Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

Firewise Community initiatives) was made to address concerns and correct misinformation in a transparent and open manner. Reaching out to stakeholders with a vested interest in wildfire regulations, such as home builders, second -home owners, and real estate bro- kers, was often necessary. • Some communities adopted some portion of a NFPA uniform standard, an International Code Council model WUI code, or both. No community adopted a model WUI-related code from either organization in full, usually because those "packages" of standards were more comprehensive and complex than the community needed. Many communities used the models codes for guidance in crafting their own regulations, but did not adopt them in any format way. • Most communities were generally happy with the technical aspects of their WUI stan- dards because wildfire standards are based on proven science and techniques for reduc- ing wildfire risk. • By far the most common WUI enforcement problem was the lack of ongoing mainte- nance of defensible space (i.e., control of vegetation that creates wildfire risk) due to the lack of landowner knowledge, political will, or local financial resources. In addition, the lack of funding to conduct public educa- tion and vegetative clearing was cited as a significant deficiency. • The interview communities agreed that existing development presents a greater wildfire risk than new development because there is usually more of it in high -hazard areas and it is often served by noncon- forming infrastructure (narrow streets, inadequate water supply, etc.), while new development is typically constructed in accordance with the latest WUI standards. • Public education and nonregulatory pro- grams that provide direct assistance to home owners (e.g., free expert consultations, free "chipper" days, or regular debris pick-up days during fire season) are important contributors to the effectiveness of WUI regulations. • WUI regulations were usually administered and enforced by the fire or building department, and planners were rarely directly involved. However, because fire department personnel were usually not trained to perform enforcement duties, shifting enforcement to staff specifi- cally trained in enforcement often resulted in better compliance. in all cases, having one or more persons with clear responsibility for and expertise in wildfire regulatory implementation was a significant aid to effective and consistent enforcement of wildfire regulations. • • Flexibility in the administration of WUI regulations is critical for maintaining com- munity and political support. One -size -fits - all solutions that are unable to respond to unique wildfire and development circum- stances in the community are seldom effec- tive and often create political opposition. • Wildfire regulations typically are scattered throughout multiple local codes and code sections, reflecting the need for interdepart- mental enforcement of many wildfire pro- grams. For example, the structural protec- tions (e.g., fire-resistant roofs) may be in the building code, the fire -fighting water supply and road access requirements may be in the fire code, and the vegetative (e.g., defen- sible space) requirements may be in either the fire or land -use code. In other cases a separate, stand-alone wildfire ordinance may be adopted. Generally speaking, land - use codes were the least likely to contain significant wildfire regulations. USING LAND -USE REGULATIONS TO REDUCE WILDFIRE RISK So how can the report's findings help planners address (or improve) wildfire regulations in their community? As mentioned above, land - use planners have traditionally not played a significant role in wildfire mitigation, instead deferring responsibility to the fire marshal, building official, or other professionals. The number of ways planners can positively influ- ence the outcome, however, is myriad. The fol- lowing recommendations represent an abbre- viated list of ways that planners can engage in addressing wildfire risk while working in their community. Many of these tools overlap and can be combined in unique ways to respond to local circumstances. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Policies Zoning requirements that are explicitly sup- ported by public policy through, for example, the goals and policies in a comprehensive plan tend to be much more legitimate and legally enforceable. Thus, the reduction of fire risk and protection of the ability to fight fires in the WUI should be added into local comprehensive plans and zoning purpose statements. Subdivision Ordinances Subdivision controls are one of the two most fundamental land -use regulatory tools —the other being zoning. In most states local gov- ernment powers to regulate subdivision are independent of their powers to zone (i.e., to control the use of land). In communities that have not adopted zoning, subdivision controls may be the best and only option to address wildfire risk at a landscape level. Here are a few possible approaches to reduc- ing fire risk through subdivision standards: ® For unplatted and undeveloped areas, add mapped high and extreme fire risk areas as types of sensitive lands where plats may not locate buildable lots, where allowed density ZONINGPRACTICE 5.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 5