposed legislation pertaining to fire safety considerations in land-use planning. A variety 

of issues affecting efforts to mitigate structure losses from fire 

are identified, and finally, opportunities to achieve such mitigation are discussed. 

The counties selected were Monterey (Morse Fire) in 

California's central coast, and Nevada County (Forty-Niner 

Fire), and Tuolumne County (Stanislaus Complex Fires), both in 

the west-central Sierra Nevada. The three counties are similar 

in topography with steep canyons supporting fuels consisting of 

mixed conifer forest with an understory of brush. 

We cannot sayÃ‘o even infer-from the case studies that 

good fire-safe planning will protect every home threatened by 

fire or that loss will be certain in the absence of good planning. 

However, two general observations support this idea: 

0 The investigator was not able to find a single house lost 

where there had been comprehensive fire protection planning! 

In every house lost in all three fires the investigator found 

a complete lack of comprehensive wildfire protection planning! 

Many legislative tools were identified that if properly used 

and enforced might have prevented much of the fire loss. 

General Plans in California generally neglect mitigation 

measures-the language is often "encourage" vs. "shall." Fire 

protection strategies for all three counties have been to zone for 

low density in high fire hazard areas. 

Existing regulations provide opportunities for fire departments to review plans and voice opinions, however, fire departments are often too small to promulgate regulations. Small 

departments, usually supported by local taxes, find that stiff 

regulations are difficult to have passed by elected officials 

because of the influence of the real estate industry. Also, these 

small departments do not have the resources to check plans or to 

attend community planning meetings. In contrast, large fire 

departments have assigned plans-checkers and may have more 

influence. 

Large real estate developments may be easier to control 

because more State laws pertain and' more parcels can be 

reviewed at one time. In contrast, lot splits are harder to track, 

yet constitute much of the land development taking place. In 

some places "illegal" building occurs without building permits 

or inspection and may not even be on the county's tax roles. 

Access is a problem in many areas-structures are inaccessible because of narrow, rough, and steep roads, and lack of 

turnaround opportunities. Locked gates and unsafe bridges can 

also be problems. 

Water supply was not a problem for the Forty-Niner and 

Stanislaus Complex Fires because a large number of stock ponds 

and other water development proved adequate. Water for the 

Morse Fire might have been sufficient had the electric power to 

the pumps not been shut off-a problem that has since been 

rectified. 

The age of a house is directly related to the difficulty of 

protecting it from fire. While new building ordinances are 

becoming stricter and may be better enforced, it is difficult to 

make an older house fire safe. Roofs are the easiest to retrofit, 

however, access, setback, water supply, and placement in respect to topography, are difficult if not impossible to correct. 

Building decisions made by the homeowner are often based 

on promises made by the developer (or political entity) that are 

not fulfilled. Such promises include wider roads, better water 

supplies, and an urban-type fire department. 

Fire departments should promulgate stiff regulations and 

review all proposals for all developments including subdivisions. In additionto the standard items such as roads, water 

supply, and density, regulations should also cover setbacks, 

turnarounds, and position of houses on slopes. In addition, 

topography and fuels should be considered in lot layout review, 

with new regulations that address them. Groups such as the 

county fire chiefs association can be used as a unifying voice: 

fire departments could agree on a standard or ordinance, then 

each department would try to get it passed in their jurisdiction, 

with the added justification that every other fire district is asking 

for the same thing. 

The fire management community should comment through 

the environmental review process on the effect fire hazard and 
needed level of protection as the consequence of land development patterns. Fire department staffs should attend and become 

involved in public land development hearings. 

The fire community should develop a "how-to" planning 

guide for consultants and land development planners that addresses the fire aspects of the Government Code's safety element. This guide could be prepared in a manner similar to that 

detailed for earthquake and flooddamage mitigation by the State 

Department of Mines and Geology and the State Department of 

Water Resources. 

Much California legislation is proposed that should be helpful if it is passed. Fire managers must be aware of the legislation 

and be willing to support its passage and utilize it if it is enacted. 

Local governments should share the costs of structural protection since they approved the conditions under which development occurred. They must provide fire hazard reduction in the 

form of building plans checking, inspection, and participation in 

the planning process and these tasks should be adequately 

funded. Plans checking may be contracted to the building 

department since they must do the job anyway for other services 

such as water and electric power. 

Model regulations, that could be used by local government, 

would encompass thefollowing: (a) greater clearance on slopes 

by tennis courts, pools, orchards, vineyards, roads, or a combination; (b) setback, which may preclude development on small 

lots; (c) mitigating measures which may include residential 

sprinklers on independent power and water source; (d) language 

that states that developers cannot build unless they can ensure 

defensible space. 

Local community planning entities should recognize that 

hazard is great enough to preclude development in some areas on 

the basis of (a) water scarcity, (b) high fire hazard rating, or (c) 

limited access for fire equipment. 

Since much of the wildland-urban intermix fire problem is in 

or adjacent to National Forest land, the Forest Service should 

clarify its policy on structural protection including its policy to 

train andequip crews to fight structure fires. The agency should 

state in its Land-use Plans its role in planning, hazard inspection, 

and fire suppression in intermix areas inside and adjacent to its 

protection responsibility zones. 

The wildfire problem in the urban-wildland intermix must be 

reduced within local communities, despite the need for a national strategy. 

... 

Ill 
INTRODUCTION 

A merica is heading for the hills! Over much of this nation 

there is a flow of people from urban settings to rural or 

wildland environments. This demographic phenomenon is 

dramatically expanding the critical boundary between wildland 

and more settled communities~creating the urban-wildland 

interface or intermix-an area of between 1 million and 1 112 

million acres (Bradshaw 1987, Tokle 1986). Once considered a 

California phenomenon, the intermix now extends throughout 

the country. The 1400 homes burned in wildfires in 1985 testify 

to the fact that the associated fire protection problems are 

nationwide (Davis and Marker 1987, National Fire Protection 

Association 1987, Walt 1989). 

To wildland fire agencies, providing fire protection in the 

urban-wildland intermix can be an exercise in frustration. While 

fire managers usually understand the underlying fire problems, 

they have for the most part, been unable to communicate their 

concerns to the home owning public or to their elected officials 

(Davis 1990). Consequently, building codes are frequently 

inadequate or disregarded despite dramatic losses and spectacular fires. 

Fire departments may respond to requests for review of a 

particular land development plan, but lack information (guides) 

about when in the planning process to insist on effective mitigation measures, how to justify limitation on development, and the 

most effective means to push through a stricter fire protection 

ordinance (Hughes 1987a,b). 

State legislators and county officials may be as confused and 

frustrated as fire managers. While some think that sufficient 

legal authority already exists to implement solutions, others see 

the need for new legislation, such as to demand disclosure of the 

fire hazard at the time of a sale of property, to provide tax 

incentives to those with defensible spaces, and to limit where 

homes can be built (Gosting 1988, Irwin 1987,1988). 

In addition, community planning is done in much the same 

manner throughout the nation; however, the detail in which 

planning is performed and number of restrictions placed do vary 

with location. Local planning responsibilities throughout the 

nation include development of master plans (or general plans), 

proposed zoning ordinances, review of development proposals, 

and issuance of building permits. Planning done in the past, and 

even today, usually falls short of providing adequate safety for 

communities from reasonable risk of wildfire. Harold R. Walt, 

chairman of California's State Board of Forestry summarized 

the state of local planning when he said: 

Current general planning law recognizes the threat of wildfire only to a 

very limited degree, and the treatment is superficial when compared to 

that given to flood and earthquake threats. There is little discussion of 

strategic fire defense improvements, such as landing places forhelicopters, or of evacuation plans for people in the event of wildfire. These 

types of analyses can be scary to local politicians and be viewed as very 

costly by developers. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127.1991. 

Much of the problem is that few convincing ties have been 

made between good or bad community planning and wildfire 

loss (Abt and others 1987, East Bay Regional Park District 

1982). A detailed reference does not yet exist to aid a local 

government unit (township, city, county, or homeowner association) in making decisions to limit new growth in hazardous 

areas, or to provide for zonings that reflect fire-safety considerations. The specific relation of local land-use planning to 

significant fire damage must be clarified before extensivereductions in fire-caused damage can be achieved on the urbanwildland fringe (Moore 198 1). 

The investigation of urban-wildland fires and relevant State 

and local legislation was undertaken by one of us (Rice), under 

a contract with the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. To identify the role of fire protection planning in saving 

homes, three recent wildfires were studied in three counties in 

California. To determine how fire protection administrators can 

use planning to enhance fire safety, general plans, local planning 

regulations, and the development process were reviewed for the 

same three counties. 

In preparing this paper, we surveyed the extensive literature 

that is accumulating regarding fire protection in the intermix 

(Greenlee 1990). The analysis, while oriented to California, 

should be viewed as "generic" in nature with similar laws, 

ordinances, and codes applicable to most local governmental 

entities nationwide. 

This paper describes three case studies, identifies a variety of 

issues and opportunities for mitigating structure losses from fire, 

and recommends specific ways wildland fire managers and local 

planning departments can cooperate in planning for fire safety in 

the intermix. 

CASE STUDY: THREE COUNTIESTHREE FIRES 

The three case studies encompass a variety of planning 

entities, firefighting agencies, homeowner groups, fuel types, 

and patterns of development. The counties chosen were 

Tuolumne, Nevada, and Monterey, which represent a wide 

range in development history. Accordingly, they vary in the 

level of detail in which fire hazard was addressed, and in the 

stringency of fire safety regulations required. To get needed 

information, the investigator toured all of the fire areas, talked 

to homeowners and firefighters, and reviewed fire incident 

reports. In many cases a photo record was made of the burned 

structures and the immediate areas so that the fire situations 

could be critically analyzed. 

The counties studied were somewhat similar in topography 

and fuels although the Morse Fire was at a much lower elevation 
than the other two. All three counties are characterized by 

western sloping mountain topography dissected by steep canyons and broad valley bottoms. Fuels at the fire sites were also 

similar~coniferous forest with an understory of brush. The 

Forty-Niner and Morse Fires were started by illegal activities; 

the Stanislaus Fire Complex was started by numerous lightning 

strikes (table 1). 

Morse Fire, Monterey County 

A coastal community, Monterey County is mature in land 

development, largely agricultural with limited urban developments. As a county planner commented, "all the easy places are 

built." The current philosophy is to contain development and 

promote agricultural uses. Approximately eight plans per week 

are reviewed throughout the county. Planning for this county 

(and the fire area) is governed by the California Coastal Commission as well as State codes. Fuels are a pine overstory with 

brush understory, with a deep duff layer. Fire hazard is categorized as moderate (lowest possible rating) because of foggy 

summers and wet winters. The frequency of high fire danger is 

generally low throughout the year. 

The Morse Fire was started May 29, 1987, by teenagers 

partying in a botanical reserve. Initial fire behavior was explosive. Within 2 hours after discovery, the fire had flame lengths 

of over 30 feet and was spotting 112 mile ahead of the flaming 

front! The fire burned for 27 hours before it was fully controlled. 

Ninety-nine firefighters and numerous ground and aerial 

firefighting resources were required to contain the fire. The 

losses in the Morse Fire were concentrated in the exclusive Del 

Monte Forest residential area. Most damage occurred in the first 

3 hours and was estimatedat $37 million, with 3 1 homes lost and 

6 more damaged. 

The general plan for Monterey County was the most detailed 

of the three studied in treatment of fire hazards (Monterey 

County 1984). It included a water flow table, road standards, 

and specific recommendations, including one novel recommendation that advised against the county accepting tide to lands on 

which continued fire hazard reduction would be needed. The 

fire protection standards were adopted in 1984, and administrative policies were adopted May 19, 1987 (11 days before the 

Morse Fire). 

However, the specific plan for the Del MonteForest Area was 

developed under requirements set forth by both the Federal 

Coastal Act and the California Coastal Act. The philosophy of 

the specific plan was quite different from that of the general plan 

with emphasis on esthetics and maintenance of a "natural" 

environment. Vegetation screening was required, fuel modification was prohibited, and as a consequence, the opportunities 

for involvement by the local planning and fire departments were 

limited. 

The Del Monte Forest residential area had tightly controlled 

building and access requirements. The area was zoned residential and when the homes were built shortly after World War 11, 

the prospective homeowner's lot plan was reviewed by the 

private owner for layout, setback, power and water access, and 

Table 1Ã‘Damag resulting from Morse, Forty-Niner, and Stanislaus Complex Fires in California 

Fire and dates 

Damage Homes 1 ($million) 1 lost 1 Acres 

burned 

Morse (May 31-June 1,1987) 37 31 160 

Fony-Niner (September 1-7, 1988) 22 90 33,500 

Stanislaus 35 9 147,000 

(August 30-October 15,1987) 

esthetic design considerations. Waivers were not granted for 

fire resistant construction that might have clashed with the 

perceived esthetics of the community. 

The county did not have a general plan in force at the time of 

home construction (their first general plan was approved in 

1968), no building permits were required by the county, and no 

input by the fire department was required. Water supply was 

adequate through 2- to 6-inch mains, but was dependent on a 

power source that was turned off during the fire (the water 

system power source is now independent). 

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

(CDF) was the responsible fire agency under a contract for 

structural protection with the county's community services 

district. CDF's contract included all plans-checking and liaison 

with county planning entities, including a representative on the 

"Minor Subdivision" Committee. 

Forty-Niner Fire, Nevada County 

Nevada County is typical of foothill areas in the northern 

SierraNevada, with some planned community development and 

a long history of unplanned development. As is common 

throughout much of the nation's wildlands-a surge in growth 

has taken place during the last 10 years. 

Weather is characterized by dry summers and wet winters. 

High fire danger is common during summer, depending upon 

elevation, and ends with October rainstorms. 

Fuels consisted of dense, mixed-conifer forest at the higher 

elevation changing to chaparral and oak woodland on the lower 

slopes. The area in the Forty-Niner Fire was classified as high 

hazard in the county's general plan, but was not specifically 

treated in the land-use plan. 

The Forty-Niner Fire was started September 11, 1988, by a 

transient. Fire behavior, at the peak of the fire, was typified by 

flame lengths of 100 to 300 feet in the timber, and spotting 

occurred miles ahead of the flaming front. To contain the fire 

(which occurred at the same time as the Yellowstone Fire and 

numerous other large fires throughout the West), more than 

1200 firefighters were mustered, along with 142 engines, 36 

bulldozers, 10 water tenders, and 10 air tankers. Water was not 

a problem-it was supplied from Lake Wildwood and numerous stock ponds by sufficient aerial and land-based water tending 

vehicles. 

The losses in the Forty-Niner Fire included structures in the 

planned community of Lake Wildwood and an industrial park, 

USDA Forest Sen-ice Gen. Tech.Rep. PSW-127.1991. 
as well as those scattered in lot splits throughout the fire area, 

some of which werenot even on the County Tax Assessor'srolls. 

The area lost 90 homes, 58 residential trailers, and numerous 

barns and sheds in a scattered pattern. Damage was estimated at 

$22 million. 

While Nevada County did not treat fire in detail in the Safety 

Element of its 1980 general plan, five of the nine administrative 

policies established addressed fire hazards (Nevada County 

1980). The statement of the problem indicated an understanding, but the policies simply called on the local fire districts to 

adopt strict regulations. The plan states that only a few districts 

have adopted fire protection ordinances, and recognizes the 

disadvantages of the situation. 

The only county ordinance relevant to fire protection is 

Nevada County Resolution 69-52 which provided minimum 

water systems within subdivisions. Water supply to most of 

Nevada County is unusual, passing through an irrigation ditch 

metered according to a "miners inch" scale. Many water supply 

lines consist of exposed (vs. underground) PVC pipe. However, 

the Conditions for Approval state that "water supply must 

comply with CDF regulations." Emergency water supply is, 

however, provided by a plethora of stock ponds. The stock 

ponds are not required by government entities and as land is 

converted from agricultural use these can be expected to be 

eliminated. 

Lake Wildwoodprovidedaunique study opportunity because 

of its plannedcommunity nature. Therecordof Lake Wildwood's 

development plans and approval process was complete, and 

centers around nonfire-related issues (sewage systems vs. septic 

tanks). The development, approved by Nevada County in 1968, 

was planned primarily for summer homes, although year-round 

residents from nearby Beale Air Force Base were also expected. 

As it has turned out, however, almost all residences areoccupied 

year-round. 

CDF was the responsible fire protection agency once the fire 

threatened State responsibility areas. However, other than for 

water development, CDF was not responsible for checking plans 

nor promulgating regulations in the area of the Forty-Niner Fire. 

A variety of small volunteer fire protection districts encompassed the fire area and were responsible for "signing off' on the 

adequacy of fire hazard mitigation on the structures. 

Stanislaus Fire Complex, Tuolumne 

County 

Tuolumne County is located in the foothills of the central 

Sierra Nevada in California's "Mother Lode Country." The 

county's population of 42,000, in comparatively few planned 

communities, is intermixed with forest and grazing land. While 

the area has one of the highest growth rates in the State, 

development of planned communities is proceeding slowly. 

The USDA Forest Service District Ranger in the area of the 

StanislausFire typically reviews two or three development plans 

each year. 

Fire hazard is categorized as high by CDF. The weather 

pattern is typified by dry summers and wet winters. High fire 

danger is common during the summer, depending upon elevation, and ends with October rains. Forest fuels in the fire area 

consisted of second growth mixed-conifer forest and brush 

patches, which frequently are remnants of past bums. 

Lightning started numerous fires on August 30 and 3 1,1987. 

Fire behavior was explosive on some fires with flame lengths of 

hundreds of feet and spotting miles ahead of the flaming front. 

About 5,000 firefighters were required to contain the fires, many 

of which eventually burned together. During the height of the 

fires, 6,000 to 7,000 people-14 percent of the county's population-were evacuated from their homes. 

Nine homes were burned in a scattered pattern throughout the 

firearea. Seven of these homes were built before 1970 when the 

county took over the planning and building permitting process 

from the State. There were no losses in planned major subdivisions in the Stanislaus Fire Complex. 

Damage was estimated at $35 million, primarily to forest 

resources. More damage was done to natural resources than to 

homes because of the emphasis on structural protection by both 

CDF and USDA Forest Service fire crews-a reflection of 

current State and Federal policy. 

Tuolumne County required no permits for homes builtbefore 

1970 and, in fact, has no record of these homes other than for tax 

purposes. Thus no building documents were required for seven 

of the nine destroyed homes. For the two homes built after 1970, 

building permits were issued after compliance and review by the 

building department. The records for these two buildings do not 

indicate any participation of the fire departments at the time of 

development. Currently, treatment of fire in Tuolumne County's 

general plan is based largely on a Master Fire Plan, which was 

drafted at the same time as the general plan, but was never 

approved (Tuolumne County 1982). 

A comprehensive revision of the Master Fire Plan is being 

revised but still is not complete enough to be reviewed. The 

county will base hazard assessment on CDF's evaluation (instead of their own assessment system) and expanded mitigating 

measures from solely increased water flow to include other 

measures, such as contribution to fuelbreaks, fuel reduction 

areas, and strategic access improvement. The mechanism for 

stating new requirements was by referencing such documents, 

such as CDF's Firesafe Guide and hazard assessments (California Department of Forestry Fire Protection and USDA Forest 

Service 1980). No standards concerning fire safety are specified, but decisions on what is acceptable depend on site-specific 

circumstances. 

Plans arereviewed by theCDF, which is under contract to the 

county for fire protection on private lands. However, local 

USDA Forest Service Ranger District personnel review plans 

for subdivisions in the Forest Service protection jurisdiction. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127. 1991. 
LESSONS LEARNED 

The authors cannot say-or even infer-from the case studies that good fire-safe planning will protect every home threatened by fire or that loss will be certain in the absence of good 

planning (fig. 1). However, two general observations support 

this idea: 

1. The investigator was not able to find a single house lost where 

there had been comprehensive fire protection planning! 

2. In every house lost in all three fires the investigatorfound a 

complete lack of comprehensive wildfireprotectionplanning! 

In fairness to the counties involved, most of the homes lost 

were constructed before current planning regulations were in 

effect. Perhaps ironic, is that where intensive planning was 

conducted under the "Coastal Act" in Monterey County the fire 

situation was worsened by the emphasis on esthetic values such 

as screening, setbacks, and maintenance of native vegetation 

without regard for the wildfire problem. 

All structures that were burned or damaged in all three 

counties must be rebuilt in accordance with current restrictions 

and with the current review process, which affects building 

materials, water power supply, and possibly road surface. Rebuilding, however, does not affect access and water flows. 

Requirements for design and even for siting and setback of the 

homes are difficult to add or change. In the Forty-Niner Fire 

area, the investigator observeda house being rebuilt to the exact 

same specifications as before~complete with cantilever decks 

overlooking the forest that burned. Thus the importance of 

insisting on fire-safe development inmthe first place is paramount, since even rebuilding does not cure the woes of past 

mistakes. The Firesafe Guides clearly state, "Situations hazardous to life and property are ge erally beyond practical correc- 7 tion. In such cases, all concerned must acknowledge and be 

willing to accept the resultant level of risk and inevitable 

damages from wildfire." 

The damage observed in all three counties appears to be 

related to one of the following problems: 

Inadequate consideration of protection factors 

Disadvantages of small fire departments in dealing with 

developers and other units of local government 

Variety in residential developments and in their susceptibility to control through planning 

Figure 1-This house withstood a wildfire. Burned area is shown in the right background. The house had adequate vegetation clearance, a wide driveway 

with room for a fire engine turnaround, a fire-resistant roof and siding, and a swimming pool that could serve as a source of water for fire equipment. 

4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127. 1991. 
Conflicting interests among homeowners, developers, and 

local governments 

Explanations of these problems follow. 

Fire Protection Factors 

The language in general plans was weak regarding fire loss 

mitigation. Measures to be taken were stated in advisory terms 

(using "should") rather than as requirements ("shall"). Even in 

Monterey County, the most tightly controlled, there are 10 

"shoulds" and 28 "shalls" in the policies addressing fire safety. 

Historical strategies have been to zone for low density in high 

fire hazard areas, the concept of defensible space is treated only 

by road standards, and setback of structures is not addressed for 

fire hazard but for esthetics-such as a minimum driveway 

distance of 100 feet is required in a Local Coastal Plan for the 

Del Monte Forest. 

Fire equipment access is aproblem in all counties. Structures 

may be inaccessible because of narrow road width, surface, and 

grade, and lack of turnarounds (fig. 2). 

Water supply was not necessarily a problem in all fires (the 

Forty-Niner Fire had adequate water forfirefightingdue to avast 

number of water tenders as well as properly positioned reservoirs). Power generation for pumping water was a problem in 

the Morse Fire. Water supply, in general, was inadequate in the 

Stanislaus Complex. 

Local fuel condition is not usually incorporated into planning 

decisions except as it enters into the Hazard Analysis Rating 

developed by the CDF. The CDF rating is weighted toward 

weather instead of fuel condition, and is aimed at rating largescale wildland conflagrations rather than preventing damage in 

the urban-wildland intermix. 

Planning Department staffs are often neither knowledgeable 

nor aware of new fire safety regulations and standards, or of the 

importance of setback, access, fire-resistant building materials, 

and other fire-related measures (fig. 3). 

Small Fire Departments 

Small political entities, such as volunteer fire departments, 

have a difficult time getting stiff regulations passed by elected 

officials. These small districts often do not have the resources 

to check plans, or to attend planning meetings. 

County governments areoften represented by elected officials 

with alliances within the building industry. Heads of fire 

departments frequently are appointed and serve "at the pleasure 

of the Board," which makes passage of building restrictions for 

fie safety difficult. This issue is not easily solved by the fire 

departments, but lies with the voting public. 

Figure 2-Fire engines designed for urban use are often too wide for urban-wildland intermix roads, too heavy for bridges, and too long to turn around 

in small yards or driveways. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127. 1991. 5 
Figure 3Ã‘Shak roof being constructed on a house that narrowly missed being destroyed in the Forty-Miner Fire a few days before. Burned vegetation 

appears in the foreground.- 

Variety in Residential Developments 

Tax roll avoiders are surprisingly common and, of course, 

unregulated. Larger developments are easier to control because 

plans for them must go through several levels of review and 

more residences can be reviewed at one time. In contrast, lot 

splits are harder to track. Inequity exists with lot splits because 

often only the fourth builder of a four-way lot split is required to 

upgrade to minor subdivision standards for water, access for 

increased traffic, and exposure to wildfire risk. On the other 

hand, in Monterey County, the first to build on a lot split is 

required to install the required level of infrastructure, assuming 

the lot eventually will be fully developed. 

As ordinances have become stricter, a direct relationship has 

developed between the age of a structure and its relative resistance to fire. Retrofitting fire resistant features to an olderhouse, 

however, is difficult. Roofs are easiest (though still difficult) to 

retrofit because they eventually need replacement. Problems 

with access, setbacks, water flow, and placement on the lot in 

relation to topography are difficult, if not impossible, to correct 

(Howard and others 1973). 

Often development does not pay its own way. The owners of 

lots that have been sold, but not built on, may have paid taxes at 

residential rates for years on their undeveloped property. However, the tax money collected, that would have been earmarked 

for their portion of the infrastructure-streets, schools, sewage, 

power-is frequently spent to service areas where actual construction has taken place. This type of spending is becoming a 

serious problem in many intermix areas and is leading to 

financial difficulties in local governments-and possibly to 

bankruptcy for some. 

Conflicting Interests 

Many decisions by homeowners building in the intermix are 

based on promises made by local government and developers 

but not fulfilled. Residents are sometimes told of improvements 

planned, such as wider roads and increased water storage, yet 

these improvements do not happen for a variety of reasons (such 

as the expenditure of tax money previously mentioned). 

Homeowners might have taken greater precautions themselves 

if they knew that water storage was to remain substandard, or 

that road access would not be improved. 

Developers and local planners may make assumptions that 

hamper fire-safe planning. Developers frequently paint an 

optimistic scenario, rather than worst case assessment. For 

example, developments are often planned to consist of seasonal 

homes (with lesser demand on services) but turn quickly into 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127.1991 
year-round residences. Lake Wildwood, damaged in the FortyNiner Fire, is an example (fie. 4). 

Counties are reluctant to admit past shortcomings in procedures. The investigator heard the statement "We've done this all 

along" uttered many times while conducting this study. Those 

wishing to promote change must package their suggestion in a 

manner that does not confront or highlight past mistakes. 

Fires do not occur with certainty. The concepts of "risk" or 

"probabilities of damage" are poorly defined, making limits on 

development difficult for decision-makers to justify or support. 

Additionally, lack of information makes tradeoffs in a variety of 

mitigating measures subjective. On the other hand, problems 

ranging from pot holes in the streets to major crime are a 

certainty, must be dealt with every day, and compete with 

wildfire protection for both attention and financial resources. 

Last-but far from least-residents and planners alike seem 

to believe that a fire will not occur (at least not in the foreseeable 

future), in "my" neighborhood, and should that unlikely and 

unhappy event occur, the fire departments can save anything 

(fig.5). These delusions are present at all levels of government 

and are perhaps the greatest single obstacle to effective fire-safe 

planning. 

PLANNING TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR 

FIRE PROTECTION 

The general planning tools described in this section were 

indicated by specific observations from the case studies. In 

gathering information on these tools, the investigator interviewed local planning officials and studied historical and current planning records. 

The existing tools available for fire managers and planners to 

use in providing for protection from wildland fires are environmental review, codes and regulations, and the judicial process. 

Also, legislation proposed in California at the time of this 

writing would allow consideration of fire safety in county 

general plans. 

Figure 4-Urban-wildland intermix development taking place in Lake Wildwood in Nevada County, California, near where many homes were lost in the 

Forty-Niner Fire. 

USDA Forest Service Gen.Tech.Rep. PSW-127. 1991. 
 7 
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

Figure %Fire departments frequently lose lives and equipment trying to protect wildland homes. 

Environmental Review 

The environmental review is a method by which citizens, 

consultants, and governmental staff can provide input into the 

regulatory and development process. While impacts of wildfire 

hazards can be identified in the environmental review, the 

seriousness of the impact need not preclude project completion. 

The only statutory requirement is to consider the environmental 

ramification of a project in sufficient detail. The following 

sections focus on the general planning and specific planning 

process and touch on other aspects of planning for development. 

While development plans are specific, and more restrictions 

are placed on developments in California than many other 

States, the environmental review and approval process for these 

plans are less stringent than elsewhere in the nation. In California, the State itself certifies the adequacy of its own environmental review. In most other States, Certification Offices offer 

independent review. 

Codes and Regulations 

Analysis of the planning process requires understanding of 

the framework or context for general planning. Parts of the 

planning framework are the legal authority and constraints 

placed on planning and regulating entities by means of general 

plans, specific plans, the Subdivision Map Act, and codes. 

General Plans 

A vehicle for progress toward both comprehensive analysis 

of fire hazards and appropriate action on a local level is the 

general plan, where-by law-hazards must be identified and 

mitigation measures proposed. The general plan has substantial 

clout in that all zoning and development, as well as specific 

plans, must beconsistent with it. Several sections in the general 

plan, including the Safety Element required by the California 

State Government Code, could easily incorporate identification 

of wildfire hazards and the details of appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

The general plan is a long-term (up to 20 years) comprehensive guide which addresses all aspects of future growth in 

varying levels of detail. A general plan is legally binding on 

local jurisdictions: new development must be in keeping with 

the plan's policies, standards, and locational criteria (California 

Government Code 1989, Section 65359). Policies, standards, 

and principles must also ensure that goals and objectives are met. 

Planning and the results of planning decisions have daily 

effects on every member of the community. General plans 

ideally serve as the basis for all local land-use decisions made by 

elected bodies. General plans set forth the philosophy of how, 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127.1991. 
where, and when the county should grow. To make those 

decisions, most counties assemble exhaustive data and then try 

to reflect that data in general goals, more limited policies, and 

specific objectives. 

In California, for example, the Planning and Zoning Law 

(Code 1989, Sections 65000-66003) (State of California, 1989) 

addresses the planning requirements for the State. The general 

plans are required for both cities and counties only as of 1971. 

Chapter 3 of the Planning and Zoning Law covers local planning 

and defines the authority, scope, methodology to be used, and 

required elements within the general plan. 

Fire departments are authorized to comment on the general 

plan through Section 65352, which states that the general plan 

"will be referred to any special district affected by proposed 

action," although fire departments are not specifically named. 

Several of the seven requiredelements incorporate fire safety 

concerns: Conservation, Safety, Open Space, and Housing 

Elements. 

Conservation Element-The Conservation Element mentions that it may also cover prevention of pollution and erosion, 

and protection of watersheds. 

Safety Element-The Safety Element includes arequirement 

to address wildland and urban fires "for the protection of the 

community from unreasonable risks." 

Open Space Element-In the California Government Code 

(1989) section 65302(e), the "local option space plan" is the 

open space element of a county or city general plan as adopted 

by county board or city council. This element notes that open 

spaces may be so designated for "public health and safety, 

including . . . areas which require special management or 

regulation because of hazardous . . . conditions such as earthquake fault zones, unstable soils areas, floodplains, watersheds, 

areas presenting high fire risks, . . .and areas required for the 

protection and enhancement of air quality." 

Further, the discussion of the Open Space Element in the 

Planning and Zoning Law declares as a policy that discouraging 

premature and unnecessary conversion of Open Space to urban 

use is of public interestbecause it will discouragenoncontinuous 

development patterns which unnecessarily increase costs of 

community services to community residents. Each county and 

city is required to adopt an Open Space Plan. California 

Government Code (1989) 65567 states "no building permits 

may be issued, no subdivision maps approved, and no openspace zoning ordinance adopted unless the construction, subdivision or ordinance is consistent with the Open Space Plan. 

Housing Element-In the Housing Element statement, the 

legislation declares that each government must consider the 

economic, environmental, and financial factors that enter into 

community goals in the general plan. The Housing Element 

must analyze potential constraints on maintenance, improvement, or development of housing, including building codes and 

their enforcement, plus local processing and permit procedures. 

Perhaps the relative lack of emphasis placed on fire safety is 

reflected in the code. Noise pollution is treated in much more 

detail than fire safety. As further indication of the low priority 

accorded to fire safety, the index lists two fire safety standards: 

one that addresses "zoning of health facilities" and the other, 

"land reservations for fire stations." For comparison, floodplain 

standards are cross-referenced to Open Space Land, general 

plans, and the Office of Planning and Research. 

Specific Plans 

Specific plans are required in areas of focused development 

or interest, such as coastal areas. The California Coastal Act of 

1976 requires that coastal counties prepare aplan (Local Coastal 

Plan) for the portion under the jurisdiction of the Coastal 

Commission. In Monterey County, the fire area was included in 

such a specific plan, serving adual purpose as the required Local 

Coastal Plan as well. The use of specific plans varies widely. 

Almost all of Monterey County is covered by one of many local 

specificplans. In contrast, TuolumneCounty has only one small 

portion of the county covered by a specific plan. 

Specific plans, while they must be consistent with general 

plans, need not include the same elements, and specifically need 

not mention fire safety. They must, however, describe the 

distribution of access, water, and other essential facilities needed 

to support the land-uses described in the plan. Additionally, they 

must describe the standards and criteria by which development 

of the specific plan area will proceed, plus the regulations and 

programs to carry these out. Thus fire safety concerns are only 

indirectly required in specific plans (Groves 1988). 

Subdivision Map Act 

The California Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code 66410-66499.58) declares that for any development 

that creates over five parcels from one (major subdivision), a 

tentative map must be submitted for review. When compliance 

with review comments is complete, an application for a building 

permit can be submitted. For lot splits that create four or less 

parcels from one (minor subdivision), a map must be submitted 

only with the application for a building permit. This law greatly 

influences the pattern of development, as developers set up 

many more lot splits than minor subdivisions, to avoid the extra 

review process. When several successive splits of four occur, 

the result is a development pattern that is more driven by law and 

review processes than by natural boundaries, efficient infrastructure (such as access or water supply routes), or even by 

appealing building sites. This pattern also greatly hinders the 

ability of fire departments to review plans. Both major and 

minor subdivision location and approval procedures must be 

consistent with the general plan and conform to the State's 

Environmental Quality Act guidelines. 

Codes 

Several existing codes in California, if adopted in the general 

and specific plans, carry the force of law. By adopting a code, 

a government can specify a variety of performance standardsroofing, methods of construction, or minimum water supply, for 

example. 

Uniform Fire Code-The Uniform Fire Code developed by 

the Western Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA) and The International Conference of Building Officials covers mostly structural 

fire protection and is referenced in many general plans and 

specific plans. The Uniform Fire Code addresses construction 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127. 1991. 
types, water flow rates and hydrant spacing, and layers these 

requirements with land-use (commercial and residential, for 

instance). Recognizing the current Uniform Fire Code does not 

adequately address the fire problem in the urban intermix, the 

Board of Directors of the Western Fire Chiefs' Association has 

authorized development of a code covering the urban-wildland 

intermix. 

Standard for Fire Protection-The National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) recently established Standard 1141-1989, 

the Standard for Fire Protection in Planning Building Groups. It 

addresses minimum turnarounds, length of roads, bridge 

strengths, water supply, building construction, and the like 

(National Fire Protection Association 1989). The requirements 

set forth under California Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290 

will greatly advance fire safety in those areas of S tate protection 

responsibility simply because it is mandatory rather than discretionary. For those areas under county protection jurisdiction 

(instead of State responsibility), these regulations will serve as 

a model by which to fashion local ordinances. The 4290 

regulations incorporate fire protection measures such as emergency access, street and structure identification, private water 

supply, and vegetation modification. These final standards will 

be put into effect January 1,199 1. 

Fire Safety Guides 

What is not part of the legislative background is the Fire 

Safety Guides (Calif. Dep. For. and Fire Rot., USDA Forest 

Serv. 1980), since these do not have the force of law behind 

them. These excellent publications offer local government 

planners basic information in fire safety standards so that landuse policies and zoning criteria can be developed to reduce 

potential wildfire damage. The introduction states that these 

guides should be used as an aid when counties and cities are 

preparing or revising their general plans. The guidelines encompass hazard classification, recommended fire safety standards, water supply, power and roofing, building construction 

standards, building spacing and densities, and vegetation 

clearances. The Fire Safety Guides only use the word "should" 

and only suggest that fire departments review specific circumstances. The Fire Safety Guides are referenced in general plans 

for specific standards (Tuolumne County, for example), but do 

not carry the force of law. 

Legal A uthority Through the Judicial 

Process 

As seen in the California Government Code, legal authority 

is provided to fire departments to restrict development, but it is 

not strongly worded, and provides no justification for restriction. Greaterlegal authority was established through thejudicial 

system for fire departments to take a conservative stance on 

development. In court, the stance that "harm prevention is much 

stronger than that of public benefit" (of development, via tax 

revenue and business growth). For example, the court case 

Twain Harte Homeowners vs. County of Tuolumne established 

fire safety as one layer of criteria for land-usedecisions (California Reporter 188, 1982). Additionally, citizens have a broad 

standing to sue. 

One avenue for suit is for consistency within a plan and 

between all levels of plans. For example, a specific plan must be 

consistent with a general plan, and the safety element must be 

consistent with goals set forth in the general plan. Consistency 

in theme and levels of detail are also required. One example of 

inconsistency is in Tuolumne County, where the general plan 

states that a timber-based economy is preferred over a construction and tourism-based economy. However, broad limits to land 

conversion are not proposed, and no justification for limits is 

provided to decisionmakers. 

Proposed Legislation 

In fall 1990, two bills were introduced in the California State 

Legislature that would enable fire managers to consider fie 

safety in general plans: 

SB 186 would require counties to submit a copy of the 

Safety Element of the county general plan to the State Board of 

Forestry, and would name local fire protection agencies as 

recipients of draft general plans. Further, this bill would require 

counties to submit findings in writing to reject recommendations of the fire protection agencies or Board of Forestry. 

SB 965 would require that evacuation routes, peak load 

water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and 

clearances around structures be identified in the Safety element 

of general plans, and would tie fire hazards to geologic hazards. 

Two other bills do not specifically relate to the general 

planning process because the development is already in place, 

but they merit attention as model regulations: 

0 AB 18 12 requires an owner of property in an area of State 

protection responsibility to disclose (1) whether the property is 

in a hazardous area regarding fire; (2) that clearance is required; 

and (3) that the State is not responsible for structural protection 

unless contracted to do so. 

AB 18 13 requires Class A roofs in those areas classified as 

very high hazard. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

On the basis of the lessons learned from the three case studies 

and the planning tools that are generally available, we recommend specific actions that planners, fire managers, and developers can take to minimize fire damage in the urban-wildland 

intermix. 

1. Fire managers must try to convince local government 

planners to accept fire protection factors. 

0 Local planning entities must recognize that extreme fire 

hazard may preclude development in some areas on the basis of 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127. 1991. 
water scarcity, environmental conditions (steep slopes, fuels, 

weather), and inaccessibility. To minimize political opposition, 

local planning departments must designate such areas before 

developments are proposed (Radtke 1983). 

Local planning entities must consider fuel conditions in 

their land-use and development decisions. Planning documents 

should state that the developer cannot build unless he or she can 

ensure and maintain a defensible space. 

2. Local government planners must increase the role of fire 

protection entities in planning: 

Fire departments should be adequately staffed to attend 

meetings and public hearings, restructuring job requirements if 

necessary. Several small departments can pool resources to 

cover meetings and ensure that concerns about fire safety are 

voiced. 

a Fire departments must promulgate stiff regulations and 

review all proposals for development (not just subdivisions). In 

addition to the standard consideration of roads, water supply, 

and density, such regulations should also cover setbacks, turnarounds, and position of the lot and house on the slope. In 

addition, topography and fuels shouldbe consider edin lot layout 

review, with new regulations that address them. 

a Fire departments must use informal groups such as the 

county-wide Western Fire Chiefs' Association (as in Monterey 

County) as a unifying voice. Fire departments must agree on a 

standard or ordinance, then each try to get it passed in each 

jurisdiction, having the added justification that every other fire 

district is asking for the same thing. This way the same 

ordinance becomes the regulation for a large area and confusion 

over policy differences is avoided. 

a Fire protection entities must be vocal and active participants in the environmental review process, providing comment 

on the fire hazards and levels of protection resulting from the 

overall patterns of development. Included in this review should 

be the analysis of incremental and cumulative impacts of development. 

0 Fire departments must quantify needs such as for water 

supply, personnel requirements, additional demands on time, 

and equipment, etc., to identify the environmental threshold for 

development as it relates to fire hazards. 

0 Fire departments must zone strategic areas for suppression 

after classifying and justifying specific locations. This would 

include restricting development of certain ridgelines and zoning 

fuelbreaks in other areas. This may be done through a Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement or Coordinated Resource Management Program whereby a variety of agencies are involved in 

the location, development, and implementation of a site-specific 

local community prevention and protection plan. 

a Fire managers must develop a "how-to" booklet with 

model ordinances and model language for planning consultants, 

fire departments, and planners that would address the fire aspect 

of planning documents. One of the reasons floods and earthquakes are treated in detail in California is that the State 

Department of Mines and Geology prepared instructions concerning how to prepare those parts of the planning documents. 

3. Local government planners must strengthen siting and 

building regulations: 

Model regulations adopted by local governments must 

encompass: (a) greater clearance on slopes-by appropriate 

uses as pools, tennis courts, orchards, vineyards, roads, or 

combinations of these; (b) greater setback from property 

boundaries, to ensure clearance can be accomplished, which 

may preclude development on small lots; and (c) stronger 

mitigating measures, which may include residential sprinklers 

on independent power sources, or a foam system. 

The many requirements that have been established for 

different, nonfire-related goals should be pursued by 

homeowners, developers, architects, and builders. For example, 

thermal pane windows, which are effective for reducing fire 

damage, are required out of concern for energy efficiency. And, 

in contrast, conscientious homeowners may plant droughtresistant vegetation that is highly flammable because landscape 

architects and nursery personnel were not informed of their 

danger. 

0 Local planners should adopt minimum requirements for 

building, based possibly on an existing code such as NFPA's 

1141, WFCA's Uniform Fire Code (although the current code 

addresses mainly structural protection) CDF's PRC 4290 regulations, Fire Safety Guides, or a combination of these. Much of 

the proposed legislation promises to be helpful if passed; these 

can, in turn, serve as models for legislation to be proposed in 

other areas of the nation. 

4. Educate and change attitudes of planners and the public. 

The fire management community must inform planners 

and homeowners of such things as these: (a) the potentially high 

probability of structure loss should a fire occur; (b) that the fire 

department (particularly a forestry department) may not be a 

year-round department; (c) the average response times may be 

much longer than urban standards; and (d) that responsibility 

and liability for protection ultimately rests with property owners, not the fire department. Fire departments should inform 

residents that they may not be able to save every house (Groves 

1988). 

0 Fire managers must explain that the fire ecology of a 

building site in the intermix is still controlled by natural forces 

to a great extent. For example, a program in Incline Village, 

Nevada-an area of ponderosa pine-is explaining that the 

attitude, "We haven't had a fire in 80 years, so why worry," 

should be changed to, "We haven't had a fire in 80 years, so 

we're especially worried." 

1 Homeowners and other citizens should become more vocal 

in the legal requirements and aspects of the local planning 

process. For example, no building permits and subdivisions are 

to be approved unless the construction, subdivision, or ordinance is consistent with the county's Open Space Plan. Yet 

comparison of proposals with the Open Space Element for 

consistency is rare. Citizens need to know avenues for political 

pressure, and if that fails, avenues for judicial recourse. 

5. The State Legislature must work toward an equitable 

sharing of costs and protection responsibility by developers, local governments, and fire protection agencies 

and departments. 

Fire damage prevention in the form of plan review, inspection, and participation by the fire department in the planning 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127. 1991. 11 
process must be funded to a greater extent. Plans review may be 

contracted by smaller protection districts to the county building 

department, or fire departments can jointly fund staff positions 

to promote consistency. 

All developers in a lot split should pay their respective 

portions of increased services required for emergency access 

and water. The requirement that the first lot in must provide 

enough water and access for the eventual development of all lots 

has merit. 

Local governments should share the costs of structural 

protection since they approved the conditions by which development occurred in undefendable places. Of the total fire suppression cost spent by wildland protection agencies in the 

Stanislaus Fire Complex, $656,000 was spent on structural fire 

protection (Irwin 1987). 

The USDA Forest Service should state in its Land-use 

Plans the role of the Federal Government for planning and 

protection in intermix areas. Development affects the types of 

activities that take place in the area, and reassigns priorities to 

those activities. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Many planning opportunities for improving fire safety in the 

urban-wildland intermix exist within current laws. Consistent, 

dedicated, concerted, and vocal effort is most effective in 

identifying issues and promulgating regulations. Distribution 

and passage of model legislation, ordinances, and language for 

planning documents will help local fire departments assure 

adequate levels of protection. 

Because retrofitting is the most difficult problem, the importance of insisting on fire-safe development in thefirst place is 

paramount. 

Fire departments would do well to equate fire with flooding, 

since many similarities exist: (1) intensity and frequency are 

inversely proportional, (2) some areas are more prone than 

others, and (3) only some technology can help-and only to an 

extent. 

The planning process-and more so, development review 

process-is a matter of negotiation, and stakes are high for all 

parties. Fire departments (especially volunteer fire departments) are often conservative in requirements because they are 

used to dealing with meager budgets. Development is worth a 

lot of money; and high costs for fire protection as well as 

exorbitant damages are real. An appropriate philosophy concerning fire protection measures in the urban-wildland intermix 

may be "You can pay now, or pay later." 

Fire departments must become sophisticated in methods for 

regulation. Many opportunities for mitigating measures are 

available during development review. Such avenues include the 

use of these: Conditions for Approval; Codes, Covenants and 

Restrictions; and developer agreements. 

Fire departments'must ask for off-site improvements, as well 

as for on-site improvements, as long as a link to fire safety can 

be shown. Developers are certainly sophisticated in this respect 

as it is their job to maximize profit and provide a buyable 

product. Ensuring that mitigating measures occur by providing 

tradeoffs and allowances is the key to building safely. 

Combining efforts is the key to progress. Goals include 

these: 

1. Obtaining funds to support review of plans by fire departments 

2. Quantifying the hazard and probability of loss due to 

various factors, to justify regulations and mitigation measures; 

and 

3. Establishing and maintaining political clout for local 

volunteer fire protection districts to promulgate regulations. 

Fire departments have learned the value of working together 

in an emergency. Mutualaidagreements and joint dispatch units 

are good examples of the cooperation possible. Now building 

departments, fire services, and planning agencies must work 

together in the planning process. 

Although anational strategy and effective national leadership 

will be important in reducing the wildfire problem in the urbanwildland intermix, the real battles and real progress will be made 

within local communities. 

REFERENCES 

Abt, R.; Kelly, D.; Kuypers, M. 1987. The Florida Palm Coast Fire: an 

analysis of fire incidence and residence characteristics. Fire Technology 

23(3): 186-1 97. 

Bradshaw, Ted K. 1987. The intrusion of human population into forest and 

rangelands of California. In: Proceedings of the symposium on wildland 

fire 2000; 1987 April 27-30; South Lake Tahoe, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW101. Berkeley, CA: PacificSouthwest ForestandRange Experiment Station, 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 15-21. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and USDA Forest 

Service. 1980. Fire safety guides. California Department of Forestry and 

Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 

California Reporter 188. 1982. 138 California Appellate Court 3d series, 

volume 144,664. Court of Appeal, 5th District; 547-574. 

Davis, James B.; Marker, John. 1987. The wildlandlurban fire problem. Fire 

Command, (January): 26-27. 

Davis, James B. 1990. The wildland-urban interface: paradise or battleground. Journal of Forestry 48(1): 26-31. 

East Bay Regional Park District. 1982.1982 report of the Blue Ribbon Urban 

Interface Fire Prevention Committee. Oakland, CA, 98 p. 

Gosling, Kenneth. 1988. How forest fires are "nuking homes." San Francisco 

Chronicle, October 22. 4 (col. 1-4). 

Greenlee, Jason. 1990. Bibliography of urbanlwildland interface publications and programs. Santa Cruz, CA: FireResearch Institute. Unpublished 

draft supplied by author. 

Groves, Guy R. 1988. County land-use planning, how planners help the fire 

service in protecting homes from wildfire. In: Proceedings, symposium 

12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127. 1991. 
and workshop on protecting people and homes from wildfire in the interior 

west; 1987 October 6-8; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-251. Fort 

Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest andRange Experiment Station, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 90-96. 

Howard, R.A.; North, D.W.; Offensend, F.L.; Smart, C.N. 1973. Design 

analysis of fire protection strategy for the Santa Monica Mountains: an 

initial assessment. Medo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute; 159 p. 

Hughes, J.B. 1987a. Development in the Pine Barrens: a design for disaster. 

Fire Management Notes 47(4): 24-27. 

Hughes, J.B. 1987b. New Jersey, April 1963: Can it happen again? Fire 

Management Notes 48(1): 3-6. 

Irwin, Robert L. 1987. Local planning considerations for the wildlandstructural intermix in the year 2000. In: Proceedings of the symposium 

on wildland fire 2000; 1987 April27-30; South Lake Tahoe, CA. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-101. Berkeley, CA: PacificSouthwest ForestandRange Experiment Station, Forest Service, US. Department of Agriculture; 38-46. 

Irwin, Robert L. 1988. What are wewaitingfor? Survivalby designworkshop, 

1988 March 29-30; Pomona, CA. Sacramento, CA: California Department 

of Forestry and Fire Protection, USDA Forest Service, and California State 

Universities. [In press]. 

Monterey County. 1984. General plan. Salinas, CA. 

Moore, Howard E. 1981. Protecting residences from wildfire: a guide for 

homeowners. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-50. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; 43 p. 

National Fire Protection Association. 1987. Wildfire strikes home! Report of 

the national wildland/urban fire protection conference; Quincy, MA. 90 p. 

National Fire Protection Association. 1989. Technical Committee Reports. 

Quincy, MA. 435 p. 

Nevada County. 1980. General plan. Nevada City, CA. 

Radtke, Klaus W.H. 1983. Living more safely in the chaparral-urban interface. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-67. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

50 p. 

State of California. 1989. Government code. Sacramento. CA. 

Tokle,Gary. 1986. Letter to participants of the national urbanlwildland fire 

protection initiative. September 25, 1986. National Fire Protection Association. 3 p. 

Tuolumne County. 1982. General plan. Sonora, CA. 

Walt, Harold R. 1989. Current and future wildland fire protection impacts 

of the wildland-urban interface. In: Berg, Neil H., tech. coord. Proceedings of the Symposium on fire and watershed management; 1988 October 

26-28; Sacramento, CA. Berkeley, CA: Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109. Pacific 

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; 3-7. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-127.1991. 
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for Federal leadership in forestry. 

It carries out this role through four main activities: 

Protection and management of resources on 191 million acres of National Forest System lands 

Cooperation with State and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners to help 

protect and manage non-Federal forest and associated range and watershed lands 

Participation with other agencies in human resource and community assistance programs to 

improve living conditions in rural areas 

Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest resources utilization. 

The Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Represents the research branch of the Forest Service in California, Hawaii, American Samoa 

and the western Pacific. 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or 

with any handicapping conditions are welcome to use and enjoy 

all facilities, programs, and services of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency 

policy, and should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC 20250.